New information technology is viewed as a means through which one can ratify often in extremely idealized form a account of oneself or culture that is observed as old or even origin but can lastly be realized: through these new means, one can become what one thinks one actually is (even if one never was). What might be trait of the Internet is that this ‘realization’ is certainly ‘expansive’.
New information technology has an emancipator technology ‘Internet’ that is indefensible as the structural design of the technology harbors an instinctive class prejudice and other shades of power entitlements. Computers are intended and programmed by members of the elite culture and might imitate their cultural orientations and biases. For example, the wordsmith and semantic skills requisite to functions computers do not put up the cultural orientations of several marginal electorates.
As Laikwan Pang, Cultural Control in journal said, “Culture’s will to copy … [is] fuelled by the information technology process, which drives’ the world to desire similar but different products, to acquire similar but different tastes”. (Laikwan Pang, Cultural Control, p8).
New information technology and globalization is as well redefining societies and restructuring society into new forms of social networks. New standards and terms for private and proficient relationships are promising ( Buck 1996; Gates 1995; Baym 1995).
The London Times (June 17, 1996) stated: “People in every kinds of career categories need to recognize how to use this tool so as to get ahead starting now.”
Admittance to the information freeway might establish to be less a question of dispensation or position than one of the fundamental capability to function in a democratic society. Admittance to the cyberspace might very well establish how well people are knowledgeable, the type of job they ultimately get, and how they are retrained if they mislay their job, how much access they have to their government and how they will be taught about important issues concerning them and the country. (Ratan 1995: 25)
Moreover, global media is not repressed by the intrinsic biases apparent in sexism, racism, and classism establish in face-to-face encounters. As a substitute, the global media presents a discussion that supports broad partaking and underlines merit over class. Practical communities permit secluded individuals to converse in a manner that protects them from the social prospect and sanctions linked with physically distinct communities (Turtle 1995). Virtual societies are unified and significant social aggregations that permit people to take on in adequate relations to form personal and group relations (Rheingold 1993).
In the short space of twenty five years somewhat which started as US defense inventiveness has developed into the major communications means for the academic and investigates community and most newly has prolonged into a main business tool for the marketable sector.
The Internet has developed throughout this period from being a vigorous and effectual way of exchanging information to offering a delivery means for immense amounts of multimedia information to a global audience.
While individuals began to use the global media for worldwide communication, its profound effect on how we treat information transfer, organization, and development could not have been anticipated. Internet communication applications permit rapid and simple copy, revision, and transfer of information in textual, visual, and auditory forms.
Though the assortments of participants who access it do not all the time agree on whether information must be cosseted or shared, the majority of the Internet community uses, copies, and transfers the information there without restraint. The Internet is a medium for activating ideological consideration; World Wide Web (Web) documents holding multiple links to diverse authors’ sites as well as e-mail posts restraining various writers’ materials reify the theory that knowledge is raised from numerous sources. But commercial units that use the Internet to promote products and spend in the materials that they load to the Web desire to keep their digitized materials from copy, revision, and transfer. The corporal operation of the Internet forms a forum where oppositional views concerning control of information collide. The extreme nature of the Internet supports a clash between the constructionist ideology that symbolizes the academic humanist community and the Romantic beliefs that symbolizes traditional legal community.
This junction amongst humanistic studies, the Internet, joined with their attendant communities, engenders conflicts in thought and exploit and offers a generous basis from which to investigate information control.
Though participants in humanist, legal, and global media communities retain varied ideological beliefs and goals, their common interests meet in forming and treating communicative terms, whether textual, digital, or auditory. More significant, these communities of participants, communally, through socially raised ideologies, contribute in creating approaches toward authorship, possession, and property, and eventually, in generating the power to form and manage knowledge. The dealings amongst these areas can be viewed practically and hypothetically.
Culture permeates all human behaviors and interactions. Second, culture is shared by members of a group. And third, it is handed down to newcomers and from one generation to the next. This description of culture is not aimed at organizations but is very appropriate to them (AAhad M. Osman-Gani & Zidan, S.S. 2001, pp.452-460).
Stuart Hall writes on the question of cultural identity in the Caribbean:
“The issue of cultural identity as a political quest now constitutes one of the most serious global problems as we go into the twenty-Wrst century. The re-emergence of questions of ethnicity, of nationalism—the obduracy, the dangers and the pleasures of the rediscovery of identity in the modern world, inside and outside of Europe—places the question of cultural identity at the very centre of the contemporary political agenda” (1992).
The actual process of information technology has been erratic, chaotic, and slow. Some observers of modern politics argue that a basic version of world culture is taking shape among extremely educated people, particularly those who work in the rarefied domains of international finance, media, and diplomacy. Hyper elites of this nature make up what Samuel Huntington (1996) calls a “Davos culture,” named after the Swiss town that hosts yearly meetings of the World Economic Forum. Whatever their ethnic, spiritual, or national origin, Davos participants are said to follow a identifiable lifestyle characterized by consistent behavior (social ease, aristocratic manners, and the ability to tell jokes), technological complexity (knowledge of the latest software, communications systems, and media innovations), complex understanding of financial markets and currency exchange, postgraduate education in influential institutions, common dress and grooming codes, similar body obsession (dietary restraint, vitamin regimes, fitness routines), and a control of American-style English which they use as a main medium of communication.
Davos people, it is asserted, are instantly identifiable and feel more comfortable in each other’s presence than they do amongst less sophisticated compatriots. The World Economic Forum no longer commands the consideration it did in the nineties, but the term Davos has entered world vocabulary as a synonym for late-twentieth-century cosmopolitanism.
Increasing on this idea, the sociologist Peter Berger (1997) argues that the globalization of Euro-American academic agendas and lifestyles has formed a worldwide “faculty club culture.” Since the sixties, international funding agencies have sustained academic exchanges and postgraduate training for scholars in developing countries, permitting them to build alliances with Western colleagues. The long-term consequence, Berger argues, is the formation of a global network in which similar values, attitudes, and research goals are collective.
Media participants have been instrumental in encouraging feminism, environmentalism, and human rights as global issues. Berger cites the anti-smoking movement as a case in point: the movement began as an elite North American preoccupation in the seventies and consequently spread to other parts of the world following the forms of academe’s global network. As with Davos sophisticates, members of the international faculty club rely on English to communicate with each other.
The anthropologists Ulf Hannerz and Arjun Appadurai have studied similar elites that work on a global scale. Hannerz (1990) believes that a world culture appeared in the late twentieth century, stemming from the activities of “cosmopolitans” who nurture an intellectual approval for local cultures in the developing world. The new global culture, in this interpretation, is based on the “organization of diversity” relatively than “a replication of uniformity.”
By century’s end, international elites had organized dozens of NGOs to assist preserve cultural diversity in the developing world. Institutions such as Cultural Survival (located in Cambridge, Massachusetts) now work on a world scale, drawing attention to indigenous groups that are expectant to see themselves as “first peoples”—a new, global description that emphasizes common experiences of utilization. Appadurai (1997) focuses on extremely educated, English-speaking professionals who outline their origins to South Asia. Influential of this nature create “diasporic public spheres” that cut across national borders; Appadurai claims that modern Diasporas are not simply transnational but “post national” meaning that people who work in these spheres are unaware to national borders and socialize in a social world that has several home bases.
Fundamental these elite visions of globalism are a disinclination to describe exactly what is meant by culture. This is not unexpected, given that the idea of culture has become one of the most contentious issues in contemporary social sciences. Throughout most of the twentieth century, anthropologists defined culture as a shared set of beliefs, customs, and ideas that held people together in identifiable, self-identified groups. Scholars in several disciplines challenged the idea of cultural coherence as it became marked that members of close-knit groups held fundamentally different visions of their social worlds. Culture is no longer professed as a preprogrammed mental library a knowledge system inherited from ancestors.
Modern anthropologists, sociologists, and media specialists treat culture as a set of ideas, aspects, and expectations that are continually changing as people respond to changing circumstances. This logical development reflects communal life at the turn of the twenty-first century; the disintegration of Soviet socialism and the rise of cyber capitalism have improved the perceived speed of societal change everywhere.
The global culture is usually used in contemporary academic discourse to distinguish the experience of everyday life in specific, exclusive localities. It reflects ordinary peoples’ feelings of suitability, comfort, and precision attributes that define personal preferences and rapidly varying tastes. In this framework, it is hard to argue that an overarching, global culture in fact exists. Jet-setting sophisticates can feel comfortable operating in a global network severed from specific localities, but the numbers involved are, as yet, insufficient to comprise a rational cultural system.
For the majority people, place and locality still matter. Even the diasporic discussed by Appadurai are entrenched in local communities (sometimes several) tied together by universal perceptions of what constitutes a proper and fulfilling lifestyle. Many software engineers and Internet entrepreneurs who live and work in Silicon Valley, California, maintain homes (and strong social ties) in the Indian states of Maharashtra and Punjab.
Rather than searching for substantiation that a world culture already exists, a more productive approach is to focus on features of life that are affected by the globalizing process. Modern research by anthropologists and media specialists makes obvious that globalism is not an invincible, unidirectional force that levels everything in its path.
David and Anthony McGrew have depicted recent debates over globalization as divided among three general positions: the hyperglobalist, the skeptic, and the transformationalist. Briefly, the hyperglobalist understands contemporary globalization as heralding a new epoch of human history driven by the free movement of global capital and characterized by the inevitable rise of a world civilization that will result in the end of the nation-state. The skeptic, on the other hand, argues that this understanding of globalization is greatly exaggerated. Focusing on economic factors, the skeptic argues that there is nothing unprecedented about current levels of national interdependence, and that nation-states continue to be and will remain the primary political and economic actors in international affairs for the foreseeable future.
In contrast, the transformationalist understands the current epoch as one of unprecedented change. But unlike the hyperglobalist, the transformationalist argues that the direction of this process remains uncertain and in contest. The transformationalist disputes the claim that the sovereign state is a thing of the past, but also challenges the claim that states remain as strong as ever. He argues rather that globalization transforms the relationship between states, markets, sovereignty, and the transnational sphere. It challenges the governing and legitimating capacities of old political arrangements, domestically and internationally. And it thus adds new incentives to the search for political innovation. (David and Anthony McGrew, 2002)
To understand cultural changes one must draw a feature between form and content. Outward appearance and first impressions are approximately always deceptive; what matters most is the inner meaning that people consign to a cultural innovation. Numerous theorists, including both opponents and proponents of globalism, task their own attitudes onto the people they assert to represent assuming that all humans see the world in the similar way. The perceived “sameness” of global culture often reveals the expectations of the analysts, relatively than the perceptions of those who are the subjects of analysis. Misunderstandings of this nature thrive in the literature devoted to globalism.
Basically, the world emerges to be poised on the edge of an enormous cultural change. But if Modernism is finished as a society, what will take its place? The unenthusiastic assessment is that nothing will. Some statesmen, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, have claimed that the world is already “out of control” (Brzezinski 1993). Others, like Daniel P. Moynihan, have warned of the cultural anarchism and “pandaemonium” that might result if tribalism runs amok and Modernism as a set of civilized principles is permissible to collapse.
These writers advocate that modern civilization be cosseted and preserved before it is too late. But conceivably it already is too late. If it is true that the forces that reason the corrosion of modern values are mainly the result of technological and demographic changes on practically a global scale, they are not easily dismissed. In this rising world society, the great question is not whether modernisms will invasion in the coming clash of civilizations, but whether any civilization will survive at all.
Media has more than conjugal significance, and it may or may not be imperialistic in its encounter with other customs. The question is whether its diverse cultural elements the European, Hispanic, African, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and other cultural heritages of Los Angeles, for instance can keep their reliability in a global culture or whether they are transformed into a homogeneous stew with little specific integrity. The consequences are too untimely to be definitive.
The most harmonious result of the current cultural encounter is one where values from customary civilizations such as a reverence for the past, communal identities, and the demand for morality in public life can be joined with the more salutary aspects of Modernism, including a respect for normal decisions, equal treatment before the law, a toleration of differences, and the defense of the rights of minorities and individuals. And from both kinds of civilizations, this optimistic result of media would keep a spirit of progress concerning the future.
But even the majority positive vision of a single, shared civilization is not automatically a formula for peace. All through history some of the most violent wars have been within civilizations family quarrels, like the one between two great Modernist powers, the United Kingdom and USSR. Yet the global sharing of fundamental values can be a foundation for at least a modicum of cooperation between diverse parts of the world, and allow for a more or less logical evolution to new patterns of economic, social, and political involvement that will transform and in some cases reinstate the nation-state. A development of the United Nations’ role in peacekeeping, human rights, economic regulation, and ecological protection, for example, would be the rational extension of shared global values.
It is not a dubious outcome, but this scenario will have to contend with the others for primacy in the coming decades. If it is potential to counterfeit a common denominator among the diverse cultural traditions, to bridle the moralism and naive sanguinity of religious civilizations and rage them with the rationality of Modernism, and to level the Modernist illusions concerning the invincibility of human knowledge with a spiritual sense of the limitations of the human condition, then it is potential to imagine the emerging multicultural culture of the twenty-first century, media, granted a cultural basis for both social identity and political order. The radical alternatives, to my mind, are dismal ones. And as the societies of the world are already forced together ever more by a technological and communications relationship, it is not too hard a leap of imagination to think of a sharing of values on a global scale as well.
Thus, Information technology and media in all aspects appears to involve the reorganization of individual life around processes of conceptual generation and analysis. Ideas which took shape in reflection on the concrete processes of historic, geographically situated nation-states are given new concrete representations as foci for individual and collective action in settings detached from those historic locations. Information technology and media does not merely have impact on sociological concepts; it is a process in which sociological thought is an element in the overall transformation of people’s lives.
Like information technology and media, social class can be understood as the defining term for the dialectical relationship between cultural and material forces. In its cultural sense, it is an idea, associated with a set of codes and values; an abstract source of shared identity and social belonging. Thus, in the construction of a world-view, locality and self-identity, the individual draws upon collectivist concepts-in this case, the concept of ‘working class’ which carries with it a set of associated values; a milieu.
Adopting a viewpoint that class culture is not static, but is socially constructed by individuals drawing from the options and values available to them, which then act back on the individual through external processes, it is possible to see both globalization and class culture as originating as relatively autonomous social constructions which depend on the individual’s own life experience, and the climate of the world in which s/he lives.
Under global conditions, networks become dispersed, and cultural influences become more diverse. Yet the attraction of the ‘local’, particularly when it affirms a set of cultural codes and ?values’, remains as strong as ever.
AAhad M. Osman-Gani ; Zidan, S.S. “Cross-Cultural Implications of Planned on-the- job Training. Advances in Develpoing Human Resources, vol.3, no.4, pp.452-460. November, 2001.
Appadurai, A. (1997). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Berger, P. L. (1997). Four faces of global culture. National Interest 49: 23–29.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Out of control: global turmoil on the eve of the twenty-first century /Zbigniew Brzezinski. New York: Scribner ;Toronto :Maxwell Macmillan Canada; New York :Maxwell Macmillan International,c1993.
David and Anthony McGrew 2002 Globalization/Antiglobalization. Cambridge: Polity. Eric Hobsbawm (1994), The Age of Extremes, New York: Vintage.
Hall, Stuart. “The Question of Cultural Identity.” In Stuart Hall, David Held, and Tony McGrew, eds., Modernity and Its Futures, pp. 298, 315. London: Polity Press in association with the Open University, 1992.
Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. In Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity. Mike Featherstone, ed. London: Sage Publications.
Huntington, S. (1996). Clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Baym N. K. 1995. The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In S. G. Jones, ed., CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, pp. 13863.
Buck K. 1996. Community organizing and the Internet. Neighborhood Works, 19, 2, p. 2.
Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code, Circular 92 Pub.L. 105 – 304, Sec. 512 [c]
Gates B. 1995. The Road Ahead. New York: Viking
London Times, June 17, 1996.
Ratan S. 1995. Time (spring):25-26.
Rheingold H. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Turtle Sherry. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Laikwan Pang`s 2005 article `Copying Kill Bill` social Text, No. 83, 133-153.