2b - Oversimplification of Globalization

In her article, “The Global Monoculture,” Canadian environmentalist Maude Barlow makes her case for localization of entertainment and culture while trouncing the idea of globalization. As the article was first published in Canadian Perspectives magazine, of which she is on the board of directors and writes an introductory letter that is published in the opening pages of every issue, she relies on her authority and familiarity with her readers in order to effectively make her point to her intended audience. With this as her background, in this article, her tone is apparent from the beginning as she stacks the deck in her favor by distorting and ignoring contrary views and oversimplifying the issue of globalization to make it appear completely negative; this technique is effective to her target audience, but probably not so much to other readers.

In the beginning of her article, Barlow’s diction immediately begins to create the tone of her argument. She uses the word “monoculture” instead of “globalization” in attempt to make spread of one culture seem like a negative instead of a positive thing. She exaggerates and claims that “the global monoculture has infiltrated every corner of the Earth (italics added).” Moreover, she further advances her negative view on globalization of culture by saying that “North American corporate culture is destroying local tradition, knowledge, skills, artisans and values (italics added).” As she states these claims, she backs it up with no evidence, and doesn’t suggest that the cultures may just change to coexist with the spreading culture in the world. Already apparent is her tactic of oversimplifying the issue and creating an either-or situation in which North American corporate culture would be forced to not spread at all, or “destroy” every culture it comes into contact with.

She continues her argument with a similar tactic of making the issue of globalization as black and white as possible. One way that she does this is by making an overstatement of people’s opinions, and not providing any information as to where she got this idea and what gives her the authority to say it. She says, “Many societies, particularly indigenous peoples, view culture as their richest heritage, without which they have not roots, history or souls.” This again makes western culture corporations look as though they are destroying all other cultures that they come into contact with. Barlow makes this statement without a quote of anybody whose culture is threatened, such as an aborigine. Instead, she merely trusts that with her background, her readers will trust what she has to say and recognize her as an authority on this issue.

Farther into the article, Barlow brings her Canadian background into the picture to tug at the heartstrings of her readers. As she does this, she again makes a claim without using a direct quote, and uses her own diction illustrate the picture that she wants the readers to see. Speaking of a “1997 ruling in which the US successfully forced Canada to abandon protections for its magazine industry,” she says: “Former US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky triumphantly declared that the decision would serve as a useful weapon against other countries’ attempts to protect their film, books and broadcasting industries (italics added).” Without giving the exact quote of Ms. Barshefsky, Barlow creates somewhat strawperson situation and is able to shape the situation into what she wishes her readers to see by using certain words to create her own message. An exact quote may not have seemed as ominous as Barlow’s self-interpreted, oversimplified, and therefore, distorted view.