Taking into consideration the close relations of the issues of globalization and cultural acceptance, there is a strong necessity to mention that the multiple renditions of globalization, as well as the appearing of the frames in international communication, are closely associated with the worldwide manifestation of the globalization failures, and lack of cultural acceptance.
Originally the association of these two issues is closely linked with the concept that to unite, there is a strong necessity to be patient, tolerant, and wide open for the perception of the other culture. In the light of this fact, it should be emphasized that it is impossible to globalize the world without proper understanding and clear realizing of the needs and requirements of all the participants of the globalization process. Originally, these requirements are based on the cultural backgrounds of the people.
It should be emphasized that cultural acceptance is one of the most noticeable tendencies in the world nowadays. Consequently, the processes of globalization are regarded to be among the most burning issues.
The importance of the allover topic is generally regarded through the context of the numerous processes, and one of the most noticeable, is, probably the phenomenon of the Korean Wave. Lo and Marcotullio (2001, p. 107) emphasize the following statement on this matter:
At the global level, it signifies multidirectional transnational cultural flows in which the previous cultural peripheries began to have a presence and a voice in the cultural centers or cores. What this phenomenon also signifies is the regionalization of transnational cultural flows as it entails Asian countries’ increasing acceptance of cultural information from neighboring countries that share similar economic and cultural backgrounds rather than from economically and politically powerful others. Above all, new cultural formations are in the making, and the Korean Wave is the first sign of how a country “in-between” can find a niche and reposition itself as an influential cultural mediator and creator amid the global cultural transformation.
In the light of this consideration, there is a strong necessity to emphasize that it is often suggested that globalization as an integral process of the contemporary world causes the exploitation of weaker nations, and neo-Marxist researchers regard globalization as the closer integration of the core, semi-periphery, and periphery. Consequently, numerous instances of resistance are observed. Nevertheless, from the cultural point of view, it should be emphasized that globalization, and all the processes, associated with it, are challenging resistance and ignorance because of the lack of tolerance and openness to new cultures.
Nevertheless, the issues of peace often depend on globalization rates. Thus, peacekeeping operations are often of international origin. Humanitarian actions are performed by participants from all over the world.
Taking into consideration the fact, that globalization is mostly opposed by the nationalists, it should be emphasized that nationalism is often regarded as a serious form of ignorance, as it often presupposes the ignorance and absence of tolerance towards all the cultures, except the native only. Consequently, it is hard to talk of cultural acceptance, when the development and spread of the nationalistic movements are extensive. As Salyer (2006, p. 61) states:
A strong reaction or backlash of ‘nationalism’ therefore, may raise its head in certain pockets of the world. Such voices of protectionism are heard mainly in poor and under-developed nations. In India also we hear these dissents from time to time. Malaysia is another nation as an example.
From this point of view, it should be emphasized that the process of nationalism development may be subjected to the essential setback, while the globalization process is difficult to stop, or at least half.
From the economic point of view, it should be emphasized that globalization of business is the most extensive process in the sphere of globalization. The fact is that economic value and benefits are considered to be the most powerful motivators, thus, people forget cultural, ethnic, and other differences, and start fruitful cooperation. Globalization of the economy is the top phase of the evolution of human dreams. On the other hand, providing the spread of cultural and religious ideas, globalization may solve the difficulties of globalization opposition by itself, thus, extending the ranges of global economic cooperation. As Adler and Graham (2002, p. 169) emphasize:
Initially, an economically strong nation may dominate and entrusts its religious ideas over the weaker nations, but in the long run, globalization will prove to be beneficial; as powerful and true religious ideas find seekers of truth from various places.
The actions by Obama are generally estimated from various positions. The fact is that Republicans can not realize his claim to pay attention to the internal affairs and problems of the USA, while most of them are rooted in the issues of foreign affairs. Democrats appreciate his actions, performed in the context of inner regulation, and encourage him to decrease the expenses for military affairs and development. The fact is that it is attributable to the republicans and democrats of all over the world, as globalization gives an excellent opportunity to get to know the information of most events, which happen in the world.
In the light of the perspective that globalization offers numerous advantages, it should be emphasized that cultural acceptance is important for not only the individuals or particular ethnic groups. Originally, it is important for the whole country, as possible benefits are more serious than possible problems and difficulties.
Bibliography
Adler, Nancy J., and John L. Graham. “Cross-Cultural Interaction: The International Comparison Fallacy?.” Journal of International Business Studies 20.3 (2002): 515.
Feeney, Don J. Creating Cultural Motifs Against Terrorism : Empowering Acceptance of Our Uniqueness /. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.
Leavitt, Ronnie Linda, ed. Cross-Cultural Rehabilitation: An International Perspective. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 2003.
Lo, Fu-Chen, and Peter J. Marcotullio, eds. Globalization and the Sustainability of Cities in the Asia Pacific Region /. New York: United Nations University Press, 2001.
Ong, Aihwa. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. Globalization or Empire?. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Salyer, Monte. “Educators and Cultural Diversity: A Six-Stage Model of Cultural Versatility.” Education 113.3 (2006): 503.
Schooler, Carmi. “Cultural and Social-Structural Explanations of Cross-National Psychological Differences.” Annual Review of Sociology (2006): 323.
Schumaker, John F., and Tony Ward, eds. Cultural Cognition and Psychopathology. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2001.
Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M., and Desirée Baolian Qin-Hilliard, eds. Globalization: Culture and Education in the New Millennium. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004.