Globalisation and the Media: Does the Decline of the Nation State Equal Homogeneity of Culture and Political Values?

The nation state as an important aspect of world relations has in days gone by, been at the fore of many significant events such as; the unifying of differing ethnic or cultural groups of people, conflict between countries, and trade. However in the modern day nationalism is seen to be noticeably receding due to the rise of Globalisation- with some going so far as to claim it will result in the ‘demise’ of the nation state. The causes of nationalism being a decreasing factor in world relations is many and varied, however as Smith puts it; this has come into effect due to:

“The massive acceleration of Globalising trends- of economic interdependence, total militarization, mass migration, global communications and the diffusion of consumerism…” (pg 16, 2007)

It may be noted that in terms of the very basic differences of strong nationalism, and modern globalisation, is that they are fueled by fundamentally different needs; nationalism- when it is important for a state to consolidate itself from within in order to achieve a common unity, and globalization when freer trade relations and communications are desired (Green, Crashcourse, 2012). This is just globalisation in terms of trade and communications however, what the focus should also question is; to what extent does this interconnectedness also extent to possible political homogeneity?

Machin & Van Leeuwen examine the role cultural imperialism, and state that when using this term it is more accurately referring to ‘American Imperialism’ (pg 23, 2007), that is to say not particularly imperialism in the traditional sense of physical conquest and subjugation; but instead the gradual acquisition and influence on global media outlets. It would seem then, very fair to assume this mass influence over media the U.S has accrued over the years must then extend to political influence and homogeneity, however, it is countered that this ‘Global Village’ has not yet been achieved due to the ever apparent instances of ideological opposition and conflict still prevalent throughout the world (Machin & Van Leeuwen, pg 24, 2007).

Of course more broadly it is still contentious exactly just what globalisation is, what is driving it, and whether it is ultimately a good think in the political and social sphere of the world. Shaw argues that globalisation has helped bring about as a natural process the democratisation, of countless countries around the world since WWII and the Cold War ended- and by extension, that the world is in a period of transition, of a global revolution (2003, pg 170-2). He also characterises the resistance against this being a power struggle of local elites and groups trying to hold on to power or identities which they feel are threatened by this change, and attempt to slow said changes through ‘nationalist authoritarian counter-revolution’ (Shaw, 2003, pg 172). Through this it could be argued that cultural homogeneity is indeed a concern for people the world over, whether or the reality is as straightforward as ‘American Imperialism’ or a much more complex system of interactions played out through modern communications and technology, presented with varying levels of agency the world over.