Fluent Essays

Please make sure that you dont use many outside sources and focus on the three articles that I sent it to you Type of service: Writing from scratch Work type: Admission essay Subject or discipline: English 101 Title: Americanization in Kuwait Number of sources: 0 Paper format: MLA # of pages: 3 Spacing: Double spaced # of words: 825 Paper details: Talk about Americanization in your country. 1- Americanization in Kuwait - in general it is a positive thing 2- Topic to be used in the article ( A- Fashion ( negative ) abandon their traditional clothes ( B- Language ( positive ) ( C- Education system ( positive ) 162 Brendon OConnor when youre the smaller and poorer cousin. Because of our size we have to keep asserting our differences and supporting local talent, ideas and products. To have a vibrant Australian culture, particularly in the entertainment and arts industries, we also need to subsidize local performances and artists, and maintain Australian content regulations. The lure of freer trade with the U.S. is certainly no reason to back down on these cultural values. I worry about the conformity and blandness that comes with much American popular culture. I would add to this concern an unease with the power of American advertising and marketing. Because of this, parents feel pressured into buying their children expensive label clothes, teenage girls starve themselves to look like Video Hits dancers, and every second individual seems to think that Whatever! is a witty way of telling someone you dont want to listen to their point of view. These superficialities arent solely the fault of American culture but it does deserve a fair amount of the blame. For me they reflect a worrying confor­ mity in our culture. My gripes arent meant to imply a total rejection of American popular culture or a retreat to some mythical Aussie alternative; like most Australians there are aspects of American culture I loathe and aspects I love. My point is that while American products are highly entertaining and accessible for many people, these products often have unrivalled distribution and marketing advantages in our soci­ ety. That said, and given that the commercial power of the American cultural industry is likely to continue well into the future, a sense of local pride and government support of Australian talent is undoubt­ edly needed to maintain our own distinct, and evolving, culture. Questions for Discussion and Writing 1. Brendon OConnor seems concerned with the idea that American cultural influence will lead to a homogenized world culture where everything will look the same and local differences will be less apparent. Do you have the same concerns as he does? Explain. 2. What would be the advantages to America and Australia if culture did erase cul­ tural difference, as OConnor discusses here? What would be the disadvantages? 3. OConnor says that his students learn about what education should look like and how the law works from television shows. Is the same true for you? How does American culture affect the way you see institutions and social proce­ dure? List shows that deal with the law, medicine, and politics. How do you account for their popularity and influence? In 2,000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato? 163 In 2,000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato? MARK RICE-OXLEY Mark Rice-Oxley is a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, where this article appeared on January 15, 2004. He reports from his home in London, United Kingdom. In his article he discusses the spread of American culture around the world and the various forms it takes. Re notes that some nations are rebelling against such cultural imperialism as they fear their own sense of national culture and identity is at risk of being lost, The other issue at the center of this article is the question of how durable American influence will be in the future. -----------+ ---------­ D own in the mall, between the fast-food joint and the bagel shop, a group of young people huddles in a flurry of baggy combat pants, skateboards, and slang. They size up a woman teetering past wearing DKNY, carrying Time magazine in one hand and a latte in the other. She brushes past a guy in a Yankees baseball cap who is talking on his Motorola cellphone about the Martin Scorsese film he saw last night. Its a standard American scene-only this isnt America, its Britain. U.S. culture is so pervasive, the scene could be played out in anyone of dozens of cities. Budapest or Berlin, if not Bogota or Bordeaux. Even Manila or Moscow. As the unrivaled global superpower, America exports its culture on an unprecedented scale. From music to media, film to fast food, language to literature and sport, the American idea is spreading inexorably, not unlike the influence of empires that preceded it. The difference is that todays technology flings culture to every corner of the globe with blinding speed. If it took two millenniums for Platos Republic to reach North America, the latest hit from Justin Timberlake can be found in Greek (and Japanese) stores within days. Sometimes, U.S. ideals get transmit­ ted-such as individual rights, freedom of speech, and respect for women-and local cultures are enriched. At other times, material­ ism or worse becomes the message and local traditions get crushed. The U.S. has become the most powerful, significant world force in terms of cultural imperialism [and] expansion, 164 Mark Rice-Oxley says Ian Ralston, American studies director at Liverpool John Moores University. The areas that particularly spring to mind are Hollywood, popular music, and even literature. But what some call McDomination has created a backlash in certain cultures. And its not clear whether fast food, Disney, or rock n roll will change the world the way Homer or Shakespeare has. CRICKET OR BASKETBALL? Stick a pin in a map and there youll find an example of U.S. influence. Hollywood rules the global movie market, with up to 90 percent of audiences in some European countries. Even in Africa, 2 of 3 films shown are American. Few countries have yet to be touched by McDonalds and Coca-Cola. Starbucks recently opened up a new front in South America, and everyones got a Hard Rock Cafe T-shirt from somewhere exotic. West Indian sports enthusiasts increasingly watch basketball, not cricket. Baseball has long since taken root in Asia and Cuba. And Chinese young people are becoming more captivated by American football and basketball, some even daubing the names of NBA stars on their school sweatsuits. The NFL plans to roll out a Chinese version of its website this month. Rupert Murdochs satellites, with their heavy traffic of U.S. audiovisual content, saturate the Asian subcontinent. American English is the language of choice for would-be pop stars in Europe, software programmers in India, and Internet surfers everywhere. Americas preeminence is hardly surprising. Superpowers have throughout the ages sought to perpetuate their way of life: from the philosophy and mythology of the ancient Greeks to the law and language of the Romans; from the art and architecture of the Tang Dynasty and Renaissance Italy to the sports and systems of government of the British. Most empires think their own point of view is the only correct point of view, says Robert Young, an expert in postcolonial cultural theory at Oxford University. Its the certainty they get because of the power they have, and they expect to impose it on everyone else. Detractors of cultural imperialism argue, however, that cultural domination poses a totalitarian threat to diversity. In the American case, McDomination poses several dangers. First, local industries are truly at risk of extinction because of U.S. oligopolies, such as Hollywood. For instance in 2000, the European Union handed out 1 billion euros to subsidize Europes In 2,000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato? 165 film industry. Even the relatively successful British movie industry has no control over distribution, which is almost entirely in the hands of the Hollywood majors. Second, political cultures are being transformed by the personality-driven American model in countries as far-reaching as Japan and the Philippines. Finally, U.S. domination of technologies such as the Internet and satellite TV means that, increasingly, America monopolizes the view people get of the world. According to a recent report for the UN Conference on Trade and Development, 13 of the top 14 Internet firms are American. No. 14 is British. You have to know English if you want to use the Internet, says Andre Kaspi, a professor at the Sorbonne in Paris. A main problem is that culture is no longer a protected species, but subject to the inexorable drive for free trade, says Joost Smiers, a political science professor at the Utrecht School of the Arts. This means that it is increasingly difficult for coun­ tries to protect their own industries. France tries to do so with subsidies, while South Korea has tried quotas. Such protection­ ist tactics meet with considerable U.S. muscle, Dr. Smiers says. Americas aggressive cultural policy ... hinders national states from regulating their own cultural markets, he says. We should take culture out of the WTO. Another danger, detractors say, is the consolidation of the communications industry into a few conglomerates such as AOL· TimeWarner, Disney, and News Corporation, which means that the infotainment generated for global consumption nearly always comes from an Anglophone perspective. You cant go on with just three music companies organizing and distributing 85 percent of the music in the world, says Smiers. Its against all principles of democracy. Every emotion, every feeling, every image can be copyrighted into the hands of a few owners. AMERICAN, WITH A TWIST A backlash is being felt in certain places. In Japan, locals have taken U.S. ideas like hip-hop and fast food, and given them a Japanese twist, says Dominic al-Badri, editor of Kansai Time Out. In Germany, there is still strong resistance to aspects of U.S. pop culture, though there is an appetite for its intellectual culture, says Gary Smith, director of the American Academy in Berlin. In France, resistance is growing partly because of frustrations over 166 Mark Rice-Oxley the Iraq war-but partly because Americanization is already so advanced in the country, says Mr. Kaspi. He notes one interesting anecdotal sign of u.s. influence­ and the futility of resistance. France has repeatedly tried to man­ date the use of French language in official capacities to check the advance of English. But most of the time, the law is impossible to apply, because if you want to be understood around the world you have to speak English, Kaspi says. In the Philippines, even the best U.S. ideals have caused complications. The pervasive American influence has saddled us with two legacies, notes respected local commentator Antonio C. Abaya. American-style elections, which require the commitment of massive financial resources, which have to be recouped and rolled over many times, which is the main source of corruption in government; and American-style free press in which media feel free to attack and criticize everything that the government does or says, which adds to disunity and loss of confidence in government. Meanwhile, for all the strength of the u.s. movie industry, sometimes a foreign film resonates more with a local audience than a Hollywood production-and outperforms it. For instance, Japans Spirited Away (2001) remains the top-grossing film in that country, surpassing global Hollywood hits like Titanic. In addi­ tion, British TV has influenced and served up competition to U.S. shows, spawning such hits as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, The Weakest Link, and American Idol [called Pop Idol in the UK]. 1,000 YEARS FROM NOW So how much good does American culture bring to the world? And how long will it last? Ian Ralston cautions against sweeping dismissals of u.s. pop culture. British television may be satu­ rated with American sitcoms and movies, but while some are poor, others are quite good, he says. British culture has always been enriched by foreign influences. In some ways American cul­ ture and media have added to that enrichment. Others note that it is not all one-way traffic. America may feast largely on a diet of homegrown culture, but it imports modestly as well: soccer, international cuisine, Italian fashion, and, increasingly, British television. As to the question of durability, some experts believe u.s. domination of communication channels makes it inevitable that Is the World Falling Out ofLove with u.s. Brands? 167 its messages will become far more entrenched than those of previ­ ous empires. The main difference now in favor of American culture is the importance of technology-telephone, Internet, films, all that did not exist in ancient Greece or the Mongol empire, Kaspi says. American influence is growing, its so easy to get access to U.S. culture; there are no barriers. Disney is known worldwide now, he adds. Plato is more and more unknown, even in Greece. But not everyone thinks American culture will stand the test of time. It remains to be seen whether the Monkees and Bee Gees are as durable as Plato, says Professor Young, with a dab of irony. Lets have another look in 4,000 years time. Questions for Discussion and Writing 1. What problems or losses might the world at large be facing if it is prone to American cultural hegemony? Do you want to see a world that shares a single popular culture, style, or set of artistic ideas? How do Rice-Oxleys ideas differ from those of Brendon OConnor in an earlier article? 2. The writer mentions a problem being that other political systems might become personality driven, as (he says) they are in the United States. What does he mean? Is this an element of politics that should be avoided? Why or why not? 3. What are some of the reasons why the cultural empire of the United States might last as long (or longer) than the culture of previous empires? 4. Why do you think that Mark Rice-Oxley uses the term McDomination? What does he mean by this and where does the term come from? How do you feel about his use of the term and the context in which he uses it? Is the World Falling Out of Love with U_S_ Brands? DAN ROBERTS Dan Roberts is the U.S. Business Editor for The Financial Times (UK). This article appeared in that newspaper on December 29, 2004. Mr. Roberts was recipient of The World Leadership Forum Award for the Best Communications Submission at the 2002 Business Journalist of the Year Awards. In this article he investigates how 160 Brendon OConnor imperialism. One of the central issues to remember at all times is that the impression that American culture gives around the world becomes how other nations get to know the United States. Think about the popular culture that you are familiar with, and it becomes easier to understand why the international image of America is of a country where everyone is rich, has a gun, wears little clothing, eats pizza and McDonalds, drinks Budweiser and Rolling Rock, and drives a SUv. We also need to understand why there is also a growing resistance in some areas of the world to exactly what U.S. culture represents and fears that national iden­ tity will be lost in the flood of American media and product. Bored with USA? BRENDON OCONNOR Dr. Brendon a Connor is a senior lecturer at the School ofPolitics and Public Policy-Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He was educated at Monash University and LaTrobe University, and in 2000 he was invited to Harvard University as Visiting Scholar From 1998 to 1999 he worked as Social Research Officer for the national Development Research Institutes in New York City. Dr. OConnor has extensive publications and conference experience, and his research interests focus on American politics, cultural influence, and welfare reform. In 2003 the Fulbright Commission funded a symposium orga­ nized by Dr. OConnor that discussed Americanization and anti­ Americanism. This article, which appeared in the The Courier Mail in Brisbane on June 21,2003, was published to coincide with that event. ------+ A merican culture is part of Australian mass consumer culture, like it or not, dude! It dominates our television, radio stations, movie theatres, fashion and our imagination. We are effectively governed from Washington DC with our cultural menu set by producers in Los Angeles and designers in New York. Resistance is futile and likely to mean you are totally uncool. In short, we are all Americans now. This summary of affairs is, of course, an exagger­ ated view of reality, although plenty of Australians probably watch American sitcoms, own American CDs and DVDs, and dress in American fashion labels right down to their Calvin Klein underwear. Bored with USA? 161 Those who reject claims of American cultural imperialism in Australia might respond: Isnt talk of American songs or under­ wear an overly nationalistic outlook? Isnt a lot of American culture just part of mass consumer culture, as the U.S. has the biggest studios, media empires, fashion companies, and market­ ing machines? And dont American talent houses draw on the best ideas and individuals from around the globe? However, such responses present only part of the story. Global and Australian culture clearly has been Americanized, particularly since World War II. Although put-downs of American culture often run roughshod over the sheer diversity of American cultural output, it is entirely understandable that people worry about local business and art being overrun by American cultural icons such as McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Time AOL and so on. Others worry about our obsession with middle class American life via the tube. The world of TV viewers often knows far more about American high schools and colleges, American court rooms and police precincts, and American hospitals and office life than they know about their own society. I worry that Australians are familiar with Frasiers Seattle and Ally McBeals Chicago but have no popular equivalents set in Darwin, let alone Jakarta. Familiarity may breed contempt (recent outpourings of anti-Americanism are a case in point), but familiarity can also lead to greater awareness, comfort with difference and a sense of who we are. My fellow university colleagues sometimes remark that the basic knowledge students have of how the American legal and political system works is often drawn from Law and Order or West Wing rather than from their own high school education. It certainly is hard to compete with American TV. One of my students recently commented that lecturers in my department needed to be more like American professors. I told them that with make-up on and viewed on TV, I sound a lot more impressive. I am not sure they were convinced; maybe I need to work on my New England accent. The relative size of the American cultural industry makes it an increasing part of Australian language and the way we describe ourselves-for instance, an Australian is just as likely as an American to say: Lleyton Hewitt is like such a Rocky wannabe. Faced with this situation, is resisting American cultural colo­ nization futile-the cultural equivalent of being a Luddite? I favor a dialogue between cultures, recognizing that our culture is fluid and open to outside influences. But dialogue is difficult 162 Brendon OConnor when youre the smaller and poorer cousin. Because of our size we have to keep asserting our differences and supporting local talent, ideas and products. To have a vibrant Australian culture, particularly in the entertainment and arts industries, we also need to subsidize local performances and artists, and maintain Australian content regulations. The lure of freer trade with the U.S. is certainly no reason to back down on these cultural values. I worry about the conformity and blandness that comes with much American popular culture. I would add to this concern an unease with the power of American advertising and marketing. Because of this, parents feel pressured into buying their children expensive label clothes, teenage girls starve themselves to look like Video Hits dancers, and every second individual seems to think that Whatever! is a witty way of telling someone you dont want to listen to their point of view. These superficialities arent solely the fault of American culture but it does deserve a fair amount of the blame. For me they reflect a worrying confor­ mity in our culture. My gripes arent meant to imply a total rejection of American popular culture or a retreat to some mythical Aussie alternative; like most Australians there are aspects of American culture I loathe and aspects I love. My point is that while American products are highly entertaining and accessible for many people, these products often have unrivalled distribution and marketing advantages in our soci­ ety. That said, and given that the commercial power of the American cultural industry is likely to continue well into the future, a sense of local pride and government support of Australian talent is undoubt­ edly needed to maintain our own distinct, and evolving, culture. Questions for Discussion and Writing 1. Brendon OConnor seems concerned with the idea that American cultural influence will lead to a homogenized world culture where everything will look the same and local differences will be less apparent. Do you have the same concerns as he does? Explain. 2. What would be the advantages to America and Australia if culture did erase cul­ tural difference, as OConnor discusses here? What would be the disadvantages? 3. OConnor says that his students learn about what education should look like and how the law works from television shows. Is the same true for you? How does American culture affect the way you see institutions and social proce­ dure? List shows that deal with the law, medicine, and politiCS. How do you account for their popularity and influence? 1112,000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato? 163 In 2,000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato? MARK RICE-OXLEY Mark Rice-Oxley is a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, where this article appeared on January 15, 2004. He reports from his home in London, United Kingdom. In his article he discusses the spread of American culture around the world and the various forms it takes. He notes that some nations are rebelling against such cultural imperialism as they fear their own sense of national culture and identity is at risk of being lost. The other issue at the center of this article is the question ofhow durable American influence will be in the future. -----------+---------­ D own in the mall, between the fast-foro joint and the bagel shop, a group of young people huddles in a flurry of baggy combat pants, skateboards, and slang. They size up a woman teetering past wearing DKNY, carrying Time magazine in one hand and a latte in the other. She brushes past a guy in a Yankees baseball cap who is talking on his Motorola cellphone about the Martin Scorsese film he saw last night. Its a standard American scene-only this isnt America, its Britain. U.S. culture is so pervasive, the scene could be played out in anyone of dozens of cities. Budapest or Berlin, if not Bogota or Bordeaux. Even Manila or Moscow. As the unrivaled global superpower, America exports its culture on an unprecedented scale. From music to media, film to fast food, language to literature and sport, the American idea is spreading inexorably, not unlike the influence of empires that preceded it. The difference is that todays technology flings culture to every corner of the globe with blinding speed. If it took two millenniums for Platos Republic to reach North America, the latest hit from Justin Timberlake can be found in Greek Japanese) stores within days. Sometimes, U.S. ideals get transmit­ ted-such as individual rights, freedom of speech, and for women-and local cultures are enriched. At other times, material­ ism or worse becomes the message and local traditions get crushed. The U.S. has become the most powerful, significant world force in terms of cultural imperialism [and] expansion, 172 Martha For many multinationals, the answer increasingly seems to be to downplay any U.S. heritage or even a single global identity. Neville Isdell, new chief executive of Coca-Cola, is typical of many business leaders who work hard to stress local credentials with sports sponsorship and customised advertising. We are not an American brand, he says. Starbucks, the coffee chain, has thrived by making more of its products associations with the developing world than of its own Seattle heritage. But Doug Holt, professor of marketing at the Said School of Business in Oxford, cautions against running away from historic roots entirely. Local is not always better, he warns. People assign value to brands that have succeeded globally; thats why multinational companies do so well. If nothing else, the trend reveals a declining confidence in the aspirational pull of the U.S. Simon Anholt, author of Brand America, sums up how far the U.S. has slipped from its pedestal: The worlds love affair with America isnt exactly over, but it has stopped being a blind and unquestioning kind of love. Questions for Discussion and Writing 1. This article suggests that there are certain products that mean America for people in other countries. Make a list of the ones mentioned in this essay and then write down what elements of American life you feel they represent. 2. Are there products and foods from other countries that you feel represent those nations? What kinds of things are you thinking of and what ideas do they give you about other cultures? 3. Imagine that you are a salesperson and what you are selling is an image of America. What elements of America would you want to emphasize and what kinds of products and images might you use to present your sales Exporting the Wrong Picture MARTHA BAYLES Martha Bayles is the author of Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music (Chicago), teaches humanities at Boston College, and is working on a book about U.S. cultural diplomacy. She has written widely about the role of music in popular culture. Dr. Bayles has also written articles on Miles Exporting the Wrong Picture 173 Davis for The New York Times and is a contributor to the Wall Street Journal. In this article, published in The Washington Post on August 28, 2005, the writer discusses how the elements of popular culture that are exported from the United States influence the views of those overseas, and how they directly impact other cultures. +----­ W hen Benjamin Franklin went to France in 1776, his assign­ment was to manipulate the French into supporting the American war for independence. This he accomplished with two stratagems: First, he played the balance-of-power game as deftly as any European diplomat; and second, he waged a subtle but effective campaign of what we now call public diplomacy, or the use of information and culture to foster goodwill toward the nation. For Franklin, this meant turning his dumpy self into a symbol. He knew that America had a unique and powerful mean­ ing for the enlightened reformers of France, writes historian Bernard Bailyn, and that he himself ... was the embodiment, the palpable expression, of that meaning. Hence the fur cap and rustic manner that made Franklin a celebrity among the powdered wigs and gilded ornaments of the court of Louis XVI. Today, as we witness the decline of Americas reputation around the world, were paying far more attention to Franklins first stratagem than to his second. Indeed, despite a mounting stack of reports recommending drastic changes in the organiza­ tion and funding of public diplomacy, very little of substance has been done. And most Americans, including many who make it their business to analyze public diplomacy, seem unmindful of the negative impression that America has recently been making on the rest of humanity-via our popular culture. A striking pattern has emerged since the end of the Cold War. On the one hand, funding for public diplomacy has been cut by more than 30 percent since 1989, the National Science Board reported last year. On the other hand, while Washington was shrinking its funding for cultural diplomacy, Hollywood was aggressively expanding its exports. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization reports that between 1986 and 2000 the generated by the export of filmed and taped entertainment went from $1.68 billion to $8.85 billion-an increase of 427 rlPfCPln Foreign box-office revenue has grown faster than domestic, and now approaches a 2-to-1 ratio. The pattern is similar for music, TV and video games. 174 Martha Bayles This massive export of popular culture has been accompanied by domestic worries about its increasingly coarse and violent tone-worries that now go beyond the polarized debates of the pre-9111 culture war. For example, a number of prominent African Americans, such as Bill Stephney, co-founder of the rap group Public Enemy, have raised concerns about the normaliza­ tion of crime and prostitution in gangsta and crunk rap. And in April 2005, the Pew Research Center reported that roughly six­ in-ten [Americans] say they are very concerned over what chil­ dren see or hear on TV (61\%), in music lyrics (61\%), video games (60\%) and movies (56\%). These worries now have a global dimension. The 2003 report of the U.S. House of Representatives Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World stated that Arabs and Muslims are ... bombarded with American sitcoms, violent films, and other entertainment, much of which distorts the perceptions of viewers. The report made clear that what seems innocuous to Americans can cause problems abroad: A Syrian teacher of English asked us plaintively for help in explaining American family life to her students. She asked, Does Friends show a typical family? One of the few efforts to measure the impact of popular culture abroad was made by Louisiana State University researchers Melvin and Margaret De Fleur, who in 2003 polled teenagers in 12 countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, South Korea, Mexico, China, Spain, Taiwan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nigeria, Italy and Argentina. Their conclusion, while tentative, is nonetheless suggestive: The depiction of Americans in media content as violent, of American women as sexually immoral and of many Americans engaging in criminal acts has brought many of these 1,313 youthful subjects to hold generally negative attitudes toward people who live in the United States. Popular culture is not a monolith, of course. Along with a lot of junk, the entertainment industry still produces films, musical recordings, even television shows that rise to the level of genuine art. The good (and bad) news is that censorship is a thing of the past, on both the producing and the consuming end of popular culture. Despite attempts by radical clerics in Iraq to clamp down on Western influences, pirated copies of American movies still make it onto the market there. If we go by box office figures, the most popular films in the world are blockbusters like Harry Potter. But America is also exporting more than enough depictions of profanity, nudity, violence and criminal activity to violate norms of propriety still honored in much of the world. Exporting the Wrong Picture 175 But instead of questioning whether Americans should be super-sizing to others the same cultural diet that is giving us indi­ gestion at home, we still seem to congratulate ourselves that our popular culture now pervades just about every society on Earth, including many that would rather keep it out. Why this disconnect? Partly it is due to an ingrained belief that whats good for show business is good for Americas image. During both world wars, the movie studios produced propaganda for the government, in exchange for government aid in opening resistant foreign markets. Beginning in 1939, the recording industry cooperated with the Armed Forces Network to beam jazz to American soldiers overseas, and during the Cold War it helped the Voice of America (VOA) do the same for 30 million listeners behind the Iron Curtain. In his book, Cultural Exchange & the Cold War, veteran foreign service officer Yale Richmond quotes the Russian novelist Vasily Aksyonov, for whom those VOA jazz broadcasts were Americas secret weapon number one. Aksyonov said that the snatches of music and bits of information made for a kind of golden glow over the horizon ... the West, the inaccessible but oh so desirable West. To my knowledge, this passage has not been quoted in defense of Radio Sawa, the flagship of the U.S. governments new fleet of broadcast channels aimed at reaching young, largely Arab audiences. But even if it were, who could imagine such a reverent, yearning listener in the Middle East, South Asia or anywhere else today? The difference is not just between short­ wave radio and unlimited broadband, it is also between Duke Ellington and 50 Cent. During the Cold War, Washington also boosted the commer­ cial export of popular culture, adhering to the view set forth in a 1948 State Department memo: American motion pictures, as ambassadors of good will-at no cost to the American tax­ payers-interpret the American way of life to all the nations of the world, which may be invaluable from a political. cultural, and commercial point of view. And this boosterism continued through the 1960s and 70s, even as movies and rock music became not just unruly but down­ right adversariaL During the 1970s, the government worked so hard to pry open world markets to American entertainment that UNESCO and the Soviet Union led a backlash against U.S. cultural imperialism. In 1967, the VOA began to broadcast rock and souL And while a provocative figure like Frank Zappa was hardly a favorite at diplomatic receptions, many in the foreign 176 Martha Bayles service understood his symbolic importance to dissidents, includ­ ing Czech playwright (and later president) Vaclev Havel. In general. the u.s. political establishment was content to let Americas homegrown counterculture do its subversive thing in Eastern Europe and Russia. In the 1980s, the mood changed. Under Ronald Reagan appointee Charles Z. Wick, the United States Information Agency (USIA), the autonomous agency set up in 1953 to disseminate information and handle cultural exchange, was more generously funded and invited to playa larger role in policymaking-but at the price of having its autonomy curbed and the firewall between cultural outreach and policy advocacy thinned. It is noteworthy that these changes occurred amid the acrimony of the culture wars. Like the National Endowment for the Arts and public broadcasting, the USIA eventually found itself on Sen. Jesse Helmss list of artsy agencies deserving of the budgetary tax. And while the others managed to survive, the USIA did not. In 1999 it was absorbed into the very different bureaucratic culture of the State Department. Today we witness the outcome: an unwarranted dismissal of elite-oriented cultural diplomacy, combined with an unques­ tioned faith in the export of popular culture. These converge in the decision to devote the bulk of post-9Ill funding to Radio Sawa and the other commercial-style broadcast entities, such as al-Hurra (a U.S.-based satellite TV network aimed at Arab listen­ ers) and Radio Farda (which is broadcast in Farsi to Iran). Because the establishment of these new channels has been accompanied by the termination of the VOXs Arabic service, crit­ ics have focused largely on their news components. But what benefit is there in Radio Sawas heavy rotation of songs by sex kitten Britney Spears and foul-mouthed rapper Eminem? To the charge that the Bush administration is peddling smut and profanity to Arab teens, Radio Sawas music director, Usama Farag, has stated that all the offensive lyrics are carefully edited out. Yet there is something quaint about the U.S. governments censoring song lyrics in a world where most people have ready access to every product of the American entertainment industry, including the dregs. American popular culture is no longer a beacon of freedom to huddled masses in closed societies. Instead, its a glut on the market and, absent any countervailing cultural diplomacy, our de facto ambassador to the world. The solution to this problem is far from clear. Censorship is not the answer, because even if it were technologically possible to censor our cultural exports, it Exporting the Wrong Picture 177 would not be politic. The United States must affirm the crucial importance of free speech in a world that has serious doubts about it, and the best way to do this is to show that freedom is self-correcting-that Americans have not only liberty but also a civilization worthy of liberty. From Franklins days, U.S. cultural diplomacy has had both an elite and a popular dimension. Needless to say, it has rarely been easy to achieve a perfect balance between the two. What we could do is try harder to convey what the USIA mandate used to call a full and fair picture of the United States. But to succeed even a little, our new efforts must counter the negative self-portrait we are now exporting. Along with worrying about what popular culture is teach­ ing our children about life, we need also to worry about what it is teaching the world about America. Questions for Discussion and Writing 1. In this article it is reported that in a survey of youths overseas the depiction of Americans in media content as violent, of American women as sexually immoral and of many Americans engaging in criminal acts has brought many of these 1,313 youthful subjects to hold generally negative attitudes toward people who live in the United States. Is this due to the media depiction of America or does it have to do with the attitudes and understanding of the viewers in other countries? How responsible should the media outlets be about the ways in which the United States is represented in entertainment? 2. Martha Bayles seems to suggest that the concepts of diplomacy and popular culture are at odds with each other and that the desired impact of diplomacy is undercut by the violence. profanity, and nudity in popular culture. Do you think that she is right or is she underestimating the of foreign viewers and listeners to tell the difference? 3. The writer states that The United States must affirm the crucial importance of free speech in a world that has serious doubts about it, and the best way to do this is to show that freedom is self-correcting-that Americans have not only liberty but also a civilization worthy of liberty. What do you take to mean by self-correcting? What would be the advantages of this approach and what could be the possible problems? 4. The u.s. State Department produces documents to promote U.s. cultural issues to the rest of the world. You can access these through the following URL: http://usinfo.state.gov/journalsljournals.htm. One of the areas covered here is that of U.s. society and values. Read some of the articles and write an explanation for someone overseas to explain how these depictions of U.s. life compare to your own experiences. http://usinfo.state.gov/journalsljournals.htm