Cultural Imperialism

Sreberny-Mohammadi (1997, p. 50) criticises the term “cultural imperialism” because it reduces “culture” to the products of the culture industries and - often described also as “media imperialism”only focuses on the impact of modern media or multinational corporations. All theoretical problems related to this term shall not be discussed here but it is obvious that cultural imperialism has different meanings in different (academic and non academic) discourses.

Making a - rough but practical - working definition we describe cultural imperialism as the effort of a dominant culture to influence and change another culture; the political and economic sphere in this working definition are excluded because they are part of imperialism in a general sense.

On the other hand, it is obvious that the borders between cultural, political and economic spheres are mainly narrow. Imposing economic and political (as well as military) power of one culture will always include the cultural sphere. Therefore, in this essay we will also refer to Kottak’s definition and analyse all types of influence which promote a particular culture.

Thus, in the “Quiet American” Alden Pyle not only wants to change Vietnam’s political and economic system (in his role as a CIA agent) ¹ but also its culture (i. e. its way of everyday life in all aspects). To understand the term “culture” - or to reduce its complexity for this essay - we refer to the definition of Raymond Williams (1962, cited in Lull, 1995, p. 130). Williams describes culture as “a particular way of life” which a community shares. His definition identifies culture as dynamic and constantly changing and makes no distinction between “superior” or “inferior” cultures. In this sense, the effects of Pyle’s cultural imperialism can be seen when he changes Phuong’s “way of life”, i. e. the way she dresses and behaves.

In order to understand Pyle’s attitudes and behaviour, we have to analyse why members of one culture develop their perspective that they want to change another culture. Firstly, the U.S. in Vietnam (as other European colonial powers in the past ² ) was pursuing its economic and political goals. Building up a colony, or in the case of South-Vietnam a dependent state, is mainly motivated

¹ Due to his role as a CIA agent Pyle can be described as a “pure” imperialist. Representing the American intervention in Vietnam his main interests are in the political and economic spheres. To realise changes in these spheres he justifies military power (i. e. coercion). However, in this essay we focus on his attempts to change Vietnam’s culture.

² Fowler in this way is a representative for the former colonial power of the United Kingdom or, more generally, of Europe. His attitude of respecting Vietnam’s culture is therefore based on British experience with ruling colonial states and its final failure.

3

by the interests of influential capitalist groups. All conflicts between different cultures throughout history are actually conflicts about economics or political power.

Nevertheless, some people argue that conflicts are solely motivated by differences between specific cultures. Huntington (2000, p. 472) even states that all future conflicts in world politics will be cultural conflicts. He describes “civilizations” as the broadest level of cultural identity people possess and foresees a “clash of civilisations”, especially “between the West and non-Western civilizations and among non-Western civilizations” (Huntington, 2000, p. 472). Huntington identifies eight major civilisations: the Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin-American and African civilisation. In the case of the last, he is not even sure if African culture can be seen as a “culture” which shows that he judges cultures from a Western perspective but not like Williams as a “particular way of life”. On the contrary, he refers to a definition of culture which discriminates between “cultured” and “uncultured” persons, implying that there are “superior” and “minor” cultures (Lull, 1995, p. 131). That is why Huntington does not use the neutral “culture” but the biased term “civilization” referring to the language of colonial times.

Huntington’s perspective may be viewed as too simplistic in its main points. He describes culture as a “product of centuries” (Huntington, 2000, p. 473) and therefore as a natural phenomenon. He fails to identify the relative and artificial character of culture which is mainly a product of humans (or members of a society) and thus a construction. In opposition to Huntington, Singer (2000, p. 52) shows that in situation of cross-cultural communication perceptions of reality are more important than reality itself.

Also Ali (2003, p. 299) criticises Huntington’s analysis as too simple and actually based on a pure Western perspective (the West against the rest of the world, as Huntington states). Huntington fails to recognise that the Islamic world is not monolithic but diverse including members of such different nations as China or Iran (Ali, 2003, p. 300).

Due to its fixed description of cultures, Huntington’s analysis (if we want to label it this way) can be used to declare all conflicts as cultural. Finally, this perspective could justify colonial wars by

4

describing them as natural due to inevitable differences between the listed civilisations. ³ Ali (2003, p. 301) shows that the U.S. in the past supported political groups which backed their interests, even when they (in Huntington’s terms) were members of another “civilization”. Therefore, the explanation of conflicts as “cultural” cannot be accurate but any analysis has to identify the economic, political and military interests. Huntington’s analysis can be seen as a potential cover for neo-conservative forces within the U.S., which propose that Islam is a large threat but actually are interested in the Middle East’s immense oil reserves (Ali, 2003, p. 299).

Thus, neither cultures can be understood as natural categories nor conflicts as solely based on cultural differences. An analysis of the underlying interests in a specific conflict is always essential.

If we try to understand Pyle’s character in the “Quiet American” we face the problem of his obsessed belief that his (i. e. the American) culture is superior to non-Western cultures. ⁴ This phenomenon can be observed throughout history. In the case of Vietnam first France and then the U.S. believed in their “role as a pre-eminent civilising force in world history.” (Roper & Melling, 1991, p. 5). Roper & Melling state that both nations’ assumptions of their cultural superiority served as a rationalisation of France’s expansion in Southeast Asia during the nineteenth century and the U.S.’s “rise to globalism” after the Second World War. Many Americans believed that their “liberal tradition” should be a model for the entire world and thus all non-Western cultures (Roper & Melling, 1991, p. 6). As Pyle in the movie states, the Americans were convinced that the claim of an equal right to liberty should be universal (Roper, 1991, p. 17). Therefore, the member of these nations (and their cultures) are driven by an ethnocentric perspective. Determining to which extent the belief of cultural superiority is only a cover for pursuing economic, political and military interests or subjective convictions, is difficult. Alden Pyle in the “Quiet American” seems to be truly convinced that the ideology of liberal democracy should be installed in Vietnam (and in the rest of the word). At the same time, seeming sometimes naive he does not recognise that his work could serve other interests. In any case, the borders between subjective belief and justification tend to be narrow probably varying within a society.

³ And there are indications that in contemporary U.S. foreign policy so called cultural differences are used to justify military actions. The so called “war against terrorism” is often used in the context of a struggle between the Christian Western and the Muslim Eastern World. It is obvious that here evident economic and political interests are hidden behind the concept of the “clash of civilizations”.

5