I didn't do economics/history/geography in high school so I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about this, but I see it this way. To explain my points, I'll use 2 simplified hypothetical worlds.
World 1 (segregated):
Imagine a hypothetical world with 10 countries. Each country has a different culture which is, for the most part, distinct from the other cultures as a result of low immigration/globalisation.
World 2 (globalised, World 1 at some later time):
Imagine if immigration/globalisation occurred in World 1 to the extent that all 10 countries have a universally global culture which is based on the original 10 cultures in proportions according to the media output and population of the countries' cultures.
I would argue that World 1 is more culturally diverse than World 2. Of course this depends on how you define diversity, but it's a case of 10 distinct cultures vs one eclectic superculture based on 10 original cultures which no longer exist. One could argue that the superculture is diverse due to its eclectic nature, but the fact of the matter is that you end up with one culture and wherever you travel around the world, the culture would be the same. Sure you could dissect the superculture and say "This part of the superculture was derived from this culture in this country, and this other part from there" but that becomes more difficult over time as the superculture evolves and its components are melded together, origins forgotten. The superculture essentially is a watered-down amalgamation of its components.
People are misinterpreting this thread - no-one is saying that America lacks diversity. The American culture is, like any other culture, a product of its existing culture plus immigrant culture plus the incoming culture presented by media... and since America is racially diverse, its culture reflects that. At the same time, remember that the exposure of many other countries to America is based on the media which presents an abstracted view revolving around a few key characteristics (some positive, some negative). What that means is that regardless of how diverse America actually is, the rest of the world perceive a simplified and somewhat skewed version of American culture.
The point is that World 2 will never be as 'diverse' as World 1. Therefore, even if America was a microcosm of World 2 such that its culture was composed perfectly equally of its cultural inputs, there will still generally be more 'cultural distance/difference' between an Italian in Italy and a Pakistani in Pakistan than an Italian American and a Pakistani American. However, this statement requires clarification. If by "Italian American" I was referring to an Italian who lives in America, this statement holds. If by "Italian American" I was referring to someone who lives in Italy but because Italy might be subscribed to America's media and therefore would have assimilated American culture into their own, has a mixture of Italian/American values, this statement still holds. Both people in both cases share American values and therefore have a smaller cultural distance between them.
Ultimately, if a number of small countries transmit little culture but receive a lot of American culture, they assimilate elements of that culture and become less distinct from each other... they lose their identity. As an example, think of how many Indians there are who no longer identify with their culture and instead have assimilated Western values. India isn't a (culturally) small country, and so it works both ways and they transmit culture (e.g. the British have adopted Indian cuisine). The smaller countries aren't so lucky as assimilation of another culture without propagation of their own means that their culture is eroded away.
So the balance between World 1 and 2 is dictated by many factors including segregation and globalisation. While segregation is considered to be bad, I suppose it arguably does a better job of preserving cultural identity (cf globalisation). It would be nice to find a middle ground which could reap the benefits of globalisation but at the same time, preserve cultural identity. But I must emphasize that there are many other factors which play a part in loss of or decline in cultural identity - globalisation is only one of them. Another big one is the rise of ideological culture (as opposed to traditional culture defined by national boundaries/history/language/people/media/food)... I think that many people today consider ideological culture to be more relevant than traditional culture.
NZ used to be far more British but nowadays is basically sitting on the receiving end of America's news/media antenna. As an example, a portion of Maori youth have picked up on elements of American culture such as hip-hop, gang culture, clothing etc. But I wouldn't say this has been responsible for any real loss in Maori culture... the biggest decline occurred up until the 1970s/1980s for other reasons (before Maori language revival groups were formed).
|