- Email: [email protected]
Globalization, National Cultures and Ethics
Intl. Inform. & Libr. Rev. (1997), 29, 483–486
Globalization, National Cultures and Ethics* IGNACIO RAMONET
A C OMMODITY- ORIENTED WORLD As the century draws to a close, the prevailing force is the globalization of the economy. It is based on the claim that there is now no alternative to free market economics as the only possible policy option and that only the criteria of neo-liberalism and the market economy (competitivity, productivity, free trade, profitability, etc.) will enable a society to survive in a world which has become a competitive jungle. Around this hard core of contemporary ideology have grown up new mythologies crafted by the mass media, which are bent on persuading the public to accept this new state of the world. In a world in which everything — words and objects, nature and culture, minds and bodies — is seen as a commodity, violence (symbolic, political and sociological) is placed at the centre of the new ideological structure, which is more than ever based on the power of the rapidly expanding mass media, as a result of the boom in new technologies. In addition to the portrayal of violence and its mimetic effects, there is an insidious growth in new forms of censorship and intimidation, which dull people’s critical faculties and subvert their minds. At a time when democracy and freedom have apparently gained the ascendancy in a world which is now partly rid of authoritarian regimes, there is, paradoxically, a resurgence of censorship, cultural colonization and — in many different shapes and forms — intellectual manipulation. Appealing new varieties of “opium for the masses” offer a sort of “brave new world”, keeping people entertained and distracting their attention from civic action or contestation. In this new age of alienation, communication technologies are more than ever playing a central role. In this era of world culture and global messages, we must ask ourselves whether in Europe a certain form of culture is not doomed to extinction.1 The new multimedia war could lead to as serious a defeat for Europe in its confrontation with the USA as the *INFOethics. Monte Carlo, Monaco, 10–12 March 1997. 1 L’Agonie de la culture? Mani`ere de voir 19, September 1996. 1057-2317/97/030483 + 04 $25.00/0
lr970067
© 1997 Academic Press Limited
484
I. RAMONET
lost battle over film and television in the past, which was instrumental in bringing about the present cultural colonization. In the 15 member countries of the Europe Union, from 1985 to 1994, the number of tickets sold to see American films rose from 400 to 520 million, pushing their share of the market up from 56 to 76%. The trade balance between the European audio-visual industry and the US has considerably worsened in the last ten years, with a deficit that has risen from $500 million in 1985 to $4 billion in 1995 and the consequent loss of about 250 000 jobs throughout the Union. Television is in a similar position. On the 50 or so European channels providing uncoded domestic broadcasts — which excludes the cable networks and the coded channels — American films accounted for 53% of programmes in 1993. The film and audio-visual (television, video, cartoons, computer games) industries are the US’ top export item and foreign currency earner, ranking even higher than the aerospace industry. This explains why any obstacle to the expansion of American audio-visual products is so bitterly resisted by the Washington Department of Commerce. This is compounded by the fact that the whole audio-visual scene is now being disrupted again by the rapid growth of digital television broadcasting by satellite, which makes it possible to broadcast up to 10 times more programmes on a single channel. In France, three digital programming streams (Canal Satellite, TPS and AB Sat) are now available, with a global supply of over 100 channels. In the US, Direc-TV and USSB have two streams on the market, consisting of 175 and 25 channels, respectively. These prospects are sparking off fierce competition between the US, Europe and Asia. Philips and Sony have just announced the launch of the digital videodisc (DVD), which could revolutionize the family hi-fi by replacing the compact disc, the CD-ROM and the videocassette, offering data storage capacities of unrivalled digital quality. The leading communication groups are closing in on two fronts: to gain control, on the one hand, of the sources (fiction, information, advertising) and on the other, of the three sectors of the audio-visual industry (production, programme rights, broadcasting channels), in an attempt to extend their hegemony. This undermines the public’s right to pluralism in information — one of the founding principles of democracy. It also raises the question whether a nation which loses control over the production of its images or the new technologies is still a sovereign state. The information system, with all its shortcomings, is now faced with this radical revolution which some compare with the discovery of writing or Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press. By combining the wide-
GLOBALIZATION, NATIONAL CULTURES & ETHICS
485
ranging resources of the different media (including telefax, information technology and electronic banking), multimedia has suddenly broken new ground and could completely disrupt the whole communication field — and also the economic order. Some dream of a perfect information and communication market, totally integrated through electronic and satellite networks, cutting across frontiers and functioning continually in real time; they imagine it as being modelled on the money market and financial flows. New cultural objects (CD-ROM, educational software, personal computers, videodisc recorders, telecomputers, multimedia terminals, on-line consultation of cultural sites on the Internet, etc.) and new services (accessing data banks at the office or at home, teleworking, the Internet) have been born out of the alliance between computer technology, television, telephony and satellite. All this alters the very definition of “freedom of expression”. The individual’s freedom of expression is placed in direct competition with “freedom of commercial expression” which is presented as a new “human right”. There is a constant tug-of-war between the “absolute sovereignty of the consumer” and the will of the public, guaranteed by democracy. This claim to “freedom of commercial expression” is now bolstered by lobbying from interprofessional organizations (advertisers, advertising agencies and the media).2 This “freedom of commercial expression” cannot be dissociated from the old principle devised by American diplomacy of the free flow of information, which has always glossed over the question of inequalities in the field of communication. The doctrine of globalization equates freedom per se with freedom to trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO), where communication is classified as a “service”, has moreover become the focal point for debate on the new communication order. The telecommunication giants are in fierce competition, their sights set on what may be the global norm in the future — private ownership of all the structures which constitute the platform of cyberspace. The leading firms hope to colonize cyberspace, which will enable them to move nearer to conquering the Internet.3 The decisive battle at world level is aimed at gaining control of the three industrial sectors — computers, television, telephony — which are now combined on the Internet. The group which reigns over the Internet will dominate the future world of communication,
2 Mattelart, A. (1996) Les nouveaux sc´enarios de la communication mondiale. Le Monde Diplomatique, August. 3 Internet, l’extase et l’effroi. (1996) Mani`ere de voir, special issue, October.
486
I. RAMONET
with all the risks that it entails for culture and for the intellectual freedom of the public. Could such a whirlwind of ambitions, unleashed by the challenge of multimedia, leave the written press unscathed? Many of the leading newspapers already belong to communication megagroups and the few that are still independent, weakened as they are by the fall in advertising revenues, are now much coveted by the barons. A survey has shown that the French have lost confidence in the media.4 In the space of a year, the number of those who approve of the way in which events are reported in the press has dropped from 56 to 45%, i.e. by 11 points! As for television, the approval rating has dropped from 60 to 45%, i.e. 15 points! This degree of mistrust shows that people are no fools and that they can resist media indoctrination. Will they also be able to avoid being swamped by the dominant ideology? Will they want to take up the suggestions coming from creative and artistic circles as to ways of “exploding” the inhuman neoliberal society?
4
La Croix 24 January 1995.
Globalization, National Cultures and Ethics* IGNACIO RAMONET
A C OMMODITY- ORIENTED WORLD As the century draws to a close, the prevailing force is the globalization of the economy. It is based on the claim that there is now no alternative to free market economics as the only possible policy option and that only the criteria of neo-liberalism and the market economy (competitivity, productivity, free trade, profitability, etc.) will enable a society to survive in a world which has become a competitive jungle. Around this hard core of contemporary ideology have grown up new mythologies crafted by the mass media, which are bent on persuading the public to accept this new state of the world. In a world in which everything — words and objects, nature and culture, minds and bodies — is seen as a commodity, violence (symbolic, political and sociological) is placed at the centre of the new ideological structure, which is more than ever based on the power of the rapidly expanding mass media, as a result of the boom in new technologies. In addition to the portrayal of violence and its mimetic effects, there is an insidious growth in new forms of censorship and intimidation, which dull people’s critical faculties and subvert their minds. At a time when democracy and freedom have apparently gained the ascendancy in a world which is now partly rid of authoritarian regimes, there is, paradoxically, a resurgence of censorship, cultural colonization and — in many different shapes and forms — intellectual manipulation. Appealing new varieties of “opium for the masses” offer a sort of “brave new world”, keeping people entertained and distracting their attention from civic action or contestation. In this new age of alienation, communication technologies are more than ever playing a central role. In this era of world culture and global messages, we must ask ourselves whether in Europe a certain form of culture is not doomed to extinction.1 The new multimedia war could lead to as serious a defeat for Europe in its confrontation with the USA as the *INFOethics. Monte Carlo, Monaco, 10–12 March 1997. 1 L’Agonie de la culture? Mani`ere de voir 19, September 1996. 1057-2317/97/030483 + 04 $25.00/0
lr970067
© 1997 Academic Press Limited
484
I. RAMONET
lost battle over film and television in the past, which was instrumental in bringing about the present cultural colonization. In the 15 member countries of the Europe Union, from 1985 to 1994, the number of tickets sold to see American films rose from 400 to 520 million, pushing their share of the market up from 56 to 76%. The trade balance between the European audio-visual industry and the US has considerably worsened in the last ten years, with a deficit that has risen from $500 million in 1985 to $4 billion in 1995 and the consequent loss of about 250 000 jobs throughout the Union. Television is in a similar position. On the 50 or so European channels providing uncoded domestic broadcasts — which excludes the cable networks and the coded channels — American films accounted for 53% of programmes in 1993. The film and audio-visual (television, video, cartoons, computer games) industries are the US’ top export item and foreign currency earner, ranking even higher than the aerospace industry. This explains why any obstacle to the expansion of American audio-visual products is so bitterly resisted by the Washington Department of Commerce. This is compounded by the fact that the whole audio-visual scene is now being disrupted again by the rapid growth of digital television broadcasting by satellite, which makes it possible to broadcast up to 10 times more programmes on a single channel. In France, three digital programming streams (Canal Satellite, TPS and AB Sat) are now available, with a global supply of over 100 channels. In the US, Direc-TV and USSB have two streams on the market, consisting of 175 and 25 channels, respectively. These prospects are sparking off fierce competition between the US, Europe and Asia. Philips and Sony have just announced the launch of the digital videodisc (DVD), which could revolutionize the family hi-fi by replacing the compact disc, the CD-ROM and the videocassette, offering data storage capacities of unrivalled digital quality. The leading communication groups are closing in on two fronts: to gain control, on the one hand, of the sources (fiction, information, advertising) and on the other, of the three sectors of the audio-visual industry (production, programme rights, broadcasting channels), in an attempt to extend their hegemony. This undermines the public’s right to pluralism in information — one of the founding principles of democracy. It also raises the question whether a nation which loses control over the production of its images or the new technologies is still a sovereign state. The information system, with all its shortcomings, is now faced with this radical revolution which some compare with the discovery of writing or Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press. By combining the wide-
GLOBALIZATION, NATIONAL CULTURES & ETHICS
485
ranging resources of the different media (including telefax, information technology and electronic banking), multimedia has suddenly broken new ground and could completely disrupt the whole communication field — and also the economic order. Some dream of a perfect information and communication market, totally integrated through electronic and satellite networks, cutting across frontiers and functioning continually in real time; they imagine it as being modelled on the money market and financial flows. New cultural objects (CD-ROM, educational software, personal computers, videodisc recorders, telecomputers, multimedia terminals, on-line consultation of cultural sites on the Internet, etc.) and new services (accessing data banks at the office or at home, teleworking, the Internet) have been born out of the alliance between computer technology, television, telephony and satellite. All this alters the very definition of “freedom of expression”. The individual’s freedom of expression is placed in direct competition with “freedom of commercial expression” which is presented as a new “human right”. There is a constant tug-of-war between the “absolute sovereignty of the consumer” and the will of the public, guaranteed by democracy. This claim to “freedom of commercial expression” is now bolstered by lobbying from interprofessional organizations (advertisers, advertising agencies and the media).2 This “freedom of commercial expression” cannot be dissociated from the old principle devised by American diplomacy of the free flow of information, which has always glossed over the question of inequalities in the field of communication. The doctrine of globalization equates freedom per se with freedom to trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO), where communication is classified as a “service”, has moreover become the focal point for debate on the new communication order. The telecommunication giants are in fierce competition, their sights set on what may be the global norm in the future — private ownership of all the structures which constitute the platform of cyberspace. The leading firms hope to colonize cyberspace, which will enable them to move nearer to conquering the Internet.3 The decisive battle at world level is aimed at gaining control of the three industrial sectors — computers, television, telephony — which are now combined on the Internet. The group which reigns over the Internet will dominate the future world of communication,
2 Mattelart, A. (1996) Les nouveaux sc´enarios de la communication mondiale. Le Monde Diplomatique, August. 3 Internet, l’extase et l’effroi. (1996) Mani`ere de voir, special issue, October.
486
I. RAMONET
with all the risks that it entails for culture and for the intellectual freedom of the public. Could such a whirlwind of ambitions, unleashed by the challenge of multimedia, leave the written press unscathed? Many of the leading newspapers already belong to communication megagroups and the few that are still independent, weakened as they are by the fall in advertising revenues, are now much coveted by the barons. A survey has shown that the French have lost confidence in the media.4 In the space of a year, the number of those who approve of the way in which events are reported in the press has dropped from 56 to 45%, i.e. by 11 points! As for television, the approval rating has dropped from 60 to 45%, i.e. 15 points! This degree of mistrust shows that people are no fools and that they can resist media indoctrination. Will they also be able to avoid being swamped by the dominant ideology? Will they want to take up the suggestions coming from creative and artistic circles as to ways of “exploding” the inhuman neoliberal society?
4
La Croix 24 January 1995.