how techology has changed the world

There is no denying that technology has changed the way that global citizens receive, interpret, and react to information. The creation of the internet, at the turn of the twenty-first century, came about the rapid evolution of devices that allow quick and easy communication. The role of consumers has changed due the increased interactions that people have with each other because of technology and media.   As a result, people need to realize that they are no longer just regular citizens, but they are becoming global citizens. As global citizens, people need to acknowledge how powerful the agency of the consumer is in our globalized world.  In other words, the advances in technology have not made consumers powerless, but people need to know how to use the media’s information and cultural products to make informed decisions and take actions such as protesting to improve social problems.  As a result, consumers cannot simply receive information, and do nothing with it they have to reciprocate it take and give information with each other in order to interpret mass media messages and create their own meaning to make important, informed decisions about how they interact with the world. Tomlinson defines a cosmopolitan, as a global citizen who understands that all cultures have compelling aspects and that cultures do not have to be Western in order to be valid. Also, he emphasizes the fact everybody shares a set of equal human rights. However, there are many power imbalances between cultural production and consumption that can never be equal. This is why being a true cosmopolitan is an ideal that people have not yet achieved.  People typically think of a cosmopolitan as a very well traveled upper-class person who is cultured, but what it means to be a cosmopolitan has been redefined as an ideal, not a reality that people have not yet achieved in our globalized world.   In my opinion, despite the fact, technology has improved the agency of consumer, right now people do not have the sense of ethics they need to be a true cosmopolitan. People only know how to do the right thing for their family friends and the people they love, but people do not know to do the right or the good of society as a whole

 Different culture relates to each other in many ways. Pico Iyer’s main point in his Article “Love Match”, is the fact that the agency of the consumer leads to cultural hybridization because every culture interprets the same media in different ways. For example, in the United States, the movie “Rambo” symbolized a strong independent American hero even though America lost the Vietnam War. However, in India, five different remakes of Rambo were created, and in Thailand, Rambo was utilized as government propaganda. This illustrates how the same mass media is used differently by different cultures. In my opinion, imperialist’s nations want to maintain cultural differences to keep their superiority. Despite the fact that western countries like being modern, but when they see non-western nations trying to achieve modernity with their own unique cultural differences.  On one hand, imperialistic nations need cultural differences between them and non-western countries in order to maintain their superiority. On the contrary, we think that non-western countries are losing their cultures.  As a result, the reasons that non-western nations believe that The United States is the best country regarding privilege and resources, they are not envious of the western culture. This is the double edge sword of imperialistic arrogance.

Punkakamber discusses how Bollywood is cultural products of mass consumption such as movies relate to different cultures One of his main points is that mass media allows for cultural deterritorialization and re-localization to occur. Bollywood has always been global but in a variety of ways. Traditionally Bollywood catered to the masses of India. However, Bollywood has recently begun catering to the elite of India (NRI’s).  NRI is a diaspora of the Indian population, they can be born anywhere in the world, but possess Indian citizenship.   In class, we saw a video about the Indian man traveling from his village to the city, who was singing about the fact that his hat is from Russia, his pants are from American, his shirt is Chinese, his shoes are from Italy, but his heart is Indian.  This proves that India has many different influences from all over the world and is global but still maintains its identity. Bollywood takes aspects from other cultures but has created something unique. Hollywood movies are also received and interpreted by each culture differently.   For example, Japan has Bollywood dance classes also Japan has massive choreographed dance numbers in which Japanese citizens are dressed in Indian attire dancing to Hollywood music. 

Benavides discusses how soap operas perpetuate western superiority. Latin American women strive to achieve Western ideals because they want to have modernity and the privilege associated with it .as a result, they want to improve their place in our globalized world that was ruined due to colonization by superior western nations.  Latin Americans know that they will never have a place to where they are fully accepted in the modern western world even If they achieve modernity. They still desire to allow in the western world.   Despite the fact that Ugly Betty reached modernity, she had to change her appearance and thus, fragment her identity.  As a result, she becomes entirely a different person.  This is despite that Latin Americans know that they are inferior to the western nation, and they are never accepted in western society.  As a result,   Latin American soap operas perpetuate western ideals of beauty that everyone wants to achieve but in reality, not even American people or the models in the picture ever attain these ideals. These ideals are like an open door that never be entered. Ugly Betty achieved modernity but in order to do, she rejected her own culture and identity. Soap operas show that for modernity to achieved Latin Americans believe that they have to conform to western ideals in order to be accepted in the globalized world. This act of conforming leads to people dismantling their identity until there is nothing left. They are destroying themselves as Ugly Betty did. This leads to a fractured self because individuals who achieve modernity are not who they are supposed to be because they are giving up their culture for such unrealistic expectations that are unreachable.  In my opinion, being modern does not mean that people need to destroy their cultures and become completely different individuals, in reality, the process of being modern comes from how a person is living their life.

Technology has given way to the rise of the conscious consumer. Benavides argues that soap operas perpetuate western superiority and Pico Iyer’s main point in his Article “Love Match is the fact that the agency of the consumer leads to cultural hybridization. Puthakameber states that mass media leads to cultural deterritorialization and re-localization. Tomlinson said that being cosmopolitan is an ideal  In my opinion despite the fact technology has improved the agency of consumers right now people do not have the sense of ethics they need to be a real cosmopolitan. People only know how to do the right thing for their family friends and the people they love, but people do not know to do the right or the good of society as a whole.   As a result as of now Technology has given way to the rise of the conscious consumer, but it is not enough to make people real cosmopolitans because they still do not know how to do the right thing for society and just ourselves. To be true cosmopolitans we need a new sense of morality, we need a set of shared universal rights that everyone can agree on and rights that not imposed on the weak by the strong.   Everyone needs to be treated equally under these universal rights. Universal rights may never happen, and we are not yet morally capable of withstanding the responsibility of being a cosmopolitan.  Therefore being a cosmopolitan is only a possibility, not a reality.