The concept of Culture and Imperialism holds great significance in Literature. Edward Said wrote his book Culture And Imperialism and highlights its importance which holds a great impact on research at higher levels. But here we discuss things ahead of it. Although several authors have posited their own interpretations of cultural imperialism, most propositions of the idea will be identified within the work of one of most cultural imperialism theorists. Cultural imperialism proposes that society is brought into the trendy world system when its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping its social institutions to correspond to, or maybe promote, the values and structures of the dominating center of the system (Schiller, 1976).
Emanating mainly from a critical perspective, cultural imperialism doesn’t employ an actual set of terms to elucidate the phenomenon it attempts to elucidate. Most of the key terms are treated as primitive concepts (Chaffee, 1991) because it’s assumed that their basic meaning is assumed. Supported the proposition outlined above by Schiller (1976).
Types of the key constructs are: “modern world system”: a primitive concept that suggests capitalism.
“Society”: a primitive concept that suggests any country or community within specific geographic boundaries, considered to be lesser developed than the dominating center
“dominating center of the system”: refers to developed countries or what has been commonly said within the discourse on the international flow of data as center nations or Western power, contrary to the notion of center nations is that of peripheral nations-“developing countries,” “dependent areas,” “Third World,” or “lesser developed country”, “values and structures”: refers to the culture and actual organizations that originate from the dominating center and are foreign to the country considered to be lesser developed than the dominating center.
Although not mentioned in Schiller’s original expression of the foremost proposition, there are other concepts that are utilized by various authors, as was seen within the primary paragraph of this essay. Constructs like “culture,” “dependency,” “domination,” “media imperialism,” “structural imperialism,” “cultural synchronization,” “electronic colonialism,” “communication imperialism,” “ideological imperialism,” and “economic imperialism” are all present within the cultural imperialism literature. Although these are mostly treated as primitive concepts, an awareness of these is integral to an understanding of the concept of cultural imperialism.
After reviewing all the differing interpretations of cultural imperialism, it becomes apparent that the essence of cultural imperialism is domination by one nation over another. That relationship is additionally direct or indirect and supported by a mix of political or economic controls. The ways within which information is exchanged between nations have been explored through scholarly efforts as a manifestation of cultural imperialism.
Imperialism, State policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.
In earlier periods, rulers in China, western Asia, and also the Mediterranean extended their power through imperialism. Between the 15th century and also the middle of the 18th, England, France, Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain built empires within the Americas, India, and also East India.
Russia, Italy, Germany, us, and Japan became imperial powers within the period from the center of the 19th century to war I. The imperial designs of Japan, fascist Italy, and the Third Reich in the 1930s culminated in the outbreak of warfare II. After the war, Russia consolidated its military and political control of the states of eastern Europe. From the first 20th century the U.S. was accused of imperialism for intervening in the affairs of developing countries so as to safeguard the interests of U.S.-based international corporations.
Because imperialism always involves the utilization of power, it’s widely considered morally objectionable. Economists and political theorists have debated whether imperialism benefits the states that practice it and whether such benefits or other reasons justify a state in pursuing imperialist policies. Some theorists, like Machiavelli, have argued that imperialism is the justified result of the natural struggle for survival. Others have asserted that imperialism is critical so as to confirm national security. a 3rd justification offered only infrequently after war II, is that it’s a way of liberating peoples from tyrannical rule or improving their standard of living.
Following the opening of the ship canal in 1869, European nations sought to increase their economic and political power overseas, especially in Africa, during a period dubbed “the New Imperialism.” This competition led European elites and also the broad literate classes to believe that the old European balance of power was over and brand new world order was dawning. Some scholars argue that this process intensified imperial rivalries and helped provoke WWI.
Today the term imperialism is often employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s policy. International organizations, including international organizations, try to maintain peace using measures like peace arrangements and aid to developing countries. However, critics say imperialism exists today; as an example, many within the geographic area saw the U.S.-led Iraq War as a brand new brand of anti-Arab and anti-Islamic imperialism.
Cultural Imperialism and also the Indo-English Novel focuses on the novels of R. K. Narayan, Anita Desai, Kamala Markandaya, and authors and explores the strain in these novels between ideology and thus the generic fictive strategies that shape ideology or are shaped by it. Fawzia Afzal-Khan raises the important question of what proportion of the usage of certain ideological strategies actually helps the ex-colonized writer deal effectively with postcolonial and postindependence trauma and whether or not the selection of a specific genre or mode employed by a writer presupposes the extent to which that writer is visiting achieve success in challenging the ideological strategies of “containment” perpetuated by most Western “orientalist” texts and writers. She argues that the formal or generic choices of the four writers studied here reveal that they’re using genre as an ideological “strategy of liberation” to assist free their peoples and cultures from the hegemonic strategies of “containment” imposed upon them. She concludes that the works studied here constitute an ideological rebuttal of Western writers’ denigrating “containment” of non-Western cultures. She also notes that self-criticism, as implied in Rushdie’s works, isn’t confused with self-hatred, a controversy found in Naipaul’s work.
