Literature Review -Draft

Introduction
Globalisation has defined as a process in which countries throughout the world are becoming closely linked and interdependent.Cultures influence one another and become more alike through trade , immigration , and the exchange of information and ideas in this process , which has existed for many centuries .However , in recent decades , the degree and intensity of the integration among different cultures and different world regions have accelerated rapidly because of advances in telecommunications and media.Consequently , globalization has become one of the most widely topic discussed among many scholars in recent years. The main aspects concerning the globalization theory are related to the conflict of cultural homogenisation and cultural hybridisation .It is important to analyse the two conflict theory .That is,while homogenisation weakens or erodes local culture ,hybridisation encourages increasing diversity in local culture which adopts US style commercialisation.

Literature Review

Recent studies (Morris ,2002 ;Arnett,2002;UN,2003 ) have acknowledged relationship between media and culture and culture identity. A major theoretical contribution to the study of cultural imperialism has been Morris (2002) model which is how culture can adapt new elenments while remaining stable.Although Morris’model may have some weaknesses ,its significant is undeniable and is especially relevant to the aspect of cultural imperialism.

Based on this theory ,Morris (2002) contribution to the study of cultural imperialism has been his model.Tradional culture is made up of a foudation called deep structure which represents the present or existing cultural elements .Outside element or new ideas are brought in which are then accepted by the existing culture.When these becomes established ,they become a part of the basis .There is a cycle in operation ,that is what was once new or external becomes tradional and is considered indigenous Therefore ,cultures can adapt new elements while remaining stable.This is a significant study .

Another important concept underlying the Un’s analysis of how young people deal with local and global infulences is the idea that this hybridisation process is not hamornious but involves conflict and struggle.The UN points out that youth may experience conflict between the desire to be modern and the desire to preserve local tradtions and identities.The Un goes so fas as to suggest that there is a political power struggle going on . It suggests that this power struggle operates at two level : there is a struggle between the local and global forces for power and there is a struggle within local communities between socio-economic groups .
Also,the Un(2003:19) cites Kjeldgaard examing young people ‘s reaction in Denmark to American media .They show how young people use the stories and images of the media to play out their own stories and their lives . The global media become a background against which they see themselves ..but these images ,these ideas are personalised and transformed by young people to suit their own local circumstances .Nevertheless ,The Un argue that the choice of global items and influences ,this menu ,is supplied by global capital and thus limited to what is in the interests of the large corporation that control the global media.The creation of uniform cultures is their interests because this makes marketing of product easier .So it could be argued that this so-called hybridisation is in fact severely limited and ironnically leads to cultural homogenisation .This is very important because it differs greatly from the way most writers talk about hybridisation which is seen as quite a peaceful blending of different elements.


However ,the UN ignore the ability if people to reject foreign influences.The Un concede that youth are not symply respoding passively to global influences and adopting them ,but they actively interact and in a sense use elements of global cultures differently depending on their local circumstances. Although the UN concede that people do not simply respone passively to foreign influence, it does not analyse the idea that cultural identities are more resilient than credited