I.

Introduction

The purpose of this contribution is to analyze the impact that the ongoing

globalization process has on the cultural identities of peoples. However, to be able to carry

out this analysis it is first necessary to locate the process of globalization within the realm of

understanding culture, something which is usually not done. The commonly used definition

of globalization comes from the economic realm, from the opening up to free trade and

from the growing interdependence of world markets at their different levels. To this

definition is usually added the political and institutional dimension, the responsibility of the

organisms of the United Nations, multilateral pacts, and regional agreements. In both

dimensions there exist, certainly, involved cultural aspects: the so-called ‘cultural industry’

and ‘show business’ on the one hand, and cultural institutions protected by law, such as

schools, universities and the media, on the other. However, with an approach of this type

we only touch the surface of the cultural dimension, since this last cannot be reduced either

to the exchange of products or to institutions. Therefore, I would like to analyze at the

outset what I under-stand as culture from the perspective of sociology and how the process

of globalization can be defined using this approach.

THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE

I leave to philosophers the analysis of the ontological dimension of culture and its

relationship with the human person as such. I make this indispensable explanation because

I do not ignore the fact that the current Pontiff’s teaching provided beautiful stimuli for

reflection when he declared in his speech to UNESCO that culture ‘is a specific way of

existing and of man’s being’; that ‘man, who in the visible world is the only ontic subject of

1
culture, is also its only object and its end’ and ‘that one cannot think of culture without

human subjectivity and without human causation; that, in the field of culture, man is always

the first fact: man is the primordial and fundamental fact of culture. And this is man always

in his/her entirety: in the integral whole of his/her spiritual and material. ‘Globalization’, as

such, is not a phenomenon that in an immediate or direct way bears upon this sphere of

analysis. Rather, it presupposes it, at least in the sense that the human person rationally

under-stands that in spite of his or her different ethnic and historical-cultural ori-gins he or

she shares that same rational condition which makes him or her aware that he or she is a

free subject and also conscious of the causation of his or her acts, something which

includes, as a consequence, his or her responsibility. Although voices have already been

raised which seek to question the unity of the human species and also question that all

men, by the fact of being such, must be considered as persons, that is to say free fellows

and equal in dignity and rights, it is my view that their arguments are excessively directed

towards the legitimation of dubious techniques which allow the manipulation of human

beings and as a result these voices do not express effective rational arguments.

The concept of culture expressed the possibility that social difference could be

considered in symmetrical form and not only with those concepts which, due to the

ontological load involved, hierarchized one of the two sides of the differentiated:

truth/falsehood, good/evil, beauty/ugliness, civilization/barbarity, nobility/ignobility. If, during

the sixteenth century, for example, theologians had to pose the question of whether the

recently discovered Aborigines of America were really humans at all, thereafter the concept

that was employed was that of ‘other cultures’, without there being an explicit indication

through such an appellation of any form of hierarchy. One was dealing, simply, with

2
otherness. Obviously enough, the hierarchization of difference would not disappear

completely, and this is true of our days as well. But ethnocentrism, racism and other

tendencies of this type began to be easily known as particular points of view which did not

depend on the objects being observed but on the perspectives of the observers.

There are as many types of cultures as there are points of view from which cultures

can be observed and differentiated. If in certain circum-stances one prevails over another,

this is the result of the social relevance attributed to these differentiations, which can be

recomposed and fed back infinitely. Observing this process from the perspective of social

evolution, it could be said that without abandoning them totally, approaches linked to the

ontic reality of people, such as sex, age, race, and territory, are substituted for contingent

and relative criteria for the purpose of observation, such as productivity, efficiency, speed,

objectivity, esteem, and subjective preferences. No approach involving differentiation,

however, is completely abandoned. Not even those that have ontological consequences.

They are merely reinterpreted from points of view involving a higher awareness of

contingency and of the relativity of the observation and classification approaches.

Culture is also identified with the historical memory of societies. Here emphasis is

placed on the mechanisms of the socialization of knowledge and meaning that form the

intergenerational network which provides continuity to social life. Such a vision could not be

understood except from the perspective of the observation of observers since in the

receptivity of the point of view of tradition by each new generation what has been thought

and transmitted is considered inseparable from the analysis of the point of view of those

who have elaborated and transmitted them in this way. This allows the new generations to

3
develop a critical approach in relation to precedents and to produce innovation and change

in society. However, it is necessary to overcome an extremely lineal vision of this

socialization process since one has to keep in mind that the pres-ent in society nowadays,

which in the context of current life-expectancy covers approximately five generations,

involves a state of affairs where each one of these generations feeds back its points of view

into those perceived by the others. The historical memory should not be understood,

consequently, as a sort of file of past events that can be opened when it is necessary to

remember things, but rather as a hermeneutic ability of the present which guides the

possibilities of increasing the observation angles of differentiation between identity and

difference.

Having made these observations about the sociological point of view and cultural

analysis, I would now like to consider the current phenomenon of ‘globalization’. From what

has been said above, it can be inferred that in the analysis of the impact of ‘globalization’ on

culture it is very unsatisfactory to under-stand the phenomenon of globalization as an

increase in the exchange flows of international trade, either in the sphere of merchandise or

in the sphere of capital and financial flows. Although it could be understood that in this

increment of trade there are goods included that in general terms could be considered as

being cultural ones, for example books, musical works, designs of wardrobes and

advertising, we have already pointed out that no object by itself can be considered

separately from the culture in which it has been produced.

4
 II. Review of Related Studies

Local Related Studies

"Gobalization is the acceleration and intensification of interaction and integration among

people, companies and governments of different nations. And this process has effects on

human well-being, on the environment, on economic development and, most importantly,

on culture. "

Philippines is a country with different culture and tradition, as a result of its

archaeological structure. With the islands which are not closely together, it has always

been hard for the government and the people to travel around and implement rules for the

growth and development of the country. For that reason, progress was hampered and not

every Filipino had the same beliefs and principles with the others. But with the development

of technology because of globalization, it gave way for a faster and easier form of

communication and transportation for every Filipino. Globalization, as far as my knowledge

in history can give, can be considered to have started during the Spanish colonization

where products from different countries are exported to the Philippines and local products

from our country are sent abroad. Through our colonizers, we learned different ways of

living and therefore acquired some of their cultures, beliefs, values and tradition.

Throughout the years of settlement of foreigners in the country, they established

businesses, and organizations and contributed to the development of the government and

its administration. During this time, Filipinos were known for their culture and values, like

pakikipagkapwa-tao, flexibility and creativity, faith and religiosity, hard work and industry,

the ability to survive, and being family oriented, that they were able to preserve in the

5
course of the colonization. Philippines then was introduced to the concept of globalization

from developing countries and made easy trade with their products.

Globalization is the way different countries interact and incorporate in order to

become as one big global economy, making it easier for trading across countries. It has

transformed our society in many different ways. It was made possible for us to be updated

with the current events not only in our country but internationally. We were given the

opportunity to cope up with different lifestyles and entertainment of other countries through

the use of technology. And because of it, communication was made easier and traveling

became much more efficient. Through globalization, numerous employment opportunities

were given and migration for a better job became easier. It also has a contribution in the

field of education where numerous educational institutions are open for anyone who

desires for a better opportunity to study. Free movement of capital, where transferring

money through banks is just by the click of a button, is an advantage of the globalization as

well. And Philippine products became available to a wider market across the globe than in

the country alone is also a benefit. But not all things about globalization can be considered

as an advantage.

Globalization gave way to change. Not only the way we work and interact with one

another, but also our culture and perspective. Most Filipinos have the mindset that

imitating what the other country did or what the foreign people do will also bring

advancement and benefit in our country. Because the thought of stepping out of our

comfort zones and letting go of our old ways will help the country’s development, that’s why

we see and consider the foreign countries as role models and superior to us. I honestly

6
thought about that too. But that certain mindset does not seem to be for the progress of the

country but for our own desire to fit in a modern generation. As a Filipino who grew up in an

Arab country, I saw the difference of their culture from our own. I was able to witness how

they give importance to their values and tradition and the steps they take for it to be

preserved. They also have the values of Filipinos which to claim we have, like the

pakikipagkapwa tao: My mother, who was using a cane because of her spinal problem and

I, came from the grocery store with 3 plastic bags on hand. On our way out, an Indian

worker from the store took our bags, called a taxi and placed our things behind the cab

after he opened the door for us. He did that without asking for anything in return. And the

fact that he’s not an Arab, but an Indian who acquired that value from the country where he

works is something we Filipinos should consider to be inspiring. Or the faith and religiosity:

they strive to follow the teachings of the kanisa or the church, like the way they stop the car

every time they see an Arab lady who is about to cross the street whether the street light is

red or not. They are also family oriented. Last summer, I was able to visit a house where 3

generations of the family stays and lives harmoniously.

But what really amazes me and what I really wish we Filipinos would acquire is how the

government put their own people first, at all times, and the way its people follow its

administration’s orders wholeheartedly. It’s ironic how I made a foreign country an example

of a nationalism. But this country was able to develop without forgetting their own set of

traditions and beliefs, which should set an example to those Filipinos who dreams for a

better country and yet does not appreciate the culture and values that our ancestors taught

us.

7
Globalization paved a way for a modern world where technology made life easier, where

interacting with one another requires the knowledge of using a gadget, when imported

products are more patronized than the local ones and where English was given more

importance than our native languages. Globalization has created both a positive and

negative effect in our society. But we cannot deny the fact that it gave us many

opportunities for a better way of living.

Most people would blame globalization for a change in our culture and traditions. But it has

always been our choice to preserve it. We have always been wanting our country to be

known for something great and yet here we are striving to be like the others, imitating what

they do and appreciating their culture more than our own. We Filipino can make our own

identity as one, something that we all can together be proud of and something that will

make us be known for.

Foreign Related Studies

The relationships between the world’s cultures and globalization are inadequately

understood. While often reduced to the impacts of globalization on cultures, these

relationships are far more complex. For cultural processes themselves affect globalization,

changing its patterns and trajectory, manifesting themselves in many other spheres that

mould the daily lives of billions (Ray, 2007). The culture of consumerism or the influences

of religion are cases in point. This complex interplay between cultures and globalization is

at once unifying and divisive, liberating and corrosive, homogenizing and diversifying. The

relationship also crystallizes both positive aspirations and negative anxieties. The interplay

8
trans-forms patterns of sameness and difference across the world, and modifies the ways

in which cultural expression is created, represented, recognized, preserved or renewed. It

also contributes to generating powerful new culturalist discourses that evoke ‘the power of

culture’ in domains as diverse as economic development, the fostering of citizenship and

social cohesion, human security and the resolution or prevention of conflict.

Yet there remains a major knowledge gap as regards the relationships between

cultural change and globalization – a gap that is culturally misleading, politically perilous,

socially unsustainable and economically constraining. The Cultures and Globalization

series is designed to fill this gap. The first volume of this series, entitled Conflicts and

Tensions, appeared in 2007. In our Introduction to that volume we spelled out the

antecedents and rationale for the project, as well as the conceptual framework we sought

to build it upon, and the methods we intended to deploy (Anheier and Isar 2007). Some of

those thoughts need to be reiterated here in order to situate the project as a whole; we

refer the reader to that inaugural volume for a fuller treatment of the concepts, frameworks

and the core issues. While a substantial evidence base has been developed on the

economic, political and social dimensions of globalization, the cultural dimension continues

to be the object of many unsubstantiated generalizations and unquestioned assumptions.

The complex mutual relations between cultural change and globalization – the two-way

impacts – have remained largely unmeasured and unanalyzed. One reason for the neglect

at the global level is that conventional understandings of culture are still connected

principally to the sovereign nation-state. However, today, this nexus of culture and nation

no longer dominates: the cultural dimension has become constitutive of collective identity at

nar-rower as well as broader levels. As Paul Gilroy reminds us, the idea of culture ‘has

9
been abused by being simplified, instrumentalized, or trivialized, and particularly though

being coupled with notions of identity and belonging that are overly fixed or too easily

naturalized as exclusively national phenomena’ (Gilroy, 2004: 6). What is more, cultural

processes take place in increasingly ‘deterritorialized’ transnational, global contexts, many

of which are beyond the reach of national policies. Mapping and analyzing this shifting

terrain, in all regions of the world, as well as the factors, patterns, processes, and outcomes

associated with the ‘complex connectivity’ (Tomlinson, 1999) of globalization, is therefore a

main purpose of this Series.

The knowledge gap as regards cultures and globalization is also based on an acute

paucity of comparative information. In response, each volume of the Series includes a

significant data section based on innovative ‘indicator suites’, represented with the help of

state-of-the-art information graphics (see Anheier, 2007). We are, of course, aware of the

still inchoate state of cultural statistics and, a fortiori, of the enormous difficulty of

constructing cultural indicators, even at the national level. Using existing cultural statistics

just to make cross-national comparisons is more hazardous still, even among closely

related countries such as those of the European Union or the United States and Canada.

Therefore, in a departure from conventional approaches, we will neither seek to list data by

country, nor strive to have a uniform table layout. Instead, we have developed the concept

of ‘indicator suites’ to present data on specific aspects of the relationships between culture

and globalization. A basic premise of this approach is that much information on culture and

culture-related facets is already ‘out there’, but is not yet systematically assessed,

compiled, analyzed and presented. Another is that interpretative presentations using

10
information graphics are better at facilitating understanding of many facets of the

relationships between cultures and globalization than ‘raw’ data in tabular form.

As befits a project of global aspiration, whose genealogy began at UNESCO in the

mid-1990s, the Series is intended to give voice to different issues and opinions emanating

from as many different regions of the world as possible. It is intended to be ‘ecumenical’ in

its embrace of diverse theoretical and disciplinary positions. Although each volume may not

be fully ‘representative’ of the diversity of regional perspectives and points of view, our

hope is that the Series as a whole will be synoptic in its geo-cultural coverage. And

although the project is academy-based, each volume will include contributions by non-

academic authors: artists, cultural activists, journalists, etc.

The cultural economy

The inaugural theme, ‘conflicts and tensions’, addressed the broader, ‘ways of life’ or

identity-based understandings of the culture concept as used in the social and human

sciences. The exponential growth in affirmations of or claims to cultural difference have

given rise to multiple ‘conflicts and tensions’ in recent years. These loom large in cur-rent

anxieties. As we put it, ‘behind the concern for “culture” that is increasingly evoked in

contemporary public debate lurks the specter of conflict: the cultural dimensions of conflict

on the one hand, and the conflictual dimensions of culture on the other’ (Anheier and Isar,

2007).

11
 By contrast, the ‘cultural economy’ topic, for its part, partly embodies anxieties of a

different sort, largely related to the specter of cultural domination. For example, the World

Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, referring to the impact of the global

information revolution on local cultures and values across the world, expressed wide-

spread concern at the overwhelming dominance of the cultures and values of the United

States, and other Western countries: ‘The fear is that constant exposure to the images of

Western lifestyles and role models could lead to tensions which would be both culturally

and socially divisive’ (World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization 2004).

In other words, our apprehension of the economy would be much richer if it could

truly encompass the processes of social and cultural relations that accompany, are

impacted by or encompass the economic or, the set of socio-economic relations that

enable cultural activity’. Seen in this holistic way, then, our exploration would need to

embrace the insights of fields such as economic sociology, cultural studies, social studies

of finance, business and management studies, economic anthropology and cultural

geography, and methodological strategies as diverse as semiotics, ethnography, social

studies of science, and theories of practice. Such a broader approach would make it easier

to analytically embrace a range of types and regimes of cultural production in all regions of

the world, whereas much of the literature on the subject is based on more specifically

economic realities in the post-industrial, post-Fordist, ‘knowledge economy’ contexts of the

global North. In other words to explore cultural industries stricto sensu (many of which are

rather more incipient than developed in the non-Western world) as well as artisanal

endeavours in fields such as handicrafts, exploitation of the intangible heritage, communal

cultural expression, etc. As well as to understand the field as made up of symbolic

12
production systems of collective representation that are central in forging visions of public

identity.

III. Body

The process of globalization has instituted profound impact on culture since ancient

times. The Phoenician traders’ impact on ancient Greek culture, Chinese silk and jars used

in pre-historic Philippines and the spread of coffee, chocolate and tobacco from Latin

America to the world are few of the examples of globalization of culture. In today’s modern

world, globalization has become more complex and pervasive. And this is brought by

different factors that have compounded through time. Among these factors are as follow:

The shift to a new mode of production and distribution or, simply, capitalism; improved and

cheaper cost of transportation and communication; colonization; proliferation of mass

media; and recently, the rise of computers.

The history of the Philippine Islands offers a rich source for those interested in the

past. Its land and its people have been shaped by a number of influences. For example, the

presence of the Spanish for three hundred years added to the existing indigenous cultures,

colouring Filipino family life, art and architecture, music, and food to name a few. The

internal history of the Philippines is well known within the community and I’m always

pleased when people tell me about that past with pride. I’d like to discuss the place of the

Philippines throughout history because its role in the historical development of Asia and the

world is sometimes overlooked. Before Europeans arrived in Southeast Asia in the

sixteenth century (with Magellan arriving in the Philippines in 1521), the Philippines already

13
had an important role in trade within Asia and Southeast Asia. This is demonstrated in the

marine archaeological record of the region. In the 1970s, archaeologists discovered the

wreckage of eight trading vessels called balangays, also known as Butuan boats, near

Butuan City in Mindanao. (As a side note, these balangays are also thought to have lent

their name to barangay, the most basic administrative unit in the Philippines). These

balangays were fifteen meters long and since the 1970s have been used to demonstrate

the importance of the Philippine Islands, in particular Butuan, in the circulation of trade and

culture in Southeast Asia. This find was made all the more important when a ninth ship,

almost twice the size of these balangays, was discovered in 2012. Apparently, the planks

used to create this “mother ship” were so large that they can no longer be recreated, as the

size of tree needed is no longer available. Initial studies of this large, twenty-five meter ship

suggests that it is from the thirteenth century, well before the presence of European trading

vessels.

Up until this 2012 discovery, it was well known that early seafaring Filipinos crossed

the waters of Southeast Asia as far as Vietnam (known then as Champa) in their

balangays. What this new discovery suggests is that these may have been smaller support

vessels attached to the larger vessel, suggesting not only that the Filipino seafarers played

a more significant role in trade than previously thought, but also that they were well

organized and advanced in their seafaring.

This further emphasizes the importance of the Philippines as a trade centre in the

region. By the time that Miguel Lopez de Legazpi established Spanish Manila in the 1570s

on the same site of Rajah Sulayman’s settlement, the Philippines was a strategic trade

14
centre for China. In addition to being attracted by the rich resources of Luzon Island, the

Spanish colonizers also saw the importance of the Philippines in relation to China. For

many European countries, access to Chinese silks, pottery, and other trade goods drove

them to enter Southeast Asia. From Manila, for instance, the Spanish were able to trade

silver from the Americas with China, using the Philippines as a staging point. Indeed, the

famous Manila Galleon that sailed between Mexico and Manila every year brought much

fortune to those involved. As well, the Filipinos that sailed those galleons often ended up

settling in Mexico, and today their descendants still maintain their Filipino identity.

Some of the more daring Spanish Governors of the Philippines also saw Manila as a

military staging point to invade China. In the sources there are letters to the Spanish

monarch requesting a modest number of soldiers with which, they thought, they would be

able to conquer all of China. Such an adventure, of course, would have failed, but it

emphasizes the importance of the islands in connecting Europeans and Southeast Asians

with China.

It is important to reflect on the role of the Philippines and of Filipinos in the

development of Southeast Asia. At least one author has referred to the Philippines as being

“in but not of Asia,” suggesting that although it is geographically part of Asia, its culture

somehow separates it due to its unique experience with Spanish and American colonial

contact. However, given the uniqueness of Philippine culture in the region, the Philippines

still shares long-standing ties with its Austronesian neighbours (the Austronesian linguistic

family extends from Taiwan, South Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, parts of Indonesia,

and extends as far as Madagascar and the Easter Islands). Previous (Western) historians

15
have viewed Southeast Asia as being economically undeveloped before contact with

Western traders and colonists. Examples such as the Philippines demonstrate that not only

was there contact among the various kingdoms and chiefdoms of Southeast Asia, but that

advanced networks of trade and commerce existed well before the first European ships

entered the region. Furthermore, it is now believed that instead of creating trade networks,

Europeans merely used existing networks.

The Philippines has for long been tied into wide, global networks of trade,

commerce, and culture, creating and maintaining contact with Southeast Asian states and

with China. These early activities of the peoples that would come to be known as Filipinos

helped make the thriving and interconnected environment that European traders

encountered in Southeast Asia, and this place in history should be recognized and

celebrated.

Culture, as way of life shared by a certain group of people in a certain society, has

created a unique identity as that of British, Chinese or Filipino. But today, culture has

become the arena of contention on the issue of globalization. And with the unprecedented

presence of globalization, Castells argues that globalization has eroded differences in

culture and produced a seamless global system of culture and economic values. Hence,

are we having a common culture or a dominant culture over another? I say, it depends on

how we view globalization of culture in relation to values. It depends on whether one thinks

that local cultures should be protected from outside influence, or whether one thinks that

new cultural creativity results from interaction and mixing of ideas from different cultures.

16
 The sole fact that the phenomenon that caused the novelty of nowadays did not

have its origins in the political sphere, the habitual place of under-standing the decision-

making process in relation to the common good, rep-resents in itself a huge political

challenge. It would be enough to check the reiterated fact that current politicians/policies

are forced in most cases to legalize the social effects of new facts which are created

without any political intention. Political discussion runs the risk of becoming more and more

a speech of ex post factum legitimation, with an evidently decreasing social relevance. Its

traditional concern for the education of virtue among citizens has had to give way to

consequentialist orientations due to the fact of being often surprised and surpassed by

events that are difficult to fore-see in terms of their significance before they actually

happen.

It is not the task of this paper to engage in a political analysis of these

transformations but merely to refer to their cultural significance. In this respect, I would like

to mention first the relative loss of trust and of moral certainty provided by historical

tradition and national culture. These are constantly challenged by the uncertainty of the

future and the administration of risk has become one of the strategic nerves of social

governance. And, although there still exists what could be called ‘a country risk’ or ‘nation

risk’, their calculation and administration are judged more from the present situation and its

variability rather than from historical tradition.

‘Globalization’ has brought with it a growing homogenization and standardization of

the procedures of decision-making in the political, economic and scientific sphere or even

in daily life, notwithstanding the insuperable discrepancies that could exist between the

17
reasons proposed by people for making these decisions. This essentially represents a

change in the form of giving legitimacy to the decisions that affect people and society in

gen-eral. Sociologists have called this ‘legitimation through procedure’, applying this

concept at the outset to the impersonal and bureaucratic organization of the state and of

large associations which precisely due to their imper-sonality were able to apply their

procedures in a range that transcended boundaries and cultures. But during this second

phase that we are living through today, the standardization of procedure is even deeper

since it does not only embrace the social institutions of great scope, but also, as has

already been stated, the new intelligent machines with their interactive ability between

themselves and human beings.

This new form by which to bestow legitimacy on decisions has not been relegated to

topics linked with the practical and material aspects of human existence, but has even been

extended to some topics of the meta-physical tradition, such as the dignity of the human

person. This was shown prophetically, in a certain sense, by the approval of the Universal

Declaration on Human Rights by the UN in 1948, a consent that was achieved on the

condition that the liberty of people and states to adhere to the truth contained in its juridical

dispositions was guaranteed even though there was no explicit foundation. However, it is

the lack of a foundation in itself that hinders having an objective framework by which to

understand the new anthropological challenges introduced by technology: assisted

fertilization, human cloning, experimentation with embryos, the production of transgenic

products, etc. The typical preoccupation is what, how, when, and where, but not why. How

can we not remember Nietzsche who almost one century ago defined ‘nihilism’ as a way of

thinking which ‘lacks purpose, it lacks the question why’? In fact, one cen-tury later, there

18
are many people who are trying to modernize Nietzsche with the idea of ‘weak thought’,

that is, post-metaphysical thinking which by deliberately giving up the search for a

foundation presumes that it is in a condition to tolerate any argument, without exclusions of

any type.

However, although there are good reasons to define the culture that accompanies

the globalization process as nihilistic, we are not in the presence of a phenomenon that can

be explained by the diffusion of a philosophy or of a particular ideology, such as juridical

positivism, neo-liberalism, economicism or scientism. No ‘ism’ is able to mobilize

productively and creatively society as a whole, less still on a planetary scale. This is some-

thing much more complex linked with social evolution in itself; with mod-els of growth and

development; with the form of governance of society. The principle of ‘legitimation through

procedure’, certainly, does not require metaphysical foundations, it does not need to

criticize or to substitute them: it only standardizes within society an approach of rationality

which is valuable for its results. Because the ends of human acts are excluded from the

procedure in socially relevant decisions, these are transferred to the subjective realm of the

private conscience and sought to be understood with concepts like preferences, values,

pleasures, wishes, convictions.

The search for the legitimacy of human acts has been the perennial topic of social

and political ethics. The current novelty resides in the form of organization of society, which

tries to solve this topic. At the level of the complexity of premodern societies it was

sufficient to found rational judgment in fidelity to the inherited cultural tradition of the

ancestors, that is to say, in habits and customs. The increment of complexity brought about

19
by the massification of written culture and by the emergence of empires on which ‘the sun

never sets’, is required to add to customs the recognition of the majesty of written law (the

‘rule of law’) under the principle of jurisdictional sovereignty. However, the increment of

complexity in the current globalization process no longer has as its main cause the

‘legislative will’ but technological innovation, and, very particularly, complementation and

mutual potentiation between the human being and the intelligent machine that he or she

has created: the machine of information.

The perplexity caused by this new order does not only affect some par-ticular

cultures, primarily those linked to the Christian tradition which are especially sensitive to the

anthropological and ethical dimensions of human coexistence. At a world level we observe

the paradox that while, on the one hand, the ‘rule of law’ recognizes more complex and

sophisticated rights whose jurisdiction in quite essential aspects has been the subject of an

attempt at internationalization, extra-legal behavior has been growing in all environments:

corruption, the traffic in illicit substances, tax evasion, the suspension of workers’ rights,

organized crime, violence, and war. It is enough to have the information, the organization,

and the technological ‘know how’, to do whatever it is possible to engage in, to find an

accepted place in society, and finally, to achieve its form of juridical legitimation. As with

ethics and politics, rights and law are also becoming a legitimation ex post factum in many

areas of life.

Will culture be able to have enough strength to articulate the ethos of tradition with

these new challenges? It is difficult to give a simple answer to this question. Nevertheless, I

would like to point out that culture, more than the institutional juridical order, is in a better

20
situation to make a contribution in this respect. Globalization has brought with it a rela-

tivization of national cultures as such, but it has compensated this weak-ening with a

multiplication of the observation points that are structured from universal perspectives. The

tradition of high religions has found great reinforcement at the present, thwarting the

prophecy of the ‘death of God’. It is sufficient to refer here to the recent Jubilee of the year

2000 with its impressive direct and indirect impact on the entire world. Something similar of

a different degree can be affirmed of the other high religions. To this should be added the

important cultural initiatives of civil society which have also achieved a world articulation. I

am thinking of the initiatives of pro-life movements, ecological movements, the initiatives for

the defence of children and the elderly or of the handicapped. I do not ignore that next to

these initiatives there have also been articulat-ed others in the contrary direction, such as

Satanism, for example. But the relative weight of some or others is not determined

beforehand by economic or political factors. Their vitality depends on the dynamism with

which their approaches of identity and difference are proposed as a definition of their

observation point and on the way in which they are perceived as being reasonable by the

population that observes.

If at a certain historical time culture was appropriate to the legitimation of a peculiar

form of national State, the process now underway has liberated it very substantially of that

load. As John Paul II emphasized at the UN Assembly of 1995, culture is a realm for the

exercise of human sovereignty, especially in its interrelation with those other subjects with

whom the human being is objectively linked. Nobody can expropriate this space of

sovereignty, as is demonstrated by peoples who despite being subjected to the invasion of

foreign powers were able to survive precisely because of their culture. The depth of the

21
cultural bond depends above all on the interpretive wealth of the observation point it offers,

and the globalization process has helped to liberate it of the institutional contexts

characteristic of States. The re-evaluation of present time as a place that anticipates deci-

sions about the future increases the strength of culture as the reference and articulation

point of most fundamental ethical topics.

In our own culture, the effects of globalization are immense and diverse. Now, let us

look some of these effects. The usage of English language is one of the most apparent

effects of globalization on our culture. Although English is important for us to be globally

competitive, it has undervalued our native languages. And it has become a pre-requisite to

everyone who is seeking for a higher status in society. Another, who wouldn’t recognize

Avatar, Barney, Glee, Rain, Wonder Girls or Kobe Bryant? Globalization has made it

possible for us to be wired and plugged into T.V. programmes, movies, news, lifestyles,

and entertainment of other countries. In return, many Filipinos, especially youth, have

forgotten the traditional Filipino activities such as Moro-Moro, Kundiman, Sarsuela, etc.

Moreover with the growth of access to internet, most young Filipinos would spend more

time in playing computer games and updating their statuses on Facebook or Twitter than

playing sports or doing productive work at home. These may seem negative effects on our

culture but let us look at the other side of the coin. Heard of Mr. Kenneth Cobonpue or Ms.

Monique Lhuillier? They are Filipinos whose ideas and designs have brought international

acclamation and caught the attention of foreigners and Hollywood stars. In music and

entertainment, the songs of singer Apl d’ Ap of Black Eyed Peas is one of the manifestation

of how he has integrated Filipino language in his music. And globalization has also paved

22
way for our culture to be appreciated by the world through international fair trade, cultural

shows abroad and other international activities.

In sum, globalization of culture has created both positive and negative effects on

culture. In our own culture, globalization has improved our way of living and created an

impetus for us to strive for a better life. But in the process, it has changed some of our

traditional ways of life, practices, beliefs and ideologies. Hence, globalization is neither

good nor bad. Rather, certain aspects of the complex and multi-faceted process of

globalization have effects that can be viewed in different ways depending on the values at

stake.

23
 IV. Summary, Conclusion

Summary

Culture in the broad sense we propose to employ refers to the social construction,

articulation and reception of meaning. Culture is the lived and creative experience for

individuals and a body of arti-facts, symbols, texts and objects. Culture involves enactment

and representation. It embraces art and art discourse, the symbolic world of meanings, the

commodified output of the cultural industries as well as the spontaneous or enacted,

organized or unorganized cultural expressions of everyday life, including social relations. It

is constitutive of both collective and individual identity. Closely related to culture is the

concept of communication, which refers to the ways in which meanings, artifacts, beliefs,

symbols and messages are transmitted through time and space, as well as processed,

recorded, stored and reproduced. Communication requires media of storage and trans-

mission, institutions that make storage and trans-mission possible, and media of reception.

The notion of globalization itself, almost as frustratingly as the term ‘culture’, is the

object of multiple theories and definitions. In this Series, we shall use the term to refer to

the worldwide interconnections and interdependencies that all have deep origins in world

history but today are being increasingly and ever more rapidly brought about through the

movement of objects (goods, services, finance and other resources, etc.), meanings

(language, symbols, knowledge, identities, etc.) and people across regions and

intercontinental space (Warnier, 2004). This notion of globalization as ‘time and space

compression’ is not a normative concept: not a ‘business buzzword’, nor a tool for ‘miracle

24
growth’, nor the result of an evil plot (Chanda, 2007: 268), but simply the global connectivity

that characterizes the way we live ever more closely ‘bound together’ in the world.

Conclusion

I am aware of the incompleteness of the analysis that has been pre-sented here. In

my defense I could point out that there are not enough empirical studies to allow us to

make an evaluation of the global impact of ‘globalization’ in the sphere of cultural identities.

Defensive images are usually generalized in relation to the period that finishes without

there being an appropriate perception of the new opportunities that are opened up by this

process, or on the contrary, apologetic speeches are disseminated about the future which

are lacking in any rational foundation.

I have wanted to demonstrate what, from my particular observation point, constitutes

the essential nucleus of what the globalization process is. It is not that the interdependence

between peoples or the multicultural character of humankind have been recently

discovered. The real novelty, from the cultural point of view, is the generalization, by means

of intelligent machines, of a standardized protocol for the production of rational decisions

rooted in the capacity to combine self- and hetero-references, to com-pare and simulate at

the present time possible scenarios of the value-added and of the administration of a

competitive and reversible temporality. Such suppositions, when operating in a context of

the fragmentation of information, identify the rational decision with that of a player who

wants to take advantage of his or her time in relation to his or her rivals. This has become a

generalized discourse which differentiates winners and losers. However, this tendency to

fragmentation, as soon as it operates in a cultural context determined by the capacity to

25
observe observers, that is to say, of observing those who trace these differences without

being able to locate themselves simultaneously on both sides of the differentiated, is

counter-balanced by the opposed tendency which observes the unity of what is being

differentiated and which looks in ‘real time’ at the wisdom of knowledge. This is the

consciousness of a ‘human ecology’, to employ the happy phrase of John Paul II, which

would not be possible except in the evolutionary context in which we are currently living.

That in the culture of the future one or another tendency will prevail is, certainly, an

open question, a challenge to human freedom. When the dimension of wisdom becomes

hidden, the inherent competitiveness in the use of information in ‘real time’ ends up in the

crude neo-Malthusianism of the natural selection of the strongest or in the legitimation of

the ‘tyranny of the strong over the weak’. Personally, I do not think that it is inevitable that in

the end this point of view will prevail as regards the observation of the human

phenomenon, although a great deal of evidence as to its generalization and extension do

exist. Understanding a culture’s point of view allows us to discover that in a complex

society there co-exist different possibilities of tracing a difference to observe and that it is

unavoidable that an observer that observes observers becomes aware of the blind point of

the difference with which he or she observes the observed. The possibilities of observing

‘globalization’ from the perspective of an authentic ‘human ecology’ founded in the

undisposable character of each person and of his or her dignity is a fully valid perspective

entrusted to the freedom of who observes in this way. However, what a society that seeks

to live in ‘real time’ demands is not a new ‘humanist ideology’ that expresses a dream of

the future but rather a verifiable present experience which adds value to the quality of life of

those who are linked to it.

26
 Bibliography

FILIPINO CULTURE IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION

https://cromulentsite.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/filipino-culture-in-the-age-of-

globalization/

INTRODUCING THE CULTURES AND GLOBALIZATION SERIES AND THE CULTURAL

ECONOMY Helmut K Anheier and Yudhishthir Raj Isar

Globalization. Ethical and Institutional Concerns

Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Acta 7, Vatican City 2001

www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/acta7/acta7-morande.pdf

The Philippines in the early modern world http://www.pilipino-express.com/history-a-

culture/it-s-all-history/2322-the-philippines-in-the-early-modern-world.html

27