Cultural identity

Cultural identities are derived from and formed within cultural groups be they national, ethnic, religious or otherwise. Lehtonen has provided a model for cultural identity composed of 3 elements (Lehtonen and Petkova, 2005):

1/ Elements of national culture typical of a given cultural group, e.g. food, clothes, houses, tools.

2/ Elements of spiritual/mental culture of the community (symbols, traditions, customs, values).

3/ Spatial/temporal elements (religion/nationhood).

From this definition there is an indication that cultural identity is located in a specific location in time and space, and is subject to institutional influences like religion and national/state institutions. In addition to this, cultural identity is also influenced by factors such as ethnicity, which doesn‟t necessarily have a state infrastructure behind it.

Missing from these elements is any reference to the development, or the emergence, of a global culture and the impact this has on cultural identities. Baylis and Smith (2001) insist on the existence of a global culture and they base this assertion on aspects of the

developed world such as how modern urban environments derive there look from

Hollywood for instance, while also stating that a global polity and a cosmopolitan culture is emerging. They iterate that this development is underpinned on the one hand by

advancements in modern communications, which have effectively collapsed time and space, and on the under hand by the economic imperative to earn money in order to partake in the consumerist process.

That is not to say that globalization has had the effect of eradicating cultural identities and replaced them entirely with a single homogenous cultural identity. Cultural identities have deep roots, which provide the core, essential features that give particular groups their distinctive identity, providing a „higher existential essence‟ (Lehtonen, 2005).

These cultural groups are now faced with an economic system that is becoming more pervasive in all facets of life as the world becomes a more industrialized and urban space.

Cultural heritage may therefore clash with the protagonists of economic development, such as large corporations, companies and other business interests. As Hagen states:

„Playing with corporate property is not the same as playing with a given cultural heritage‟.

In addition to this, the longevity and resilience of various cultural groups suggests that while globalization is a force in influencing the formation of and reformation of cultural identities, nonetheless cultural identities possess deep roots into the distant past and would therefore not be so easily shifted or changed. But they are dynamic and are subject to a continuous process involving comparison, affirmation and negation (Hagen,

2000:88). There is an apparent dominance at certain times, whereby certain cultures dominate over others, resulting in changes and developments. A good example of how such change occurs in relation to how identities evolve due to pressures exerted from without, such as globalization, is the language used by a group. Language has been described as a „cultural artifact‟ (Hobsbawm, 1990) and therefore is a store of cultural identity. The British Empire left English as the predominant language in many of its former colonies, including the USA, which has been at the forefront, and indeed the driving force of global and international trade for the last century. In terms of shifts in cultural identity, the language used indicates the influences that have been exerted on

groups. From a personal perspective, in Ireland there have been efforts to restore Gaelic as a spoken language, however with the proliferation of mass media not only from the UK but also from the US and Australia, the position of English as the language of

communication has been reinforced if anything. In terms of brands and communicating a message to a market, it begs the question how does the language of globalization,

English, indicate trends in relation to shifts in cultural patterns.

Marxist theory provides another, much more economically oriented or strictly speaking materialist perspective. Although it relates more specifically to nationalism, there is also a relevance to the issue of cultural identity. That is „globalization‟ or the proliferation of capitalism on an international scale, is the progressive force that:

„Sweeps away the divisions between petty, introverted communities, dragging them into a world market governed by world wide imperatives‟ (Crick, 2004:25).

According to this argument identities of cultural groups are not taken into consideration and the only, or at least the overriding consideration, is the material well being of people, and the advancement of technology and human development. This perspective would seem to be scathing of ethnic and national communities, as the argument presented is that such considerations and manifestations essentially fly in the face of human advancement and development. There is the assertion that communities who resist assimilation into the

„modern‟ and „advanced‟ civilizations are dismissed as „backward‟, „pre-modern‟,

„provincial‟ and „barbarian‟ (Crick, 2004). While the economic imperatives are

undoubtedly an essential element in the running and driving of the cultural motor, should cultural identities be dismissed as merely an obstacle to the pursuit of greater material well being and progress? Cultural identities may also mean as much to people as material well being, as the rebirth of languages and customs of subdued ethnic groups are

testament to, as well as the outright rejection of the Soviet system, which subdued ethnic identity and cultures in the name of progress, under the banner of a form of

internationalist communism.