Tomlinson ends his article with this statement: It is in terms of the spread of capitalist modernity that the idea of cultural imperialism is best understood. I disagree. Although capitalism has been a driving force in cultural imperialism, there are many other ways one culture can assert its “better” qualities on another. How much has media had an effect on cultural imperialism? I would say it’s just another one of the many tools used to further beliefs.
Whether the process used is ripping someone out of their homeland and shipping him across an ocean or taking a child out of his home and shipping him to boarding school or making brands more recognizable than family members, there are many ways to “[demonstrate] the attractions of consumerism and the ‘American Way”’ (p. 117). I would argue that a large part of the driving force of colonization was capitalist interests, which typically disregard culture after a profit has been made. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the culture in the process of de-colonization has completely abandoned their tradtions.
Even if Third World countries are being affected by American ideals through media, there has always been some sort of backlash, either a return to tradition, a downright refusal to acknowledge American influence, or a blending of this media with the particular culture in question. If we, like Schiller, believe that capitalism is culture, to what extent does that type of culture affect others? Since we are of a different culture, would an American even be able to access the effects of American culture on another culture? Are we assuming that most of the countries in the third world don’t recognize the attempts of furthering American culture as a part of our imperialistic attitudes? Is assuming we have an influence just another American ideal?
