The Idea of the Internet Homogenizing Culture
The difficulty regarding whether the Internet plays a pivotal role in globalization is a surprisingly contentious and debatable subject matter. Globalization, frequently defined as “the integration of economic capital markets and way of life at some stage in the sector” is visible as an idea that has both negative as well as advantageous advantages. The rate of growth in the globalization of countries and geographical regions is visible to be heavily assisted by way of the rate of information expertise that the Internet presence.
However, even though in concept, the sharing of information is supposed to be useful toward the improvement of humanity, the Internet also gives a pathway to homogenizing lifestyle and creating an unequal gambling discipline for growing international locations. This argument can be without a doubt visible in case research of Asian nations, especially in Thailand. Hence, using the Internet and the growth of businesses at the Internet have accelerated, the question raised is that even though era has superior verbal exchange and know-how, has this benefit affected human beings living in growing international locations, or has the distance between the wealthy and the negative widened?
The Internet is a completely unique form of media. It has the strength to reach many but this is tormented by factors which include economic reputation, technological ability, expertise, and the desire for the medium. The Internet is not necessarily suitable or possible for all of us to have, and in a country like Thailand, it could be absolutely seen that the much less lucky were marginalized, in particular, the uneducated and those from rural regions. For example, seventy percent of Thailand’s Internet users are focused in The Bangkok Metropolitan Area (Hongladaron, 2003) and most effective 4 to 5 percent of Rural Thailand has got right of entry to the Internet.
In a few of his articles, the pupil Hongladaron has also discussed the marginalization of rural Thai citizens. Hongladaron states the advantages of the Internet, however then confirms from his research that because these blessings are only available by way of the rich, hence, due to the poor being marginalized, the Internet may be considered to be a discriminatory shape of the medium. However, Hongladaron additionally argues that the Internet does no longer homogenize cultures. He states that “the relation between computer-mediated communication technologies and nearby cultures is characterized neither by means of a homogenizing impact, no longer by using an erecting of barriers separating one culture from another.” (Hongladaron, 1998).
Hongladaron came to a conclusion approximately the Internet homogenizing tradition, however only to a limited extent. With limited records being available at the approaches that Thai humans engage at the Internet, or view the Internet as a medium, it’s hard to finish whether or not the overall effect of the Internet is homogenizing. However, it may be genuinely said that the Internet does marginalize folks that are not able to apply this medium.
As utilization of the Internet turns into extra famous, the debate of homogenizing tradition is fiercely debated. Some teachers argue that due to the fact the Internet blessings the rich and the educated, people who are able to use the Internet generally have a degree of intellectual functioning, for this reason, the homogenizing of lifestyle is simplest applicable to a limited volume. For instance, the Bengali tribes in Bangladesh practice sustainable living and do now not value the know-how that is presented at the Internet. They view the Internet as a very negative shape of communication, as private touch isn’t always made. Members of the Bengali tribe stay by using the Hindu religion and anyone inside the tribe has a pure function.
Thus, the tribe as an entire is self-enough and individuals do no longer feel the need to adopt the values and the ‘teachings’ of the Internet. Furthermore, indigenous Tibetans are any other instance where the know-how of the Internet does no longer reach humans. Due to their belief of the Buddhist teaching of the Livelihood, they agree with in residing in concord with their surrounding land. Members of those indigenous communities do no longer believe within the Internet as they could argue that the computer is a want and now not a want. Hence, in thinking about the issue of whether the Internet is a device for the homogenization of subculture, despite the fact that a few might say ‘sure’ because of developing Asian international locations becoming westernized due to propaganda at the Internet, others could argue that handiest Asian groups that have already been westernized use the Internet. These teachers might argue that some Asian groups, especially those in indigenous tribal groups, would now not use the Internet because of their cultural paradigm, for this reason, the Internet community is already centered on simply one institution of tradition with one institution of people sharing a commonplace belief: ‘that the Internet is a beneficial tool’.
Finally, it isn’t disputed that the Internet is an area of ‘facts sharing’ and this sharing of expertise may want to result in positive ideologies being more outstanding and trade the mind and practices of different cultures. However, many might argue that even though this is inevitable at the Internet, the Internet cannot manage the way of life of someone’s existence and beliefs, therefore the Internet can only gift another character’s discourse, however, cannot force a person’s ideology to exchange.