"We must recognize that although the relationship between the West and the rest continues to be fundamentally unequal, characterized by the exploitation of labor, the rise in consumerism, the spread of neoliberal values, and so on, the role played by the hybrid, Westernized "local" elite is crucial to this relationship" (Harindranath, Reviving "Cultural Imperialism", 166).
In Reviving "Cultural Imperialism" Harindranath throws around generalizing terms which are undefined and unjustified within the text. What is most problematic is how he uses "the West and the rest" and "hybrid, Westernized "local" elite". What does he really mean by "Westernized" and "hybrid"? Although he explains how Indian elite are sympathetic/conformative to "Western" culture, he does not address what part of their identity conforms to their original culture. In what cases would the Indian elite view a film through their original cultural perspective? The term hybridity seems to fall apart. Why can't there be hybrids of say Chinese/Indian spectators? Why must it be confined to two different cultures? Can you talk about someone harboring three different cultural perspectives? What about four?
How Harindranath seemingly connects "the rest" with the notion of a "hybrid, Westernized "local" elite" is also problematic. This is a generalization which seems inherent in literature about cultural imperialism. Unless Harindranath presents detailed research specifying how all cultures outside of "the West" (the United States I presume?) harbor "hybrid, Westernized "local" elite", it is an unjustified assumption. One little study on Indian spectatorship is not enough to support generalizing claims.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment