![]() |
| Source: http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/green-stats-32-nyt-consumption.jpg |
Globalization is fueling the movement towards a
homogenized universal culture. As
reinforced by Ohmae, globalization is contributing to an increasing homogenization
of local differences and the emergence of a ‘borderless’ world (Ohmae, 1990) . With the blurring of cultural boundaries and
the increasing prevalence of ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson, 1983) , the pressure to
define national culture is becoming more eminent in a bid to counteract the West-Rest
paradigm of cultural imperialism (Iwabuchi, 2010) .
The
scenario of Turka Cola is an example of defiance against Americanization
through Turkish positive nationalism. Positive nationalism is expressed by Özkan &
Foster as “new strategies for
defining the Turkish nation vis-a-vis other nations or, put differently, for
making and managing national culture in this era of globalization.” (Özkan &
Foster, 2005) .
The Cola Turka scenario brings to light consumer
citizenship as a method of manipulation of cultural artifacts, in order to
generate positive nationalism through consumption patterns. “Turkish consumers affirm their national identity through the
purchase of a soft drink. Drinking Cola Turka, then, is qualified as an act of
patriotism.” (Foster,
2008) .
So, if
the purpose behind these anti-colas is to provide consumers with the option of
purchasing a Cola that reemphasizes their cultural identity, doesn't it raise the
question of how a
sugary, caffeinated fizzy beverage is in any way actually related to the
Turkish culture? Therefore, it could be
that the ethos behind these anti-colas, is not only to provide Turkish buyers with a wider choice of products to
consume from, but also symbolizes a nation’s attempt in taking on an American icon
by creating a similar product shrouded with symbols of the cultural essence of
the nation and placing this cultural artifact in a product category that is
accepted globally. In other words “this process puts less stress on defining
markets and identities in terms of bounded territorial units and more stress on
asserting membership in an unbounded commercial arena of world class
consumption” (Özkan & Foster, 2005) .
![]() |
| Source: http://media.ft.com/cms/bab8b306-04cc-11dd-a2f0-000077b07658.jpg |
The concept of positive nationalism raises many concerns. Namely, the foundation of business is providing
consumers with products and services in exchange for money. This has evolved to ensure that consumers
have a variety of choice when it comes to purchasing products; these choices
are based on product features or unique selling points, which can be measured in
monetary terms, such as is it a luxury product? Or a value for money product? Therefore,
a product is marketed to consumers by highlighting its features or benefits. The
use of cultural identity as a marketing tool to sell a consumer commodity is seemingly
a contradiction of the underlying concept of freedom of choice in consumerism;
this is not marketing the products benefits as much as it is marketing what the
product stands for. “In other words, consumerism, with
its dominant values of personal freedom and choice, becomes the vehicle for enacting
citizenship. The market, rather than the state, becomes the immediate reference
point for demonstrating national belonging. Again, we might well pause to consider whether
consumer citizenship of this sort is a form of political resistance or an
instrument for consolidating market rule…”(Foster, 2008) .
This brings me to the questions I will leave you
with… Is your cultural identity so simply defined by what you wear, what you
drink or what you buy? Or is it a deeply
personal connection that cannot be packaged, produced or monetized and sold for
a profit?
![]() |
| Source: http://www.thetinylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ishop.gif |
Reference List:
Anderson, B.
(1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso.
Foster, R. J.
(2008). Coca-globalization : following soft drinks from New York to New
Guinea. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Iwabuchi, K.
(2010). Taking "Japanization" seriously: Cultural Globalization
Reconsidered. In D. K. Thussu, International communication: a reader (ed) (pp.
410– 427). New York: Routledge.
Ohmae, K. (1990). The
borderless world: power and strategy in the interlinked economy. London:
HarperCollins.
Özkan, D., &
Foster, R. J. (2005). Consumer Citizenship, Nationalism, and Neoliberal
Globalization in Turkey: The Advertising Launch of Cola Turka. Advertising
& Society Review.



A great blog post there! I would like to share some of my thoughts regarding this topic. I personally find that the way how the Turkish consumer certifies their fellow country mate to be part of them by introducing Turka Cola just does not make sense. Where is consumers freedom in choosing what they desire most? Is just not right for them to put a "you are not Turkish nationality if you dont consumer Turka Cola" tag on their own people. I believe nationalism has to come from each individual's thoughts, feelings and love for their country and not any materialistic, economic, political and religious agenda influencing a nation's citizens.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your question provided, I would define my cultural identity as behaving and applying practices which are norm within my society and not just by what you wear, what you drink or what you can buy.
The reason why I define it this way is because through globalization, media and cultural imperialism did play a role in shaping an individual in terms on how they (etc: behave, types of media they like, fashion, food).
Furthermore, the origins of a culture (etc : Chinese Culture, American Culture) is no longer being practice by the new generation of X & Y individuals. In the cultural supermarket, individuals can pick any international culture that they are comfortable with of the rack.
In my opinion, what lies in the future for us in terms of cultural identity will be something difficult for an individual to distinguish accurately where is their main roots comes from.
QX, thank you for the wonderful comment and your views. I agree with what you have stated above. I think that the most important view, that we have both arrived at, is that culture is a undefinable concept, that cannot be confined to the rigid constraints of consumerism.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important to recognise that any culture is subject to negotiation and constitutes a network of power flows that do often place a person in situations where their choice is limited.
ReplyDeleteArguing that we can select a culture from a global supermarket ignores the real practices that limit freedom of choice. An example of a legal restriction would be a woman in Saudi Arabia not being able to leave the house without a male escort. An example of a cultural restriction would be gender identity - where a male English man may find it difficult to decide to become a ballet dancer.
I think that the cultural supermarket presents choices. But it's the constrains that influence the final decision. Besides the formal institutions that shape our reality, there are the informal ones. In many cases, people naturally succumb to peer pressure more than anything.
ReplyDeleteHowever so, to define a characteristic of culture I'd say it's confined to an individual's reality. For example, I won't be wanting like the iPod, when my exposure to an iPod is zero to none. Meaning i... what?!
The media is an enabler for the things to be communicated to cultures and as cultures begin to understand it, they desire it. Like in my case, seeing Jobs saying 1000 songs in your pocket!
Not sure if you remember the movie, "The God's must be crazy", but take a look at this scene. Once the tribe had the bottle, to be without it, became difficult (not impossible, but difficult). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQIGiXf0JA
Thus, the case of becoming "reliant" on things upon exposure ... once things become our "reality".