UNIT IV A WORLD OF IDEAS

4.1 Global Media Cultures

OVERVIEW

The perceived view about the globalization of culture is one where the entire world has been molded
in the image of Western, mainly American, culture. In popular and professional discourses alike, the popularity
of Big Macs, Baywatch, and MTV are touted as unmistakable signs of the fulfillment of Marshall McLuhan's
prophecy of the Global Village. The globalization of culture is often chiefly imputed to international mass
media. After all, contemporary media technologies such as satellite television and the internet have created
a steady flow of transnational images that connect audiences worldwide. Without global media, according to
the conventional wisdom, how would teenagers in India, Turkey, and Argentina embrace a Western lifestyle
of Nike shoes, Coca-Cola, and rock music? Hence, the putatively strong influence of the mass media on the
globalization of culture.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
Specifically, after learning the module, you are expected to:
➢ Define culture;
➢ Define media culture;
➢ Discuss the role of the mass media in the globalization of culture.
➢ Explain how various media drive various forms of globalization.
➢ Explain the dynamics between local and global cultural production.

Definition of Terms
• Culture – way of life manifested in tangible objects and intangible ideas we hold dear.
• Cultural Socialization – culture we learned from our homes and communities through direct
instruction of our parents or through observation and participation in community affairs.
• Cultural Exchange – a different culture we experienced when go out and interact with
people from other groups.
• Acculturation- a tendency to interpret the other cultures using our own frame of mind and
negotiate which aspect of this culture align with ours and adopt to certain values and
practices of the new culture.
• Accommodation – tend to adopt a new culture only when in public.
• Assimilation – we begin to resemble the people in the other group.
• Media Culture – culture that emerges due to the proliferation of mass media; the intersection
between media and culture.

1
Globalization and Culture
While globalization has been rapid in contemporary times, the innate desire to expand one’s
horizons by wondering and exploring different spaces, is ingrained in humanity since its beginnings (Lule,
2014 citing Appadurai, 1996 and Chanda, 2007).

In earlier lessons, we learned that globalization facilitates sharing of ideas, attitudes, and values
across national borders due to increased “contact between people and their cultures” – their ideas, their
values, their ways of life (Kumaravadivelu, 2008, p. 33) – as observed in the globalization of lifestyles,
knowledge, and technologies. Cultural flows is a term often used to refer to this dynamics of culture in the
edge of globalization (Ritzer & Dean, 2015).

Global cultural flows can be viewed in different ways (Ritzer & Dean, 2015). One way to look at it
was to recognize that cultures are inherently and strongly unique from one another and are not significantly
affected by input from other cultures in the process of globalization (Cultural differentialism). This view
suggests that there are barriers which shield cultures from being penetrated by external inputs. An example
would be religious convictions and ideologies shared by members of a particular society. Huntington
(1996), in his “clash of civilizations” hypothesis, even suggests that when these civilizations interact, there
is potentially “catastrophic collision.”

Another view is to look at global flows as a creative process which yields combinations of global
and local cultures when external inputs interact with internal inputs (cultural hybridization). Appadurai’s
(1996) concept of scapes hints that global flows bring forth unique cultural realities everywhere (Ritzer &
Dean, 2015). These global flows are: (1) ethnoscapes (movement of people), (2) technoscapes (fluid and
interlinked global technology), (3) financescapes (movement of huge amount of money across nation-
states). (4) mediascape (fats production and transfer of information), and (5) ideoscapes (movement of
political images). Instead of clashing and conflicting, cultures, amidst these global flows, integrate or
interpenetrate one another, give birth to hybridized form that is unique from both its global and local origins
– a process referred to as glocalization.

Lastly, another view is to recognize that globalization is, in some ways, making cultures across
nation-states a little more similar and homogenous (cultural convergence), leading to a more isomorphic
or uniform culture (Tomlison, 2012, as cited by Ritzer & Dean, 2015). This is linked with the concept of
cultural assimilation we discussed earlier wherein dominant societies tend to influence others to be more
like them. Related concepts in the process of cultural convergence is what Tomlimson (2012, as cited by
Ritzer and Dean, 2015) referred to as cultural imperialism – when cultures consciously impose
themselves on another cultures, and deterritorialization – when culture is not anymore tied to the
restrictions of the geographical space where it originates.

2
Global Media Cultures

The role of the mass media in the globalization of culture is a contested issue in international
communication theory and research. Early theories of media influence, commonly referred to as "magic
bullet" or "hypodermic needle" theories, believed that the mass media had powerful effects over
audiences. Since then, the debate about media influence has undergone an ebb and flow that has prevented
any resolution or agreement among researchers as to the level, scope, and implications of media influence.
Nevertheless, key theoretical formulations in international communication clung to a belief in powerful media
effects on cultures and communities. At the same time, a body of literature questioning the scope and level
of influence of transnational media has emerged. Whereas some scholars within that tradition questioned
cultural imperialism without providing conceptual alternatives, others have drawn on an interdisciplinary
literature from across the social sciences and humanities to develop theoretical alternatives to cultural
imperialism.

Lule (2014) contented that unlike globalization which is quite complex to define, media is quite
straightforward – “a means of conveying something,” “a channel of communication.” Likewise, he articulated
that the intersection between globalization and media can be captured in five distinct eras: (a) digital
communication, (b) script, (c) printing press, (d) electronic media, and (e) digital media. Further, he opined
that globalization could have been an unimaginable id media is unavailable. Media is instrumental and
supportive of various domains of globalization – economic, political, and cultural.

Cultural Imperialism and the Global Media Debate

In international communication theory and research, cultural imperialism theory argued that audiences
across the globe are heavily affected by media messages emanating from Western industrialized countries.
Although there are minor differences between "media imperialism" and "cultural imperialism," most of the
literature in international communication treats the former as a category of the latter. Grounded in an
understanding of media as cultural industries, cultural imperialism is firmly rooted in a political-economy
perspective on international communication. As a school of thought, political economy focuses on material
issues such as capital, infrastructure, and political control as key determinants of international communication
processes and effects.

In the early stage of cultural imperialism, researchers focused their efforts mostly on nation-states as
primary actors in international relations. They imputed rich, industrialized, and Western nation-states with
intentions and actions by which they export their cultural products and impose their sociocultural values on
poorer and weaker nations in the developing world. This argument was supported by a number of studies
demonstrating that the flow of news and entertainment was biased in favor of industrialized countries. This
bias was clear both in terms of quantity because most media flows were exported by Western countries and
imported by developing nations, and in terms of quality, because developing nations received scant and
prejudicial coverage in Western media.

3
 These concerns led to the rise of the New World Information Order (NWIO) debate, later known as
the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) debate. Although the debate at first was
concerned with news flows between the north and the south, it soon evolved to include all international media
flows. This was due to the fact that inequality existed in news and entertainment programs alike and to the
advent of then new media technologies such as communication satellites, which made the international media
landscape more complex and therefore widened the scope of the debate about international flows.

The global media debate was launched during the 1973 General Conference of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Nairobi, Kenya. As a specialized agency of
the United Nations, the mission of UNESCO includes issues of communication and culture. During the
conference, strong differences arose between Western industrialized nations and developing countries. Led
by the United States, the first group insisted on the "free flow of information" doctrine, advocating "free trade"
in information and media programs without any restrictions. The second group, concerned by the lack of
balance in international media flows, accused Western countries of invoking the free flow of information
ideology to justify their economic and cultural domination. They argued instead ·for a "free and balanced flow"
of information. The chasm between the two groups was too wide to be reconciled. This eventually was one
of the major reasons given for withdrawal from UNESCO by the United States and the United Kingdom-which
resulted in the de facto fall of the global media debate.

The second stage of research identified with cultural imperialism has been associated with calls to
revive the New World Information and Communication Order debate. What differentiates this line of research
from earlier cultural imperialism formulations is its emphasis on the commercialization of the sphere of culture.
Research into this area had been a hallmark of cultural imperialism research, but now there is a deliberate
focus on transnational corporations as actors, as opposed to nation-states, and on transnational capital flows,
as opposed to image flows. Obviously, it is hard to separate the power of transnational corporations from that
of nation-states, and it is difficult to distinguish clearly between capital flows and media flows. Therefore, the
evolution of the debate is mainly a redirection of emphasis rather than a paradigm shift.

It has become fashionable in some international communication circles to dismiss cultural imperialism
as a monolithic theory that is lacking subtlety and increasingly questioned by empirical research. Cultural
imperialism does have some weaknesses, but it also continues to be useful. Perhaps the most important
contribution of cultural imperialism is the argument that international communication flows, processes, and
effects are permeated by power. Nevertheless, it seems that the concept of globalization has in some ways
replaced cultural imperialism as the main conceptual umbrella under which much research and theorizing in
international communication have been conducted.

Media, Globalization, and Hybridization

Several reasons explain the analytical shift from cultural imperialism to globalization. First, the end of
the Cold War as a global framework for ideological, geopolitical, and economic competition calls for a
rethinking of the analytical categories and paradigms of thought. By giving rise to the United States as sole
4
superpower and at the same time making the world more fragmented, the end of the Cold War ushered in an
era of complexity between global forces of cohesion and local reactions of dispersal. In this complex era, the
nation-state is no longer the sale or dominant player, since transnational transactions occur on subnational,
national, and supranational levels. Conceptually, globalization appears to capture this complexity better than
cultural imperialism. Second, according to John Tomlinson (1991), globalization replaced cultural imperialism
because it conveys a process with less coherence and direction, which will weaken the cultural unity of all
nation-states, not only those in the developing world. Finally, globalization has emerged as a key perspective
across the humanities and social sciences, a current undoubtedly affecting the discipline of communication.

In fact, the globalization of culture has become a conceptual magnet attracting research and theorizing
efforts from a variety of disciplines and interdisciplinary formations such as anthropology, comparative
literature, cultural studies, communication and media studies, geography, and sociology. International
communication has been an active interlocutor in this debate because media and information technologies
play an important role in the process of globalization. Although the media are undeniably one of the engines
of cultural globalization, the size, and intensity of the effect of the media on the globalization of culture is a
contested issue revolving around the following question: Did the mass media trigger and create the
globalization of culture? Or is the globalization of culture an old phenomenon that has only been intensified
and made more obvious with the advent of transnational media technologies? Like the age-old question about
whether the egg came before the chicken or vice versa, the question about the relationship between media
and the globalization of culture is difficult to answer.

One perspective on the globalization of culture, somewhat reminiscent of cultural imperialism in terms
of the nature of the effect of media on culture, but somewhat different in its conceptualization of the issue, is
the view that the media contribute to the homogenization of cultural differences across the planet. This view
dominates conventional wisdom perspectives on cultural globalization conjuring up images of Planet
Hollywood and the MTV generation. One of the most visible proponents of this perspective is political scientist
Benjamin Barber, who formulated his theory about the globalization of culture in the book Jihad vs. McWorld
(1996). The subtitle, "How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World," betrays Barber's reliance on
a binary opposition between the forces of modernity and liberal democracy with tradition and autocracy.

Although Barber rightly points to transnational capitalism as the driving engine that brings Jihad and
McWorld in contact and motivates their action, his model has two limitations. First, it is based on a binary
opposition between Jihad, what he refers to as ethnic and religious tribalism, and McWorld, the capital-driven
West. Barber (1996, p. 157) seemingly attempts to go beyond this binary opposition in a chapter titled “Jihad
Via McWorld," in which he argues that Jihad stands in "less of a stark opposition than a subtle counterpoint."
However, the evidence offered in most of the book supports an oppositional rather than a contrapuntal
perspective on the globalization of culture. The second limitation of Barber's book is that he privileges the
global over the local, because, according to him, globalization rules via transnational capitalism. "[T]o think
that globalization and indigenization are entirely coequal forces that put Jihad and McWorld on an equal
footing is to vastly underestimate the force of the new planetary markets .... It's no contest" (p. 12). Although
5
it would be naive to argue that the local defeats the global, Barber's argument does not take into account the
dynamic and resilient nature of cultures and their ability to negotiate foreign imports.

Another perspective on globalization is cultural hybridity or hybridization. This view privileges an

understanding of the interface of globalization and localization as a dynamic process and hybrid product of
mixed traditions and cultural forms. As such, this perspective does not give prominence to globalization as a
homogenizing force, nor does it believe in localization as a resistive process opposed to globalization. Rather,
hybridization advocates an emphasis on processes of mediation that it views as central to cultural
globalization. The concept of hybridization is the product of interdisciplinary work mostly based in intellectual
projects such as postcolonialism, cultural studies, and performance studies. Hybridization has been used in
communication and media studies and appears to be a productive theoretical orientation as researchers in
international media studies attempt to grasp the complex subtleties of the globalization of culture.

One of the most influential voices in the debate about cultural hybridity is Argentinean-Mexican cultural
critic Nestor Garcia-Candini. In his book Hybrid Cultures (1995), Garcia-Candini advocates a theoretical
understanding of Latin American nations as hybrid cultures. His analysis is both broad and incisive, covering
a variety of cultural processes and institutions such as museums, television, film, universities, political
cartoons, graffiti, and visual arts. According to Garcia-Candini, there are three main features of cultural
hybridity. The first feature consists of mixing previously separate cultural systems, such as mixing the elite
art of opera with popular music. The second feature of hybridity is the deterritorialization of cultural processes
from their original physical environment to new and foreign contexts. Third, cultural hybridity entails impure
cultural genres that are formed out of the mixture of several cultural domains. An example of these impure
genres is when artisans in rural Mexico weave tapestries of masterpieces of European painters such as Joan
Miro and Henri Matisse, mixing high art and folk artisanship into an impure genre.

In media and communication research, the main question is "Have transnational media made cultures
across the globe hybrid by bringing into their midst foreign cultural elements, or have cultures always been
to some extent hybrid, meaning that transnational mass media only strengthened an already-existing
condition?" There is no obvious or final answer to that question, because there is not enough empirical
research about media and hybridity and because of the theoretical complexity of the issue. What does exist
in terms of theoretical understanding and research results points to a middle ground? This position
acknowledges that cultures have been in contact for a long time through warfare, trade, migration, and
slavery. Therefore, a degree of hybridization in all cultures can be assumed. At the same time, this middle
ground also recognizes that global media and information technologies have substantially increased contacts
between cultures, both in terms of intensity and of the speed with which these contacts occur. Therefore, it
is reasonable to assume that transnational mass media intensify the hybridity that is already in existence in
cultures across the globe. Consequently, the globalization of culture through the media is not a process of
complete homogenization, but rather one where cohesion and fragmentation coexist. (Kraidy 2002)

6
 4.2 The Globalization of Religion

OVERVIEW

Over the last decade, the issue of regionalism has once again "been brought back in", albeit in a
different form compared to the debate on regional integration some three decades ago. Thus, I shall argue
that we are dealing with a "new" regionalism. I shall also argue that this regionalism can be seen as a
response to the process of globalization and the social eruptions associated with this process. The second
part of the paper applies the framework to the case of East Asia. As a contested term, globalization has many
definitions, each worthy of merit. Generally, globalization is first thought of “in economic and political terms,
as a movement of capitalism spreading across the globe.” It calls to mind “homogenizing exports of the US”
such as Nike, McDonald’s, and MTV. However, since globalization can be defined as a process of an “ever
more interdependent world” where “political, economic, social, and cultural relationships are not restricted to
territorial boundaries or to state actors,” globalization has much do with its impact on cultures.

As goods and finance crisscross across the globe, globalization shifts the cultural makeup of the globe
and creates a homogenized “global culture.” Although not a new phenomenon, the process of globalization
has truly made the world a smaller place in which political, social, and economic events elsewhere affect
individuals anywhere. As a result, individuals “search for constant time and space bounded identities” in a
world ever changing by the day. One such identity is religion.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

➢ Discuss how globalization has helped to spread religion.

➢ Explain how globalization affects religious practices and beliefs.
➢ Analyze the relationship between religion and global conflict, and conversely, global peace.

Definition of Terms
• Religion – a unified system of beliefs and practice related to a faith, the sacred, higher moral
values.
• Secularization - diminishing role of religion in the society.
• Glocalization of religion – intermingling of universal and local religious beliefs.

The Globalization of Religion

Generally, religion is a “system of beliefs and practices.” More specifically, the word comes from the
Latin “religare” which means “to bind together again that which was once bound but has since been torn apart
or broken.” Indeed, with the globalization of economics and politics, individuals feel insecure “as the life they
once led is being contested and changed at the same time.” Hence, “in order for a person to maintain a sense
7
of psychological well-being and avoid existential anxiety,” individuals turn to scripture stories and teachings
that provide a vision about how they can be bound to a “meaningful world,” a world that is quickly changing
day-by-day.

Nonetheless, the relationship between globalization and religion is one with new possibilities and
furthering challenges. On the one hand, while religion takes advantage of communication and transportation
technology, it is at the same time the source of globalization’s greatest resistance by acting as a haven for
those standing in opposition to its power. On the other hand, because globalization allows for daily contact,
religion enters a circle of conflict in which religions become “more self-conscious of themselves as being
world religions.” This essay argues that the relationship between religion and globalization is complex, one
with new possibilities and furthering challenges. However, this essay cannot provide a comprehensive
overview of religion and globalization, as the terrain is too vast. Still, it does provide several examples to
illustrate the complex relationship between the two.

First, this essay explains how globalization engenders greater religious tolerance across areas such
as politics, economics, and society. Second, it explains that as globalization does so, it also disrupts
traditional communities, causes economic marginalization, and brings individuals mental stress, all of which
create a backlash of religious parochialism. Third, although globalization paves the way in bringing cultures,
identities, and religions in direct contact, this essay also explains that globalization brings religions to a circle
of conflicts that reinforces their specific identities. Finally, using three paradigmatic individuals and their use
of religious ideals in their human rights work, this essay provides some suggestions on how not just religions
but humanity can use existing religious principles as ways to overlook religious and cultural differences.

Secularization

Victor Roudometof (2014) addressed this question in his essay, Religion and Globalization. He started
by pointing out the rift between the study of religion and the social sciences. He furthered underscored how
the focus of social sciences in the past century was secularization – the hypothesized demise of religion
and its value in societies, manifested, for instance, in the separation of the church and the state. It can be
said that secularization is the enforcement of secularism – a philosophical view oriented toward the need for
a secular life beyond one’s religious life.

In an earlier work, Stark (1999) has discussed so comprehensively why the secularization
hypothesis – suggesting that the demise of religion will happen alongside the rise of modernization – does
not hold fast as a sound sociological hypothesis, citing evidence that across centuries there have not been a
stark change in people’s religious beliefs and commitments.

According to Roudometof (2014), there have not been two distinct perspective related to
secularization in the modern times: (1) the notion of post-secularity (Habermas, 2008; Habermas & Ratzinger,
2006) or the return of religious consciousness in the public sphere; and (2) religious modernity, where
secularizationis an active process emerging from social action.

8
Religious Pluralism and Tolerance

One of the consequences and promoters of globalization is cultural diversity. As people let ideas flow
in and out of geographical spaces, we bring in and out, as well our beliefs, values, and traditions. We heard
from old religions the Jewish’s experience of exile or diaspora – when they were sent out from the Land of
Israel, and scattered toward different parts of the world. Today, the same journey is taken by people. The
age of diaspora in the contemporary times happen for various reasons. As people move in and out of
territories, they also carry with them their religious affiliation and its correspondent philosophies and practices.

It is therefore common, in a globalized world, to have smaller groups of people within communities,
whose culture are quite different from the rest. Imagine for instance, a China town in a bustling European
country or a Filipino community in the Middle East. This phenomenon when a smaller group of shared identity
maintains their cultural practices as long as it aligns with the larger society’s norms is referred to as cultural
pluralism. In the context of religion, cultural pluralism requires a certain form of religious tolerance –
allowing others to abide by their own religious practices and beliefs, such as consenting the establishment of
places of worships. Religious tolerance is quintessential in fostering peace in the community (Firduas, 2018).
In a study among university students, it was found that adolescents tend to be more tolerant when they realize
how religious tolerance is part of their religious beliefs and when they are allowed to appreciate the entire
spectrum of their religious tradition than “be religious exclusively with a legal-style ideology” (Firdaus, 2018,
p. 1).

Globalization Engendering Greater Religious Tolerance

Globalization brings a culture of pluralism, meaning religions “with overlapping but distinctive ethics
and interests” interact with one another. Essentially, the world’s leading religious traditions—Hinduism,
Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—teach values such as human dignity, equality, freedom, peace,
and solidarity. More specifically, religions maintain the Golden Rule: “what you do not wish done to yourself,
do not do to others.” Therefore, through such religious values, globalization engenders greater religious
tolerance in such areas as politics, economics, and society.

In political areas, globalization has built global political forums that integrate cultural, ethnic, and
religious differences—ideologies that were once perceived as dividing the world—through a large number of
international organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO), as
well regional organizations like the European Union (EU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC),
or the African Union (AU). When discussing issues such as international peace and security, health issues,
poverty, and environment, these organizations generally share many of the same basic commitments as
religious traditions— mainly peace, human dignity, and human equality, as well as conflict resolution in which
they actively engage in negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy.

In addition to these political organizations, religious communities such as the Roman Catholic Church,
the World Council of Churches, and the Jewish Diaspora also take part in international affairs. For instance,
9
they have taken part in events such the Jubilee 2000, an international effort advocating for cancelling Third
World debt by the year 2000, and the World Faiths Development Dialogue, an effort of international faith
leaders along with the World Bank to support development agendas corresponding to the UN’s Millennium
Development Goals. Furthermore, religious organizations have, themselves, been involved in interreligious
dialogue. The Parliament of the World’s Religions of 1993, first conveyed during the 1893 Chicago World
Exhibit, brought the world’s diverse faith traditions—from African indigenous religions, the major religions
(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), to any forms of faith that would agree to civil dialogue through mutual
encounter—to use their similar values and discuss world affairs.

In terms of economics, as the economy of the major countries of the world has grown, the main
religions of each of those countries have also grown financially, providing more financial resources for
religions to spread their beliefs. For example, although it may seem as an old tactic, missionary work—
especially in light of globalization—is strong in many Third World countries where religious representatives
convert the natives. As a result, the major religions today have scattered across the globe—Christianity
turning “southern” and “black,” Islam turning “Asian,” and Buddhism turning “white” and “western.” Still holding
on to their original territorial spaces where their shrines exist, religions are fulfilling their general purpose of
spreading their beliefs to people all over the world.

Finally, religion has tremendously benefited from technological advancements. For example, websites
provide information and explanations about different religions to any person regardless of his or her
geographical location, as well as provide the opportunity to contact others worldwide and hold debates which
allow religious ideas to spread. Furthermore, television allows for religious channels that provide visual
religious teachings and practices. Hence, by making the leap onto the information superhighway, which
brings religious teachings into every home and monitor in a global setting, religions have come together into
one setting.

In short, globalization allows for religions previously isolated from one another to now have regular
and unavoidable contact. As a result, globalization brings to the light the fact that since religions have similar
values, not one of them is “correct” and, therefore, can be changed. But as the next section shows, the same
process that engenders greater religious tolerance also creates a backlash of religious parochialism.

Globalization Creating Backlash of Religious Parochialism

Since globalization is considered as “the first truly world revolution,” “all revolutions disrupt the
traditions and customs of a people”—that is, “people’s security, safety, and identity.” As globalization disrupts
traditional communities, causes economic marginalization, and brings mental stress, individuals feel these
fewer desirable consequences of globalization. With religion’s power to “convey a picture of security, stability,
and simple answers” through stories and beliefs—unlike economic plans, political programs, or legal
regulations—individuals turn to religion.

10
 First, globalization breaks down traditional communities and replaces them with larger, impersonal
organizations. As globalization creates a “global village,” it dramatically alters what individuals traditionally
understood themselves by— “citizenship,” “nationality,” and “immigration.” For instance, the European Union
(EU) does not call their members by country of origin but rather by their greater title, European citizens.
Moreover, such organizations set universal standards upon all members, causing individuals to believe that
they are not fairly represented. As a result, feeling that these organizations have shattered their “protective
cocoon” that has shielded them in the past, many individuals find comfort in religion.

In giving individuals a sense of belonging, religious groups help them to find themselves in modern
times. For instance, religious leaders, pointing to modern society’s loss of ethical values and increased
corruption, preach, “the only answer to the current ‘decay’ is a return to traditional values and religious norms.”
Hence, religion supplies these individuals with a feeling of being a part of a group that represents their
interests and allows them to regain their traditional sense of who they are.

Second, globalization brings economic marginalization. For example, as transnational corporations

increasingly take over the role of the state’s involvement in the economic sector, the government loses its
status as a welfare provider. Moreover, increasing the gaps between those who have benefit from the global
market (generally the West) and those who have been left behind (generally the Global South), globalization
is seen as “Western imperialism,” as well as “Americanization.” For instance, globalization “encourage [es]
people to buy American goods and services, which ultimately “undermines deep-rooted communal values.”
Simply put, individuals are bombarded with McDonald’s, Nike, and MTV.

By responding to individuals’ desire for welfare, as well as acting as a cultural protection against
globalization, religion plays a social role and gains more recognition from the marginalized, particularly those
in Third World countries. For instance, religious organizations such as Catholic Relief Services, World Vision
International, and Islamic Relief Worldwide help serve the disadvantaged in areas such as poverty relief,
health care, the HIV/AIDs crisis, and environment problems. In fact, even if only promising prosperity and
hope of economic relief, these organizations draw massive followers as, by lacking “extensive transnational
bureaucracies and chains of command,” they provide “the strength of collective identity and the depth of
ethical commitments.”

Last but not least, globalization causes mental stress. Although globalization allows for crisscrossing
borders, it also leaves individuals worrying about losing work, status, or other privileges. Moreover, since
globalization favors material prosperity as the aim of life over inner peace, individuals focus on attaining some
material possession such as a house, car, game, or simply any object. When they attain such item(s),
however, they find themselves empty inside and, therefore, realize that inner peace can never be achieved
through material possessions.

To these individuals then, religion provides them the way to inner peace and the sense of personal
fulfillment. For example, individuals who feel insecure in the globalized world, in business or personal life, will

11
often pray to God for his spiritual support. In addition, these individuals realize that getting involved within
their communities and organizing together in social movements for a good cause brings more satisfaction to
them than do material possessions. They see themselves as being part of something important and
worthwhile.

In short, in face of rapid changes in the globalized world, to regain the sense of certainty, many
individuals turn to religion for a clear explanation of what is going on in the world. With its strength as a
powerful identity that brings the message of unity and security in times of crisis, religion provides the idea of
a “home.” But as the last section demonstrates, this religious identity becomes a major ingredient that reduces
the self and the other to a number of cultural religious characteristics.

Religious Identity and Globalization: Furthering Challenges

As the previous section shows, since God has set the rules and has made them difficult to challenge,
religion provides answers to questions concerning self-identity. However, in providing such answers, religion
also institutes a notion of “truth,” which implies an automatic exclusion of the one—called an “abject”—who
does not adhere to such “truth.” In times of uncertainty like globalization, therefore, collective identity is
reduced to a number of cultural religious characteristics — “them” and “us” and “they” and “our.” In other
words, the abject suddenly becomes recognized as a threat.

For example, since the 9/11 attacks, there has been a tendency of the West to link the religion of
Islam with terrorist practices while Al-Qaeda links the US as Christian or a Judeo-Christian nation. On the
one hand, AlQaeda men who hijacked the planes on 9/11 saw the passengers and those working in the
World Trade Center and Pentagon as “abjects” of Islam. On the other hand, the US-led invasion of
Afghanistan and then Iraq turned into wars of “Islamofacism” and a “crusade” to the divine in getting rid of
evil. Moreover, other attacks on innocent people based on cultural religious characteristics occur today:
Muslims in the United States, Western Europe, or India, Kurds in Iraq, and Jews in France. In other words,
though socially constructed, these cultural religious characteristics become a unifying force against others
not adhering to a particular truth.

Interestingly then, the idea of religious identity in this era of globalization may hold in-line with
Huntington’s thesis. According to Huntington (1990), while conflict during the Cold War occurred between the
Capitalist West and the Communist Bloc East, current and future conflicts are most likely to occur between
the world’s major civilizations, and not the states, including Western, Latin American, Islamic, Sinic (Chinese),
Hindu, Orthodox, Japanese, and the African. In a broader sense, having paved the way for religions to come
in direct contacts with one another, globalization has, indeed, brought religions to a circle of competition and
conflicts. As long as religions see themselves as “world religions” and reinforce their specific identities, the
chance for religions to avoid conflict among one another is grey. Luckily, the final section brings some hope
on how religions can use their existing principles as ways to overlook their differences.

12
Glocalization of Religions

Another phenomenon that matters in analyzing religion trends in the age of globalization is referred
to as glocalization of religion – “universal religion is thematized alongside local particularity” (Beyer, 2007,
cited by Roudometof, 2013, p. 229). This is linked with deterritorialization – the flow of religious traditions
in areas where these traditions are unfamiliar or unpopular, paving way for the emergence of transnational
religious – i.e., “religion ‘going global” (Roudometof, 2015). Historically, we can glean that major religions in
the world originate from particular geographical spaces and has territorial attachments. For instance,
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism can be traced back to the Middle East, while Buddhism and
Taoism from oriental Asia. These religions have proliferated around the world as cultural exchanges between
the East and the West took place during the age of expeditions and colonialism. Nowadays. Arguably, nearly
the same trends can be observed, only faster. Territorial attachments of religions become less and less
profound as they found place in multiple spaces around globe.

In the age of globalization, Roudometof (2013, 2014) suggested four forms of globalization: (1)
vernacularization, (2) indigenization, (3) nationalization, and (4) transnationalization. Each form can be
described as follows:

Description
Form
(Roudometof, 2013, p. 229-231)
Vernacularization • Linking “religious universalism with vernacular language”
• Sacred practices remain to be tied to particular sacred language
• e.g., Arabic to Islam
Indigenization • Linking “religious universalism with local particularism”
• Religious practices are blended with indigenous practices
• e.g., African traditional forms meet Christianity
Nationalization • Linking “universal religion and local, national particularism”
• Emergence of local religions tied with universal religions
• e.g., Church of England
Trans nationalization • Absorption of a universal religion into ones one’s own culture; naturalization
of religion
• Allegiance to global religious community
• e.g., White Anglo-Saxon Protestant among Americans

Conclusion

In a time in which globalization has yet to fully complete its process, religions must use the
communication easily available through advanced technology to focus more on the humane and pluralistic
forms of their teachings— values such as human dignity and human freedom—as means to manage religious
diversity and avoid violence. In other words, religious should be open to other traditions and what they can
teach. In fact, though having “fixed texts,” the major world religions do not have “fixed beliefs,” “only fixed
interpretations of those beliefs,” meaning their beliefs can be “rediscovered, reinvented, and
reconceptualized.”

13
 As interesting examples, in their attempt to create the tradition of nonviolence from diverse religions
and cultures, three paradigmatic individuals—Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr.—
have, indeed, “rediscovered, reinvented, and reconceptualized” the beliefs of the world’s major religions.[58]
The three individuals indicate that “it is possible for narrative diversity to generate a shared ethic without
sacrificing the diversity of particular religions.”

For instance, although coming from a gentry class in Russia and receiving fame and fortune from his
novels, Tolstoy converted to Christianity in part after reading a story about how a Syrian monk named
Barlaam brought about the conversion of a young Indian prince named Josaphat, who gave up his wealth
and family to seek an answer to aging, sickness, and death. Deeply indebted in Buddhism for his conversion
to Christianity, Tolstoy, attempting to live his life by the teachings of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, gave away
all his wealth and spent the rest of his life serving the poor. Nevertheless, the story about Barlaam and
Josaphat has “worked its way into virtually all the world’s religions.”

Similarly, Gandhi, when he encountered Tolstoy’s writings, drew his attention to the power of the
Sermon on the Mount. In encountering Jesus’ Sermon, Gandhi became motivated to “turn the great Hindu
narrative from the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita, in order to find the message of nonviolence within his
own religion and culture.” By finding that Tolstoy’s understanding of the Sermon on the Mount lacked
“nonviolence as an active rather than a passive virtue . . . capable of producing an active resistance to evil,”
he found it present in the Bhagavad Gita. As a result, Ghandi transformed the Bhagavad Gita from a story
that authorized killing to one of nonviolence reflected from the story of Jacob wrestling with the stranger and
Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

Lastly, Martin Luther King, Jr. also drew insight from Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Judaism.
For instance, connecting Gandhi with Jesus Christ, he saw Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence as similar to
Jesus’ suffering on the cross. Therefore, King’s theological theme was the idea that “unmerited suffering is
redemptive,” meaning he constantly reminded blacks that they would experience a “season of suffering”
before they would achieve justice. In general terms, King’s theology focused on values grounded in religion—
justice, love, and hope. In short, as Tolstoy, Ghandi, and King illustrate, “narrative traditions are not mutually
exclusive.” They are connected through themes and, therefore, allow religions to engage in interreligious
dialogue.

As this essay’s previous sections show, religions have, indeed, taken part in dialogues beforehand. As a
further example, religious leaders gathered at the UN’s Millennium Peace Summit in September 2000 to mark
the turn of the millennium. A milestone in itself, as the UN is not a common ground in the sense of an
ecumenical meeting inside a church, synagogue, or mosque but rather a global common ground, the
Summit’s conversation encouraged that world’s religious communities stop fighting and arguing amongst
themselves and begin working together for peace, justice, and social harmony. As then UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan addressed to the Summit, “Whatever your past, whatever your calling, and whatever the

14
differences among you, your presence here at the United Nations signifies your commitment to our global
mission of tolerance, development, and peace.”

Moreover, as transnational corporations increasingly become actors in the international system, one
could argue that religious communities have agreed on “the emerging global ethic” which consists of three
major components: 1) corporations are prohibited from involving in bribes and corruption, 2) corporations are
prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, or gender in the conduct of business,
and 3) corporations are prohibited from activities that pose a significant threat to human life and health. Simply
put, these components are, in themselves, religious values used to regulate the way transitional corporations
increasingly engage in the global market.

The bottom line is that the pieces of interreligious dialogue to manage religious diversity and to avoid
violence are there, but the problem may be of globalization’s intentional and/or unintentional consequence of
making religions more conscious of themselves as “world religions,” as well as the undesirable consequences
of disrupting traditional communities, causing economic marginalization, and bringing individuals mental
stress—all reinforcing religious cultural characteristics and identities. Hence, the relationship between religion
and globalization has brought new possibilities but also furthering challenges.

SUMMARY

Globalization refers to the historical process by which all the world's people increasingly come to live
in a single social unit. It implicates religion and religions in several ways. From religious or theological
perspectives, globalization calls forth religious response and interpretation. Yet religion and religions have
also played important roles in bringing about and characterizing globalization. Among the consequences of
this implication for religion have been that globalization encourages religious pluralism. Religions identify
themselves in relation to one another, and they become less rooted in particular places because of diasporas
and transnational ties. Globalization further provides fertile ground for a variety of noninstitutionalized
religious manifestations and for the development of religion as a political and cultural resource.

REFERENCES

Caparroso, Catherine L. 2023. Modules in The Contemporary World with SARS Education and HIV/AIDS
Awareness. University of Eastern Philippines, Laoang Campus.

Steger, Manfred B., Paul Battersby, and Joseph M. Siracusa, eds. 2014.The SAGE Handbook of
Globalization. Two volumes. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Castillo, Joy S. 2021. Modules in The Contemporary World with SARS Education and HIV/AIDS Awareness.
University of Eastern Philippines, Laoang Campus.

Botor, N. B. et., al. (2020). A Course Module for The Contemporary World. Rex Book Store, p.147-175.

15
SUGGESTED READINGS

Aguilar, Filomeno V. 2012. “Differentiating Sedimented from Modular Transnationalism: The View from East
Asia.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 21(2): 149–171.

Bello, Walden F. 2006. “The Multiple Crises of Global Capitalism.” In Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World
Economy, pp. 1-31. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Castles, Stephen. 2000. “International Migration at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: Global Trends
and Issues.” International Social Science Journal 52 (165): 269–281.

Carter, April. 2001. “Global Civil Society: Acting as Global Citizens” in The Political Theory of Global
Citizenship, pp. 147-176 London: Routledge.

Connell, Raewyn. 2007. “Dependency, Autonomy and Culture. In Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of
Knowledge in Social Science, pp. 139-163. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

16