The Simplicity of Choice

Philippe LeGrain has a definite skill for trivialization. In his essay “Cultural Globalization is not Americanization” he argues against the commonly held belief (an assumption in itself) that the influx of American goods and media into other countries is having a destructive effect on foreign cultures and societies. His most successful arguments come from his reliance on the perseverance of local cultures in the face of American products – local television is more popular than American programming; local pop music is more popular than American exports. He stresses that American companies are not the only large corporations that flood the world with consumer goods; France, Spain, Britain, Sweden, and Italy have all been able to influence global shoppers with their own versions of what individuals need to obtain fleeting happiness. I agree with LeGrain in some respects. The United States does not have a corner on artistic innovation. Globalization has resulted in the confluence of many different cultures other than American ideas. I think that LeGrain oversteps his argument, however, when he suggests that this integration is only positive because it is rooted in individual choice. LeGrain states that “people choose the new ways because they are more relevant to their current needs and offer new opportunities that the old ones did not.” (p. 523) Yet, who determines our needs? What constricts our choices? Large multinational corporations that can spend inordinate amounts of money on complex advertising schemes can convince millions that they have new “needs” that must be met. These same corporations can constrict choices by buying out the opposition. Whether or not large multinational conglomerates are American is not a major issue; on that LeGrain and I are in agreement. The real issue with globalization, as I see it, is that these growing economic juggernauts are able to gain more influence with our choices. If choice is compromised, so is the marketplace of ideas.