G

Globalization and Culture Culture and Globalization

Chantal Crozet The cultural dimension of globalization, or “cul-

School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, tural globalization” refers to the circulation and
RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia sharing of ideas and of meanings and values
across countries; hence across cultures, with the
effect of increasing social contacts (Paul 2006),
Introduction this presumably leads to more positive human
interconnectedness. Reflecting on how culture
Given the wide interest in both globalization and has been understood and used so far helps in
culture from diverse academic fields such as turn understand issues associated with its global
anthropology, sociology, communication and circulation and sharing.
media, cultural and language studies, colonial
and indigenous studies, and political science and
Culture
international relations, it is not surprising to find
As humans, we produce culture to make and share
little consensus in the literature on the definitions
meaning over everything we do, feel, think, and
of these two concepts, let alone consensus on how
believe in. In this sense culture is an intrinsic part
they relate to each other and on their role and
of human nature (Geertz 1973). Without culture
impact on individuals and societies.
Geertz (1973, p. 49) further argues, men (and
This entry provides insights into the links
women) would be “unworkable monstrosities”
between globalization and culture, based on a
and “mental basket cases” incapable of making
selective review of the literature, aiming to offer
sense of themselves, others and the world they
some reference points for further reflection to pro-
live in. Culture helps identify distinct collectivi-
fessionals, researchers, and students in public
ties (Grillo 2003). It can be thought of as a blue-
administration and public policy. It reflects first
print left to individuals to share and to adopt, or
on the concepts of culture and of globalization,
not. In any case, as pointed out by Hearn (2006):
what characterizes both and how they relate to
each other. It then focuses on the links between . . .. culture is not a private affair – it is by definition
shared, however imperfectly with other people.
culture, globalization, and language followed by (Hearn 2006, p. 170)
concluding remarks.

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017

A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1319-1
2 Globalization and Culture

Traditionally a differentiation has been made whether culture is a static/objective or a dynamic/

between high and low culture. High culture refers subjective phenomena (see Grillo 2003; Matera
to the dominant elitist form of a culture (e.g., its 2016, for instance, for an account of these “culture
literature and its fine arts), dominant in the sense wars”). The static/objective, also called modern-
that it tends to be shared by a minority of people ist, view of culture represents a scientific and
with the highest socioeconomic power. By con- descriptive interpretation of culture, articulated
trast, low culture refers to the way of life shared by first by the British anthropologist Edward Burnett
the majority of a given people of all social back- Tylor and for who culture was a complex whole of
grounds. It includes, for instance, national cui- fixed, clearly identifiable attributes, such as:
sines and its variations, national preferred sports, knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, and custom
popular festivities including popular music, and (Tylor 1871). The later more dynamic/subjective,
fashion. However, democratic and global pro- also called postmodernist, view of culture is
cesses have watered down the divide between embedded in Geertz’s (1973) early work. It
high and low culture by valuing all forms of focuses on the search for meaning in culture,
cultural expression. Nonetheless it is still a useful rather than mere description and categorization,
distinction to capture power in culture dynamics in his words:
in particular contexts. Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance
French sociologist Bourdieu (1986) introduced he himself has spun. I take culture to be those webs
the concept of “cultural capital,” in the context of and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experi-
his work on class inequalities in education. It is ential science in search of law but an interpretive
one in search of meaning. (Geertz 1973, p. 6)
however a useful concept in many other contexts.
Cultural capital, according to Bourdieu, is Since the 1970s, postmodern views on culture
acquired from one’s particular socioeconomic have been dominant in academia, aware of the
background and degree of formal education and unreliability of fixed metanarratives on what con-
would determine one’s place in social hierarchies. stitutes culture (see Lyotard 1979). Some aca-
It includes three dimensions of culture: embodied, demics, concerned that cultural discrimination is
objectified, and institutionalized. For example, fed by modernist hence essentialist interpretations
one’s accent in speaking a national language is of culture (an essentialist interpretation of culture,
embodied culture (with all its possible social vari- also called “cultural essentialism” refers to an
ables), the ownership of goods such as real estate understanding and use of culture as static and
is objectified culture, and educational qualifica- bounded. It does not recognized the fact that all
tions represent institutionalized culture. Critics of cultures have many variables, are diverse,
Bourdieu have pointed out a lack of consideration dynamic, and changeable within themselves.
given to individual agency in his theory of culture Nationalist political movements commonly seek
reproduction, as well as of consideration of the to promote essentialist perspectives on culture.),
impact of the growth of the middleclass on class go as far as suggesting to abandon the concept
inequalities (see Goldthorpe 2007; King 2000). (For altogether. Wikan (1999), for instance, proposes
both praise and critics of Bourdieu’s key theoretical to consider instead only individuals and their
concepts, see Coulangeon and Duval (2013).) rights. Wagener (2015) proposes to replace the
The concepts of high and low culture, of iden- culture concept with new theories capable of
tifiable collectivities on the basis of culture, and of explaining better the complexities of daily life,
cultural capital, however useful they may be in which implies considering the role of power in
understanding the plays of culture in societies and the working of culture in social, ethnic, and polit-
individuals, must take account of further charac- ical tensions.
teristics of the nature of culture. The notion of “intersectionality” captures suc-
Academics, in particular anthropologists for cinctly the interplay between power, culture,
whom culture is central to their discipline, have class, ethnicity, and gender. Intersectionality
fought wars over this matter, trying to determine (or intersectional theory), as a concept, was first
Globalization and Culture 3

coined by Crenshaw (1991), in the context of acknowledge the significant gap between popu-
discrimination and violence against women. It is lar/public versus academic discourses on culture
now widely applied in other contexts requiring an (see Grillo 2003; Steger 2014). In Grillo’s words:
understanding of the dynamics between power . . .the disjunction between vernacular, common
and cultural variables. sense and essentialist conceptions of cultures
One way out of the controversy over the nature which dominate public discourses and theorized
of culture and its complexity is to go back to and intellectualised accounts of academics and
functionaries (postmodernist or modernist) with
Williams’ (1977) concept of culture as dynamic their very different social and political agenda has
and contradictory interactions between dominant, never been greater. Grillo (2003, p. 163)
residual, and emergent forms of culture, with the
Grillo makes this argument in the context of his
caveat that those three forms of culture can be
call for a better understanding of why cultural
both tangible and intangible. Tangible culture
refers to visible aspects of culture such as tradi- essentialism is having such a popular grip in cur-
rent times. Even though essentialist interpreta-
tional French cuisine, Japanese manga, or the
tions of culture are commonly dismissed in
practical dimensions of religious rituals. Whereas
intangible culture refers to the less visible aspects academic discourse to be no more than a “figment
of the mind” (Wikan (1999) quoted in Grillo
of culture in the domain of beliefs, myth, ideolo-
(2003, p. 158)), they are nonetheless real under
gies (religious, political, and other), as well as
aspirations and projections – what Appadurai currents which can undermine or make any polit-
ical agenda. Brexit and President Trump’s election
(1996) coined “imaginary work” (see further dis-
testifies to the existence of popular essentialist
cussion on this topic in the next section), intangi-
ble culture in this sense operates on a more sentiment toward British and American culture
which are real, alive, and kicking and that neither
subjective and also unconscious level; hence it is
politically nor academically correct agenda could
harder to capture.
predict.
The notion of dominant culture in Williams can
The Franco-Lebanese and renowned essayist
help explain how dominant social structures are
Amin Maalouf (2009), greatly concerned about
maintained but also how they can be subverted by
the “imaginary certitudes” promoted by cultural
dissident individuals or groups of individuals.
essentialists, advocates a new role for culture
Residual culture is the influence of old cultural
which he equates to knowledge of cultural diver-
patterns, either archaic, outdated but still influenc-
sity for all, with no value distinction between high
ing the current culture, can be dominant, or not.
and low culture. He believes education urgently
Emerging culture represents new cultural ideas
needs to promote this kind of inclusive global
and practices, including those produced by minor-
culture as “intellectual and moral tools” for global
ity groups, potentially from all strata of society,
survival in the twenty-first century, in his words:
and which can become mainstream or not. The
hippie culture of the 1960s in Western countries is Today the role of culture is to provide our contem-
a good example of what amounted to emerging poraries the intellectual and moral tools which will
allow them to survive – nothing less. (Malouf 2009
culture at the time. Some may consider that the p. 203)
hippie culture has now become residual, is out-
dated, but still influencing current Western cul- Having discussed some different ways of
ture. Jihadism as new forms of Islamist militant approaching an understanding of culture and its
movements in the twenty-first century, or uses, consideration is given next to the impact of
ecosustainability as an environmental movement, globalization on culture. (Traduction from the
are other examples of new emerging ideological author of the French original: ‘Aujourd’hui, le
forms of culture, both with their varying national role de la culture est. de fournir à nos
and local overtones. contemporains les outils intellectuels et moraux
In understanding varying approaches to con- qui leur permettront de survivre – rien de moins’
ceptualizing culture, it is also important to Malouf (2009 p. 203).)
4 Globalization and Culture

Globalization and Culture of a culture over another, as in the case of the

Globalization, alike culture, is very much a dis- Japanization of Korean culture or the
puted and slippery concept, too complex Steger Russianization of the people of Armenia and of
(2014) argues “to force into a single analytical the Baltic Republics.) of the world’s cultures,
framework.” It is not the privileged study of any creating a palpable hierarchy of cultures, espe-
discipline. It concerns and challenges all cially in terms of the economic edge the produc-
disciplines. tion and diffusion of global culture can give.
However, there is consensus, at least in the Marin (2010) dates the start of the cultural
literature, over the fact that cultural globalization Westernization of the world to the Crusades and
(if not other global processes) intensifies social the first discoveries of Africa and America. More
interactions across cultures, as mentioned earlier, to the point, he argues that these prompted the
and that current, as opposed to earlier, forms of start of globalization of the economy, leading
global cultural interactions are of a new order. overtime to the imposition of the capitalist
This new order is the result of the increased (neoliberalism) model as we know it today,
global flow of populations, involuntary (i.e., worldwide.
forced migration) or voluntary (e.g., international Alike culture in a national context, cultural
trade and tourism), of larger access to mass media globalization has tangible and more intangible
and of new technologies of communication. dimensions. The proliferation on the planet of
Appadurai (1996, p. 28) qualifies this new order American fast-food chains like Kentucky Fried
as being “filled with ironies and resistances,” Chicken, McDonald’s, or Starbucks, what Rizer
meaning that the impact of globalization on cul- calls (1993) generally “the McDonaldization of
ture is experienced with hiccups and contradic- society,” are examples of tangible cultural global
tions by nearly every country on the planet. One impact. Another example is the increase of the
reason for this is that, although globalization has “migrant presence” (Martin 1985), which
an undeniable homogenizing effect on culture, it involves the increased visible presence of the cul-
is always experienced in, and affected by, local turally different others in people’s neighborhood,
contexts. Thus, it can reinvigorate local cultural at least in Western countries. This rapprochement
practices rather than debunk them, especially of cultures as lived reality, or factual multicultur-
when cultural globalization is perceived as a threat alism, can promote more understanding and
or produces forms of cultural hybridization, two appreciation across cultures, as well as more
different processes Robertson (1997) calls pro- desire for the supremacy of the dominant culture.
cesses of “glocalization.” For the postcolonial Hage (1998), for example, explored what he
theorist Homi Bhabha (1994), there is however called “fantasies of white supremacy” in an
ever and only cultural hybridity, especially from Australian context, showing the limits of multi-
the minority perspective. He warns not to read the culturalism when it only tolerates cultural differ-
representation of difference as “the reflection of ence rather than embraces it.
pre-given ethnic or cultural traits set in the fixed Adding to the concept of “the migrant pres-
tablet of tradition” (Bhabha 1994, p. 2). ence” is the notion of the “deterritorialization of
The tension between the homogeneity versus culture” as the disembedding of social relations
heterogeneity/hybridity/and diversity of culture is (see Giddens 1990; Papastergiadis 2000), that is,
a common popular concern, in particular in rela- the fact that culture and space (as in countries) are
tion to cultural globalization. At the core of this no longer necessarily linked. The Irish cultural
tension is the fact that cultural globalization is presence in New York, the Turkish cultural pres-
perceived to be largely the Westernization, if not ence in Germany, or the Indian cultural presence
the Americanization (Appadurai (1996, p. 32) in South Africa are examples of the
notes that cultural globalization should include deterritorialization of culture that is of cultural
not only the Americanization of other cultures. It expression which has moved outside its original
should also consider other instances of dominance physical environment to new foreign contexts.
Globalization and Culture 5

The term “reterritorialization” is used when the fabrication of social lives for many people in many
migrant cultural community is deemed to have societies. (Appadurai 1996, pp. 53–54)
become part of the local culture. The freeing of individual imaginations intrinsic
Finally, the role of international mass media, to global cultural growth no doubt impacts on the
satellite television, and other new technologies of construction of self and identity. It also increases
communication are ought to be mentioned as they the opportunity for new collective transcultural
are commonly considered to be the primary cause ideologies to develop based on imagined worlds.
of global mass culture, this because of the com- A particular target for ideological reconfiguration is
mon images and discourses they produce and the realm of religious beliefs, beyond the scope of
diffuse worldwide. The label “mass culture” refers this entry to consider, though a key feature to a
to the behavior, ideas, and values that are pro- deep understanding of global, national, local, and
duced from common exposure to the same media. individual culture making.
Scholars disagree over the level of impact of The many shapes and turns that cultural global-
global mass media on individuals and societies. ization can take are explored further in a final
Sparks (2000), for instance, argues that no such section which focuses on the important role lan-
mass media can ever be so global in managing to guage plays in relation to culture and globalization.
reach a majority of people on a world’s scale, even
though more and more people have access to new
technologies, such as Internet, but because it
would have to constantly do so in a high number Language, Culture, and Globalization
of languages. Kraidy (2002) argues that there are
many alternatives to “media imperialism” on local Language, culture, and communication are inti-
levels and further that even when mass media and mately linked as humans cannot help but catego-
new technologies produce cultural hybridity, this rize and express their experience of the world
very hybridity can defy structures of power. through linguistic and cultural filters (Kramsch
A point reinforced by Magu (2015): 1998; Liddicoat 2009). However, the relationship
between language, culture, communication, and
. . . cultures are not ‘victims’ of globalisation or the
globalization is highly complex.
proliferation of mass media. Cultures actively adopt
and integrate globalization’s technological arte- Firstly, the majority of people on the planet,
facts. Globalization’s positive effects are dynamic roughly 80%, are multilinguals (Blanchet 2016).
and span cultural interactions and permeate struc- Multilinguals use the various linguistic and cul-
tures of authority at personal, national and global
tural filters that they have at their disposal to
levels. (Magu 2015, p. 630)
communicate in variable and creative ways,
Appadurai (1996:53) suggests that imagination constructing unique subjective realities and iden-
has acquired a new role and power in social life, tities in the process (Kramsch 2009). Secondly,
due greatly to the impact of global mass media on from a global standpoint, the relationship between
individuals. He argues that more and more ordi- language and culture is increasingly no longer one
nary people are provided with “a rich, ever- to one but one too many. That is, one language can
changing store of possible lives,” a choice which express and represent different cultures, as in the
can both empower or disrupt. Imagination, he clear cases of world languages such as English,
further argues, which in the past was part of the Arabic, French, and Spanish.
creation of art, myth, and legend, is now part of For instance, Mexico and Central and South
the mental work for “the construction of imagined American countries share Spanish as their com-
selves and imagined worlds”: mon dominant language, but they are all inhabited
More persons throughout the world see their lives by different indigenous cultures (and languages)
through the prisms of the possible lives offered by which have mixed with different versions of His-
mass media in all their forms. That is, fantasy is now panic nationalist history and culture. In a similar
social practice, it enters, in a host of ways, into the
way though reversed process, migrants to a new
6 Globalization and Culture

country in time express the culture(s) of their orig- Century, speaking only English is as much of a
inal country through both their first language disadvantage as speaking no English. (APPGML
2014)
(s) and the new language they learn in their host
country. In the current global era, the increasing The ten global languages mentioned above are
number of individuals with complex linguistic and among the only few hundred languages com-
cultural biographies will keep intermeshing both. monly taught through education systems, out of
Beyond the increase of linguistic and cultural the about 7,000 languages spoken in the world
hybrids among individuals, it is also important to today (Paul et al. 2016). It is estimated that about
note the impact of globalization on linguistic half of these will be extinct by the end of the
diversity on a collective level, that is, to note twenty-first century, an alarming loss if one con-
how languages are standing and evolving in rela- siders the correlation between linguistic diversity
tion to each other and how this in turn affects both and biocultural diversity.
cultural and biodiversity. Indigenous languages as smaller languages
Two decades ago, Weber (1999) identified tend to struggle the most in surviving the force
what he called The World’s 10 most influential of global languages, and of globalization gener-
languages using as criteria: the number of native ally, their loss leading to the loss of biocultural
speakers, of secondary speakers, the number of knowledge on local natural environments
population and countries using the language, the (Robertson 2014). Evans (2010) further argues
number of major fields using the language that the loss of indigenous languages leads to the
(science, diplomacy, etc.), the economic power loss of invaluable knowledge on how language
of countries using the language, and socio-literary works as a feature of humankind and on its role in
prestige. His classification, arguably still valid human cognition. However, their relationship to
today, ranks the most influential languages inter- the dominant and to other languages at a local
nationally in the following order: English, French, level is complex, involving variable sociopolitical
Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, German, Jap- and historical factors, as well as local communi-
anese, Portuguese, and Hindi/Urdu. ties’ choices.
English is the modern world lingua franca, it is What can be argued is that language rights for
ahead of all other world languages in terms of its all language minorities (not only indigenous
global impact; however only one out of four users minorities) matter. The right to use one’s mother
of English in the world is a native speaker of the tongue in particular is an existential issue, closely
language (Crystal 2003). Englishes, such as linked to one’s identity and sense of self, hence of
Chinglish or Indian English, have globalized one’s well-being. Further and to the point, in the
English by importing into it cultural features orig- complex domain of language rights, especially
inally foreign to it. English and Englishes as the when it involves minority groups, Robertson
dominant lingua francas contribute greatly to the (2014, p. 935) warns against “unhelpful dichoto-
reduction of linguistic diversity on the planet, but mies between modern/traditional and indigenous/
it has not erased multilingualism as the dominant non-indigenous” and further “to privilege cultural
feature of the logosphere (Krauss 2007), that is, and linguistic ‘nativism’ and insularity over trans-
the global web of cultural and linguistic diversity. cultural contact and exchange.”
It is for this very reason that the All-Party Parlia- Tensions between the important gain in
mentary Group on Modern Languages in Britain maintaining linguistic diversity and their associate
warned in 2014, in its Manifesto for Languages, culture(s), for existential reasons and in terms of
that English is necessary but not enough, not only safeguarding world knowledge/heritage, and the
for the conduct of international trade but for many equal need for successful intercultural communi-
other sociocultural and political benefits: cation, facilitated by the use of English (and other
English is an important world language, but the latest lingua francas), and the watering down of cultural
cutting-edge research shows that, in the 21st difference, are not easily solved.
Globalization and Culture 7

Concluding Remarks given to it to access cultures. However, the

empowerment of the world imagination is double
To understand the complexities of issues at stake edged. It can create new patterns of connection
in cultural globalization, it is useful to understand across individuals and collectivities leading to
first the nature, purpose, and uses of culture, as increase positive international interconnected-
proposed in this entry. In summary, the nature of ness. It can also disconnect from the real as cul-
culture is dynamic, its purpose is to create mean- tural globalization tends to facilitate more virtual
ing and share it, and its uses intermix with matters than face-to-face contact, giving free range to
of power, history, personal subjectivity, and col- imagined subjectivities. Globalization and culture
lective identities, as well as other variables such as will keep interacting in nonlinear and
gender and social categorization. It is hard to unpredictable ways. It will keep navigating
contain culture within clear boundaries, and at between universalizing and localizing tendencies.
the same time it is hard to dismiss its existence.
Cultural globalization can both increase and
decrease human interconnectedness. This is
References
because the global unleash of cultural information
requires an increased capacity to make and nego- Appadurai A (1996) Modernity at large: cultural dimen-
tiate meaning out of information about and across sions of globalisation. University of Minnesota Press,
cultures. The negotiation of cultural meaning is Minneapolis
complex; it involves the ability to communicate APPGML (2014) Manifesto for languages. Available at
https://www.britishcouncil.org
successfully across cultures (Wolton 2003). “Cul- Bhabha H (1994) The location of culture. Routledge
tures” as abstract entities do not communicate Blanchet P (2016) Discriminations: combattre la
between themselves, people do (Scollon and glottophobie. Editions Textuel, Paris
Scollon 2000), and people do not communicate Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson
J (ed) Handbook of theory and research for the sociol-
in a vacuum. In the current global era, people ogy of education. Greenwood, New York, pp 241–258
communicate through increasing complex lin- Coulangeon P, Duval J (2013) Trente ans après la Distinc-
guistic and cultural filters. When they do, not tion de Pierre Bourdieu. La Découverte, Paris
only language and culture come alive but also Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins:
intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
world, national, and local history as well as per- women of color. Stanford Law Rev 43:1241–1299
sonal histories, with layers of positive outcomes Crystal D (2003) English as a global language, 2nd edn.
but also unresolved issues. In order to maximize Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
the positive impacts it can have, cultural globali- Evans N (2010) Dying words. Endangered languages and
what they have to tell us. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden
zation calls for the ability to understand how the Geertz (1973) The interpretation of cultures- selected
big and small pictures interact, connect, or not. It essays. Basic books, New York
calls for discernment and the choice of collabora- Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity.
tion over power in approaching difference. Stanford University Press
Goldthorpe JH (2007) ‘Cultural capital’: some critical
The active support of, and engagement with, observations. Società editrice il Mulino, Bologna
linguistic and cultural diversity helps the growth Grillo RD (2003) Cultural essentialism and cultural anxi-
of positive cultural globalization, but it is not ety. Sage, London
enough. After all, as noted by Lo Bianco (2001, Hage G (1998) White nation: fantasies of white supremacy
in a multicultural society. Pluto Press, London
p. 458), there are many polyglot and multicultural Hearn J (2006) Rethinking nationalism – a critical intro-
fanatics, and conversely there are many “cultur- duction. Palgrave Macmillan, London
ally sophisticated monolinguals.” King A (2000) Thinking Bourdieu against Bourdieu: a
It is the new work of the imagination as social ‘Practical’ critique of the habitus. Sociol Theory
18(3):417–433
act, as posited by Appadurai (1996), which will Kraidy M (2002) Globalisation of culture through the
keep playing a major role in global cultural pro- media. In: Scherment JR (ed) Encyclopaedia of com-
cesses, feeding greatly, though not exclusively, munication and information, vol 2. Macmillan,
from electronic resources and opportunities New York, pp 359–363
8 Globalization and Culture

Kramsch C (1998) Language and culture. Oxford Univer- Paul J (2006) Globalism, nationalism, tribalism. Sage,
sity Press, Oxford London
Kramsch C (2009) The multilingual subject. Oxford Uni- Paul LM, Simons GF, Fennig CD (eds) (2016) Ethnologue:
versity Press, Oxford languages of the world, 19th edn. SIL International.
Krauss M (2007) Mass language extinction and documen- Online version, Dallas. http://www.ethnologue.com
tation: the race against time. In: Miyaoka O, Rizer G (1993) The McDonaldization of society. Pine
Sakiyama O, Krauss (eds) The vanishing languages in Forge Press, Los Angeles
the pacific rim. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Robertson R (1997) Glocalization: time-space and
pp 3–24 homogeneity-heterogeneity. In: Featherstone M,
Liddicoat AJ (2009) Communication as culturally Lash S, Robertson R (eds) Global modernities. Sage,
contexted practice: a view from intercultural commu- London, pp 45–68
nication. Aust J Linguist 29(1):115–133 Robertson S (2014) Sustaining linguistic diversity:
Lo Bianco J (2001) Talking globally: challenges for biocultural approaches to language, nature and com-
foreign-language education – from new citizenship munity. In: Steger MB, Battersby P, Siracusa J (eds)
and economic globalisation. Forum Mod Lang Stud The Sage handbook of globalisation, vol 1. Sage,
xxxvii(4):457–475 London, pp 927–940
Lyotard (1979) La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le Scollon R, Scollon S (2000) Intercultural communication:
savoir (the postmodern condition: a report on knowl- a discourse approach. Wiley-Blackwell, London
edge). Editions de Minuit, Paris Sparks C (2000) The global, the local and the public
Magu S (2015) Reconceptualizing cultural globalisation: sphere. In: Wang G, Servaes J, Goonasekera A (eds)
connecting the “cultural global” and the “cultural The new communications landscape: demystifying
local”. Soc Sci 4:630–645. doi:10.3390/socsci4030630 media globalization. Routledge, London, pp 74–95
Malouf A (2009) Le dérèglement du monde. Editions Steger M (2014) Approaches to the study of globalization.
Grasset & Fasquelle, Paris. English translation: Miller In: Steger MB, Battersby P, Siracusa J (eds) The Sage
G (2011) Disordered world. Bloomsbury, London handbook of globalisation, vol 1. Sage, London,
Marin, J. (2010) Globalisation, Néolibéralisme, Education pp 7–22
et Diversité Culturelle. Gina Thésée, Nicole Carignan Tylor EB (1871) Primitive culture. J.P.Putman’s Sons,
et Paul R. Carr Les faces cachées de l’interculturel – De New York
la rencontre des porteurs de cultures, 223–240. Paris : Wagener A (2015) L’Echec culturel – Vie et mort d’un
L’harmattan. concept en sciences sociales. Europe des cultures,
Martin J (1985) The migrant presence. Allen & Unwin, vol 11. Peter Lang, Bruxelles, Berlin, New York,
Sydney Oxford, Wien.
Matera V (2016) Understanding cultural diversity. Culture, Weber G (1999) The world 10 most influential languages.
cultural traits and cultural changes between global and AATF Natl Bull 24(3):22–28
local scales. In: Panebianco F, Serrelli E (eds) Under- Wikan U (1999) Culture: a new concept of race. Soc
standing cultural traits. Springer International Publish- Anthropol 7(1):57–64
ing, Switzerland, pp 21–42 Williams R (1977) Marxism and literature. Oxford Univer-
Papastergiadis N (2000) The turbulence of migration – sity Press, Oxford
globalization, deterritorialization and hybridity. Polity Wolton D (2003) L’autre mondialisation. éditions Flamma-
Press, Cambridge, UK rion, Paris