Explaining Capitalism and New Technologies (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

Name Course Institution Instructor Date Explaining Capitalism and New Technologies 1) Introduction The term "cultural imperialism" refers to the notion that the culture of a powerful institution, nation, or civilization has a significant, unreciprocated influence on the culture of a less powerful organization, to the extent that one might speak of cultural "domination." Cultural imperialism can be regarded as a theory, particularly when experts argue that the influence of the culture of the more powerful entity has had a negative and pervasive effect on the weaker culture. Herbert Schiller was the leading theorist of cultural imperialism in the West. In the 1970s, the notion was adopted and supported by both the Non-Aligned Movement and UNESCO. Cultural imperialism analysis frequently incorporates conceptions of media imperialism in relation to (1) digital, electronic, and print media—their production, industrialization, content, distribution, and capital accumulation; (2) cultural meanings and identities that media evoke among audience and receivers’ cultures; (3) media and audience interrelations in representations of ideas, people, and topics; and (4) relationships between centers of power and in the representational system. According to both Herbert Schiller's and Michael Curtin's studies, the media are logically assimilated as essential components and elements of cultural imperialism. However, the media's significance can sometimes be underestimated. The term mediatization signifies that "knowledge" of social practices relies substantially on media depictions. Social activities that are viewed as direct may be performed for media or established by media exposure. 2) Capitalism Capitalism is a type of economic system in which the production means are privately owned and operated for profit. The major features of capitalism include wage labor, voluntary exchange, capital accumulation, recognition of property rights, private property, the pricing system, and competitive markets. In the United States, the increase in corporate-controlled information is not a new phenomenon. Mergers between multinational corporations have shaped a structure of information centralization and eroded the boundaries between business and culture. New technology, shifting market dynamics (particularly new deregulation regulations), and political forces have supported this business climate and permitted increased privatization of information resources, so widening the information "haves" and "have-nots" divide. Herbert Schiller investigates the effects of commercialization, privatization, and centralization of culture. Schiller begins by analyzing corporate changes after the end of The Second World War, notably the increased internationalization of American business. In his essay, the author's primary objective is to identify the elements that contributed to the centralization of commercial power and to identify the important variables that have shaped the economy into the current corporate-dominated environment. He contends that cultural goods define the 20th century. Capitalism is summed up by the use of paid labor, the private ownership of the creative product of work, and the sale of these things for a profit (Schiller, pp. 7). He acknowledges that capitalism has resulted in greater efficiency and productivity; however, the working class has paid a high price for capitalism's successes in terms of the loss of solidarity, violence, breakdown of human associations, loneliness, indifference between individuals, and a sense of purpose and function loss. Moreover, he contends that since the advent of capitalism, market control over symbolic output and creativity has expanded unevenly, with certain creative sectors holding unique characteristics or offering higher resistance to their corporate takeover. In tandem with the privatization of symbolic activity, its production has been rationalized (Schiller, pp. 11- 13). This comprises the creation of more efficient processes and the innovation of methods to increase market output on a worldwide scale. The essay "On Edge: Culture Firms in the Neo-Network Era" contends that US media industries essentially abandoned their mass-market strategy to audience engagement in the 1990s. Instead of publishing and producing something—a television series, a musical recording, a film—and hoping for a blockbuster, US media businesses have mostly resorted to aggregating a diverse array of niche markets in order to increase or even maintain their market share (Curtin, pp. 183 – 185). Through a nearly two-decade decades wave of media consolidation, media industries abusing capitalism policies were able to achieve this by the 1990s. A media business would purchase its rivals in order to release niche-market content in addition to the mass-market hits that these same media companies have produced for decades. The media statement was unambiguous: if you can't defeat them, buy them. 3) New Technologies In both essays, the authors detail how new technologies have replaced previous media with new and better inventions. The development of the computer, the communication satellite, fiber optics, cable, television, radio, and the printing press have revolutionized communication. The instantaneous and global transmission of artistic outputs is now theoretically achievable, though political concerns may, in some circumstances, act as limiting factors. For instance, when the government lobbied against the most efficient UHF in order to give the VHF manufacturer an advantage. Due to the pervasiveness of mass communication, new technology has enabled every person to become brand-aware in light of the effectiveness of advertising. The authors admit that the rapid expansion of the cultural industries cannot be solely attributed to better technological capabilities but also the social structure. 4) Linking both Capitalism and New Technologies Herbert Schiller argues that the moment corporations have developed a market demand for cultural products, they might begin to blur the line between public and private spheres of life. Every decade, multinational media acquisitions are a source of concern. The intentional concentration of media-related businesses in the hands of a few dominant corporations is viewed not only as monopolistic but also as a censor of cultural expressions and ideas. If the media constitutes the largest portion of our communal cultural expression, it is then genuinely a corporate culture, with corporate leaders dictating "acceptable" forms of cultural expression (Schiller, pp. 15). In addition, by permitting companies to retain this level of cultural influence, the general populace grows passive and inclined to accept these rules as societal norms. In his essay, Michael Curtin argues that despite the concentration of ownership, the diversity of media content distributed by the media industries has substantially increased, especially in ...