THE IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON BEHAVIOUR

PATTERN AND EXPRESSION

Siddharth Bagga | Semester – 05

Theory and Method

Abstract.

The rich Indian culture, described by non-Indians as ‘colourful’,

‘vibrant’ and ‘rich’ in historical value; is worth taking pride in, as
agreed by both the Indians and the non-Indians when talked about
directly. However, subconsciously, the same Indian culture and
expression is loosened due to a very porous inlet of Western ideas
and thoughts, and it’s the Indians who mould themselves in
accordance to these notions to fit into this world and be a part of
common global perceptions, thoughts and ideas, giving up on their
own identity. Why does this happen? Has globalization changed the
Indian culture? Has globalization changed the way we showcase our
Indian way of thinking and expression? Does globalization mean we
lose our original cultural ties and identities? What’s the future? This
writeup attempts to decode the interrelation of globalization and
behaviour pattern of Indians in particular.

Argument.

As described by philosopher M. Kukoc, globalization is one of the

most widely spread recent cultural, social, economic and political
phenomena which has strongly marked the discourse of the
humanities and social sciences at the beginning of the third
millennium, a new era observing the end of the old and the birth of
a new not-yet-defined world. Hence here we can infer that
globalization was in fact meant to prioritize its own intention, which
included merging of cultures and ideas and of course, capitalism.

[“This reflection on cultural invasion leads us to examine what is

called globalization”]

1
What has known to unify the world as one, is in fact now an invasion
of the dominant cultures on the less dominant ones. There is a
constant mention of evolution of culture, and the ever-changing
human behaviour, needs and aspirations due to globalization, but
the basis or the trigger for this evolution and change rests with the
dominant culture, which spreads and takes over slowly. And as Avijit
Pathak has mentioned,

“culture isn’t instinctive, it needs to be learned,

communicated and transmitted”

..and all it needs is a pathogen to communicate it. The idea of

merging culture and of course, prioritizing capitalism, has what
intercepted this cultural purity Indians have.

It is also important to look at globalization at human scale in terms

of a city. The city today is being exercised by capital. This means that
the transformation of cities is being done only in ways that are
convenient to capital. Hence, the way a city is being shaped is
essentially getting dictated by those who have the resources to give
volume to their voice.

The problem of the cities is, the problem of capital accumulation,

where the city is being used as a vehicle for converting liquid capital
into concrete forms.

Globalization had an agenda, but no product to achieve. It was

meant to change, but not define what this change was, hence
heading in a direction which doesn’t keep the context of existing
cultures in mind. The ones who blindly follow, have no traces of
existing culture because they don’t know how to retain it with the
current scenario of adjusting to globalization. That is how value
systems and the acknowledgement of the true Indian values, fades
away.

Focusing now on the behaviour paradigm, it’s an obvious statement

that globalization, as described above, plays a big hand in the way
people, especially Indians, giving their inconsistent mindset; express
themselves.
2
Another factor shaping the argument is about Indians, who are
generally hesitant in reading because of the low literacy rate, and
hence rely on visual media for viewpoints and ideas.

While reading prompts one to rationalize, brainstorm, introspect

and even think of counter argumentative points, visual media
doesn’t enable the Indian person to do any of that. Presentation is
blindly

taken in by the people and accepted the way it is shown, which

doesn’t make us think. This is where the problem starts.

Our behaviour patterns and our basis of rationale are so influenced

by this visual media that we take in and then express the way it is
presented.

For example, television advertisements show us branded American

clothing items and styling products, which influence us and a person
uses it the same way. If the advertisement shows an action using
that product, we showcase ourselves using similar actions, without
questioning its basis or why we are doing that. We utilize those
clothing items without questioning how we will feel or whether it’s
best suited for expressing ourselves because this new clothing
object, inspired from another culture, has now started influencing
us. It’s not us shaping or questioning this culture, rather the culture
shaping how we express ourselves.

If an advertisement shows a Western building material with the

fancy looks and made with the latest technology, then that product
is blindly used in expressing the architecture of the place just to
express oneself as adjusting with globalization and being self-
sufficient about it, without even questioning or rationalizing the use
of the product and whether it’s suited for those environmental
conditions and architectural ideas or not.

Talking in broader terms, it’s only in the Middle East where

globalization has been worse off, taking away the country’s identity
and expression due to this cultural invasion. India’s strong
connection to its culture is the reason we still are culturally strong in
expressing, but with rapid growth and invasion of other cultures, it’s
only a matter of time when our original expression is dissolved and
replaced by new behavioural attributes.

3
This predisposition towards foreign brands brings about
consumerism, which goes hand in hand with globalization in a
developing country like India. This has introduced the ‘materialistic’
attitude in India, especially the younger generation. The need and
want for more has changed the way people think and express their
thoughts, and these materials are used as medium to channel these
thoughts.

The world has become a very small place. With everyone inspiring/
effecting everyone. The mass today is heterogeneous and yet
accustomed to the area they reside in.

It is thus, important to understand the origin and types of users that

contribute to the construction of a city. When the simple question is
put forward,

‘Who belongs to a city?’

It is easy to answer: Anyone residing in the city for a long period of

time belongs to a city.

However, this is from just an administrative perspective. If one digs

deeper, there are several divisions that create contestations over
the definition of citizens.

Under this broad spectrum, the first set of divisions are observed
through the idea of ‘nativity’. Citizens native to their land tend to
exclude the rest, and this has drastic impacts.

“Thus, ‘Mumbaikar’ (someone belonging to Mumbai)

becomes coterminous with being ‘Marathi Manus’ (Marathi
people), emphasizing the idea of bhumiputra (the ‘sons/
daughters of the soil’) in linguistic terms. The ‘natives’ would
consciously exclude not only those who have immigrated to
the city during the last decade, but even the second and
third generation descendents of original migrants. This
exclusion has often resulted in aggressive street poli1cs and
violence targe1ng the ‘outsiders.” (Jayaram, n.d.)

Prominent examples of riots and attacks caused by this distinction

are the Shiv Sena movement against the South Indians, referring to
them as ‘Madrasis’ (A term considered as an ignorant and offensive
slur).

4
This movement instigated by the natives of the city, is however
paradoxical in nature: The city by its logic is a cosmopolitan land that
observes the phenomenon of merging of diverse cultures that lead
to a unique mix. These include migrants who contribute immense
value economically, culturally and socially to the city,

“it is they who toil for the general prosperity of the city,
they would argue. Thus, they are ci1zens of the city by virtue
of being there.” (Jayaram, n.d.)

Also, with the phenomenon of globalisation, revolutions in

communication have reached a new high. Improved means of
transportation, along with better standards of electronic medium of
communication (television, internet, etc.) have led to more
connectivity across the world. This has been one of the causes for
migration. With an increase in urbanization and development, the
migration of rural-urban nature has increased with an increase in
job opportunities. This leads us back to the question: how the
citizens affect the city.

With such a high-inflow of users from various regions, cities are no

longer homogenous: they have redefined themselves into
cosmopolitan vessels that house varying individuals.

This constant change in population of the city (quantitatively and

qualitatively) is what has to be questioned, for such a high influx can
have polarizing impacts on the nature and structure of the city.

Apart from the economical benefits of migration to an urban city

from a rural village, there also exists a social form of acceptance the
villages yearn to gain. It is the anonymity of a city that attracts
villagers who are trapped in a land that remains damaged with
socioeconomic schisms and cultural hierarchies. The city is
perceived as an embodiment of true order that ‘saves’ the people
from their preconceived position in the society.

“The colonial city made a place for itself in the Indian's

fantasy life by promising that freedom in place of caste-
specific voca1ons, ascribed status, and the cross-cuting
obligations of the jajmani system.” (Nandy, 2007)

5
This idea set off a large trend of rural-urban migration that affected
the construct of the city. This led to an increasing heterogenous
population in the city.

It is important to question the aftermath of such massive migration.

Another question to be raised is in concern with the heterogenous

and secular nature of the city.

Due to such high rates of migration and subsequent dubbing of

cities to cosmopolitan towns, it can be assumed that there are more
non-city-based identities that live the urban life. Every person
possesses multiple identities they invoke upon the given situation.
(Caste, Creed, Economy, physical characteristics, etc.)

However, upon maximum interactions, an ethical identity is

enforced upon the individual that leads to categorisation.
Categorical distinctions in such social situations creates an issue of
conflict,

“leading to formation of ethnic enclaves and ghettos.

Violence exacerbates the social distance and hardens the
group boundaries. It is in this context that social space gets
embedded in physical place." (Jayaram, n.d.)

Does the city encompass all? Or not? Has it relieved everyone from
their preconceived? The city which once promised to be the
harbinger of modern values, namely the idea of cosmopolitanism is
now broken down into segregation and exclusion of various
communities? Residential areas, workspaces, etc. carry out clear
lines of demarcation based on these ethnic set of identities.

“Since open discrimination is violation of law, informal

insulation of residential colonies are operative in housing
societies, gated communities, etc."(Jayaram, n.d.)

Globalization affects identity. This is talked about in the description

of Ramanujan’s father in the informal essay on the India Way of
Thinking. The dual identity of his father, although fascinating posed
6
a problem in identifying the true nature of his father. He still serves
as a good example of staying close to his roots, but at the rate at
which globalization is expanding, India has seen plenty of those who
have succumbed to these cultures and have adopted them wholly,
simply because of the inconsistency and the loosened ties to their
own roots and clarity about their own, local culture.

Conclusion.

It’s the aspirations of the emergent middle class which is the

vulnerable group. Here is a class which has no living memory nor any
attachment towards India’s freedom struggle and its own cultural
purity. They follow what is given to them. This globalization is then
followed by consumerism; which is, how these things are shown in
such a way that they are accepted the way they are shown.

“The men and women we watch on television, they way they eat,
drink and smoke”,

all effects our way to do the same activities the way they are
represented. This shallow response has largely affected the Indian
relationship with it’s original cultural ties and values.

--------------------
REFRENCES

1. Harvey, D. (n.d.). Rebel cities.

2. 99 Percent Invisible (2016). Cities (Podcast). Unpleasant Design &
Hostile Urban Architecture.
3. Nandy, A. (2007). An ambiguous journey to the city. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
4. Jayaram, N. (n.d.). The Contemporary Relevance of Urban
Sociology. Revisiting the City.
5. Ramanujan, A. K. (n.d.). Is there an Indian way of Thinking?