Comparison: Morris and Poster articles

In light of the recent global news events lately, I chose Mark Poster's "Global Media and Culture" and Nancy Morris's "Myth of Unadulterated Culture Meets the Threat of Imported Media."

Isolated cultures existed before mass media, but they are vanishing due to exposure from other cultures, is the central presumption, with which the authors begin.

Certainly contact with others does not leave the individuals unchanged, but this is hardly a new threat to civilization. There has always been contact between groups of people. Encounters led to the exchange of ideas, fostered empathy for other people, and technology and art was developed and shared. Even in instances of cultural influence, variants often exist locally, with people using different materials, changing the style, altering the techniques of production, or the subject matter of art to suit themselves.

I wondered about the "concerned voices" Morris referenced in her article. A man from the film industry in Quebec and a critic of American TV in Puerto Rico were worried about the affects foreign media would certainly have on their native cultures. The fact that both of these places continue to wrestle with assimilation and independence issues is notable. Even the people within the respective cultures disagree about separatism or unity, so it's not an issue that's been settled by those it affects, by any means.

Further, adoption of these new practices is not immediate or total, as Morris notes. 

Just considering music technology, 8-track players, mini discs were essentially flashes in the pan, and some might suggest that CDs are becoming obsolete, too. Analyzing our music listening habits at the height of popularity for any of those technologies would provide a different picture than one might get observing from a different point in time. Similarly, culture isn't so much a photographic snapshot, but a mini-series. It's a summation of many factors, over time. Looking at the choices people are making at a single moment doesn't tell the whole story.

If changes are slowly happening, do we need to concern ourselves about the erosion of culture? Democratization of the culture is, according to Poster, a positive result of the proliferation of personal media. The means of production have become cheap and accessible, compared to the vast sums of money formerly required to make a feature film, publish a book or record and distribute music. Those activities are no longer the domain of a few wealthy corporations, but can be accomplished by motivated people with a few pieces of technology and a story to tell, from their own homes, dorms, or classrooms. Poster also acknowledges the existence of local variations among these independently produced communications. Local culture isn't dead, it's evolving.

But the evolution is threatened, both authors caution, by the tendency of large multinational corporations to attempt to buy, sell and control the media for profit, often using American copyright law. In earlier centuries, culture spread as an after-effect of profiteering. Corporations such as the Virginia Company or the British East India Company would spread culture in their quest for something else of value. Now, the drive to make a buck is still relevant, but it's selling the culture itself that's making the cash registers ring.