See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264390005

Globalization, Global Media and Homogenization of Global Culture:

Implications for Islam and Muslims

Conference Paper · September 2011

CITATION READS

1 11,945

3 authors:

Lambe Kayode Mustapha Adesina Azeez

University of Ilorin University of Ilorin
42 PUBLICATIONS 129 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Saodah Wok
International Islamic University Malaysia
219 PUBLICATIONS 623 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Emotion modeling View project

Access Audit View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lambe Kayode Mustapha on 28 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Globalization, Global Media and Homogenization of Global Culture:
Implications for Islam and Muslims
By
Mustapha, Lambe Kayode1
Ph. D. Candidate
Department of Communication, International Islamic University Malaysia
HP: +60172602956
muslakay@yahoo.co.uk

Adesina Lukuman Azeez, Ph. D.

Department of Mass Communication, University of Ilorin, Ilorin Nigeria
HP: +234 (0) 7067124477
Azeez_ogo_oluwa@yahoo.com
and
Associate Professor Dr. Saodah Wok
Department of Communication, International Islamic University Malaysia
HP: +60166524383
wsaodah@iium.edu.my

National Seminar on New Media and Islamic Issues: Challenges and

Opportunities

Organized by
Department of Communication, CERDAS and ISTAC
September 26, 2011

1
Corresponding Author: Also a faculty staff at the Department of Mass Communication, University of Ilorin,
Ilorin, Nigeria, currently on study leave.

1
 Globalization, Global Media and Homogenization of Global Culture: Implications for
Islam and Muslims
By
Mustapha, Lambe Kayode, Adesina Lukuman Azeez and Saodah Wok

ABSTRACT
One of the fundamental institutions that contributed to the realization of the globalization

project is the global media system. As purveyors of information, ideas and values, global media

pervasively distribute cultural symbols that define human relations in the contemporary global

village. Besides their enculturation role, the global media system has equally served as the

theatre of ideological polemics between the two world’s post-communist ideological divides-

the secular West and the Muslim world. The dominance of the global communication system

by the West has, however, towered its social, economic, political and cultural perspectives

above those of the Muslims. Emerging from this trajectory is the infiltration of the Islamic

culture by values that are not only retrogressive but attenuate the development of solid

Ummatic ethos that can stand the Muslims in a better stead in today’s competitive global

village. In addition, the framing of discourses about Islam and Muslims in the Western-

dominated global media has not only resulted into a social pathology called Islamophobia, but

has potentials for increasing tensions between Islam and the West with multi-faceted political

and economic consequences. Based on situation analysis of these developments and windows

of opportunities offered by the new media, this paper presents the state of affairs in the

contemporary global culture. It also analyses the effects of the development on Islam and

Muslims and the possible role of the media in escalating or reducing the tensions that

characterized the Western and Islamic ideological relations.

Keywords: Globalization, global Media, homogenized global culture, Islam, Muslims

2
INTRODUCTION
Globalization means many things to many people. To some, it means the highest height of

human achievement, where the interests of various and differing groups that peopled the world

converge and get harmonized for peaceful coexistence. Yet some others see it as reawakening

of imperial dominance. As a phenomenon, it has attracted more attention than any other issue

in the past few decades (Baktiari, 2008: 2). Supporting the above assertion, Berger (2002: 2)

submits that “globalization has come to be emotionally charged in public discourse, seen by

some as the promise for an international civil society, conducive new era of peace and

democratization; and by others as the threat of an American economic and political hegemony

with metastatic cultural consequences.”

While Gopinath (2008) poignantly says “the globalization of today is a more direct descendant

of the colonization and economic imperialism that began with the voyages of discovery

financed by the rulers of Portugal and Spain,” George Modelski (1972) avers that “one striking

feature of the process of globalization has been the quality of arrogance that fuelled it

(McGrew, 2007: 15). Although globalization has resulted into many positive developments in

the area of economy, science and technology, and many collaborative engagements; it has

equally led to sprawling and blatant domination of the global political, economic, social and

cultural spheres by a few multinational corporations and nations.

Central to this paper, however, is the aspect of culture and the role of cultural industry, which

is under hegemonic hold of the Western power, predominantly the United States, in the

seemingly evergreen polemics on globalization. Since communication is central to all human

interaction, the communication media are well positioned to play significant roles in blurring

temporo-spatial differences that hitherto hindered relationships beyond the frontiers. Hence,

communication media extend the capacity of interconnectedness wrought by globalization,

3
particularly with respect to the creation of global media culture (Firouzeh, 2004; Jan, 2009;

McChesney, 2004).

The movement towards a global media culture has several sources, most notably the greatly

increased capacity to transmit sounds and (moving) images at low cost across frontiers and

around the world, overcoming limits of time and space (McQuail, 2005, p. 130). Of great

concern however is the tendency towards homogeneous single global culture (Palvic, 1998, p.

291) and potential for cultural imperialism (Babran, 2008; Wang, 2008). This concern becomes

worrisome given the fact that ownership and control of global media, like many other economic

concerns, are in the hands of a few corporations that are all located in the core nations to which

no Muslim nation belongs. Although the notion that globalization results in homogenization of

culture remains contestable (Gordion, 2009; Tomlinson, 1997, 2003), it has been held that the

global media that are central to globalization are carriers of values, lifestyles and ideologies

that are not only corrosive but repugnant to receiving cultures (Rauschenberger, 2003). This

reality requires extensive study of the effects of cultural products from a radically opposing

civilization on Islam and Muslims.

To the extent that the contemporary global media and message system is loaded against Islam

in terms of ownership and philosophy, the nations of Islam and Muslims have not only been

open to social, political, economic and cultural exploitations, but suffer in terms of access to

and representations in Western-dominated and technological-mediated globalization processes.

The fear of biased representation of Islam and Muslim is not only justifiable but has manifested

in the creation of Ideological war between the media-rich West and the media-poor nations of

Islam. Also apparent is the media-aided penetration of Muslim world by the Western

corporations on the premise of ‘free flow’ and the ability of recipients to resist unwanted

4
culture, even when it is apparent that choices are imposed by these corporations and their

nations (Jan, 2009).

While series of studies have examined the influence of globalization on the receiving cultures

of developing nations of the South, treating them as a monolithic entity, little attention has been

paid to the effects on Muslim world that is ideologically incongruous with Western champions

of globalization. This paper, therefore, examined the political, economic, social consequences

of globalization on Islam as a faith and Muslims as unequal actors in the globalizing era,

particularly given the imperialistic posture of the developed world and enculturation power of

global media system. It also explored the potentials of alternatives offered by the new media

technologies in creating sphere for free flow of information and culture between the Western

and Islamic civilizations, thus neutralizing the deleterious images already created by Western

global media stereotypical representations.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Foundation
Conceptually and theoretically, globalization has received attention of multidisciplinary

scholars, each explicating it from their scholastic worldviews. There are, however, consensus

that globalization traverses economic, social, political and cultural relations (Babran, 2008;

Gordion, 2009). Unlike the views that globalization is a natural by-product of volitional human

interaction made possible by bourgeoning technologies (Korhan, n. d), some scholars posit

that it is an imposition foisted on the world by grand stakeholders of powerful nations,

transnational corporations and international organizations (Jan, 2009; Marsella, 2005). The

idea that globalization and its attendant cultural impacts is conspiratorially forced on the people

is though contestable, Siochru (2004) identifies the communication sector, consisting of media

and telecommunication, as the most active in the breaking down of cultural and other barriers,

5
thus softening culture for penetration of values and lifestyles. The cultural vulnerability

imposed on weaker nations by globalizing forces was also inherent in Tomlinson’s (2003)

argument that “those in control of global capitalism have the advantage of worldwide cultural

exploitation while the weaker nations remained culturally threatened.” Hence, cultural

imperialism theory has remained appealing, even if intuitively, to explain the cultural

consequences of globalization.

Cultural imperialism is “a kind of cultural domination by powerful nations over weaker

nations” (Jan, 2009). An extensive definition by Schiller (1976) says cultural imperialism is

“the sum of the process by which a society is brought into the modern world system and how

its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social

institutions to correspond to, or even to promote the values and structure of dominant centre of

the system” (Galeota, 2004; Ishak, 2010; Thussu, 2000). Unlike colonization that utilized

missionaries, educators and brazen military power for territorial exploitation of the colonized

(Meyer, 2008; Papp, 2002), globalization relies on soft power that, subtly but surely, colonizes

the mind, thought and action of people and pervades every aspect of societal life

(Rauschenberger, 2003). Since cultural imperialism thrives on global economic and media

infrastructure (Sinclair, 1996), the dominance of the First World nations over the global

communication and media infrastructure has thus led to the sponsoring of Western culture that

impinges on mode of dressing, type of food, living styles, knowledge and thought process of

the people of the world - all aimed at keeping developing nations in perpetual economic

periphery.

The hegemonic infusion of Western, mostly American, values through fast food culture,

clothing styles, entertainment and language communicates certain values to the recipients, to

6
the detriment of indigenous values, and provides passage for cultural penetration as well as

political and economic control by the Western forces (Marsella, 2005). This development has

tremendously altered the cultural course and value system of many nations, particularly given

its promotion of consumerist and individualistic lifestyles that are central to global capitalism,

which is the main nucleus of globalization process. Hence, Babran’s (2008) conclusion that

“globalization has affected certain values rooted in major religions and cultures of the

world…individual interaction with society and the very meaning of the life are all warped and

corrupted by global capitalism, international market, mass media and the promotion of

excessive consumption.” This perhaps explains why nations like France, China, Cuba, Canada,

Iran, among others make conscious, albeit weak, effort to disallow Americanization of their

cultures (Galeota, 2004).

Some scholars, however, debunk the cultural imperialism thesis on the premises of lack of

empirical evidence (Gordion, 2009; Xue, 2008), the notion of active audience and free flow

doctrine (Tomlinson, 1997, 2003). Their stances, however, remain contestable given the

postulates of ritual model of media power (McQuail, 2005); the uncritical nature of children

and younger audience who are major targets of mediatisation of culture (Rauschenberger,

2003) and primacy of profit orientation of capitalism and fund reparation from periphery to the

centre, which promote appeal to theories of lowest common denominator and cultural discount

(Meyer, 2008; Rauschenberger, 2003; Tomlinson, 1997). While cultural imperialism remains

a germane theoretical explanation for the kind of global relations between developed and

developing economies in the globalization era, the strident criticism of those opposing it

continues to yield unrelenting polemics about globalization.

7
The Polemics of Globalization
Due to its complexity, globalization has pitted many scholars against one another and the

paradigmatic polemics that have been raging since the time the term was first used is still on

till date. On one side are those we refer to here as gloptimists and on the other the glopessimists.

As part of those that are optimistic of the development, The Emirate Centre for Strategic

Studies and Research (2008: 3) glowingly avers that “globalization brought about ease of

communication and trade, advance in scientific and technology development, increased global

wealth and rising standard of living as well as better dispute resolution mechanism, which

facilitate interaction between population.” To those on the other side, globalization was seen

as being mostly driven by powerful transnational corporations whose control of information

gives them an enormous advantage, imparting primarily American cultural values, and

unrestrained consumption (Jan, 2009; Marsella, 2005; Roukis&Zarb, 2006).

The influence of globalization on global social, political, economic and cultural spheres, has

led to pervasive contestation of the phenomenon, attracting scholarly interests such as books,

articles and heated debates (Durham &Kellner, 2006; Gordion, 2009; Jan 2009). Globalization

has occurred through many modes such as cross-cultural trade, religion organizations,

knowledge networks, multinational corporations, banks, international institutions,

technological exchange and transnational social networks (Pieterse, 2006, p. 658). While

acknowledging the notion as advanced by some scholars that globalization has been with us

for centuries, Riley and Monge (1998) contend that “it is the development of phenomenon such

as mass-mediated communication, a global telecommunication industry, banking and financial

market, multinational corporations, international nongovernment organizations, global

warming and the notion of ‘Chernobyl is everywhere’ that brings the idea of global society or

community into prominence once again.”

8
Today, the general proposition that globalization is a multidimensional process, taking place

simultaneously within the sphere of economy, politics, environment, institutionalization of

technologies and culture has received the support of many scholars, researchers and general

public (Tomlinson, 2007). In other words, the multidimensionality of globalization has drawn

a huge interest from scholars of various disciplines. Pieterse (2006: 658) captures the multi-

disciplinary perspective of globalization eloquently:

In economics, globalization refers to economic internationalization and the

spread of capitalist market relations; in international relations, it focuses on
the increasing density of interstate relations and development of global
politics; in sociology, the concern is with increasing worldwide social
densities and the emergence of ‘world society.’ In cultural studies, the focus
is on global communication and worldwide cultural standardization as in
Coca-colonization and McDonaldization and in history, it deals with
conceptualizing ‘global history.’

It follows, therefore, that globalization attracts and affects every aspect of human life in no

small measure. Central to any discussion of globalization, however, has been the rise of global

market and the role of transnational corporations (TNCs) in adapting to, producing for and

profiting from the process (Sreberny, 2000: 99). The economic exploitation potential of

globalization has led to unbridled mercantilism, and widening of the socio-economic gulf that

predates it. Hence, Murdock (2004) writes that “the current globalization of capitalism has not

only deepened class inequalities, both within and between nations and regions, it has

internationalized class relations, creating and expanded transnational capitalist class, a new

commercial middle class who have gained from marketization, and a new international reserve

army of labour who have lost out.”

Debates on globalization today have gone beyond its desirability or otherwise. The biggest

contention of the contemporary time is the limited control it affords many nations to determine

their relationships with other nations and even control their internal affairs. The linkage and

9
interdependence it has created has constrained the majority of ‘nodes’ in the global ‘network’

and curtailed them from acting as sovereignties that they are. To the extent that nations of the

world are not equally endowed, element of dependency will remain problematic in international

relations. Bigger’ nations will continue to dictate political, social, economic and cultural

relations, particularly due to their comparative advantage in the ownership of ‘vehicles’ of

globalization.

Global Media and Global Communication

Holistically, the institution of the mass media has been fundamental to the creation and

maintenance of society from time immemorial, as accounts abound on how communication has

been central to the conquering of empires and maintenance of hegemonic dominance over the

conquered. This led to Harold Innis’ conclusion in Empire and Communication (1950) that

those early great empires of Egypt, Greece and Rome rode to supremacy via the control of the

communication apparatuses of their time, which allowed commanding information exchanges

back and forth the capitals and the frontiers (Murtada, Abubakar & Mustapha, 2009, citing

Baran and Davis, 2006; West and Turner, 2007).

Working within the thesis of communication philosopher of note, John Dewey, Carey (2008:

33) stresses that “society exists not only by transmission, by communication, but it may fairly

be said to exist in transmission, in communication” (emphasis in the original). So central is

communication and the media to the society that arrival of any new communication technology

usually signifies a great social and cultural momentum with potential for conflict among the

social actors. Citing the bitter propaganda struggles of the Reformation and Counter-

Reformation during the sixteenth century as evidence, scholars, for example, write on how the

Church and the State, which used to be at the vanguard of ‘mass communication,’ were alarmed

by the arrival of independent media (Ishak, 2010; McQuail, 2005; Severin& Tankard, 2010).

10
It therefore trite to say communication technologies radicalise our communication experience

and many other communicative aspects of our lives. As means of communication evolve, so is

human capacity to grapple with the environment, making Marshall McLuhan (1964: 4) to

conclude that communication media extend our senses and nerves.

According to Waisbord (1998), “the introduction and expansion of different media

technologies have radically transformed social consciousness and eliminated place as the basis

for grounding forms of affiliation and recognition.” Media allow integration of people of

different space via their power of convergence and facilitate the forging of common culture via

their pervasive diffusion and dominance of the public domain. Quoting Stuart Hall, Stevenson

(2002: 37) says the:

The mass media form the main ideological institution of contemporary

capitalism. This can be asserted as the communication system provides the
main symbolic realm through which the manufacture of the dominant
consensus is forged. The mass media...operate through the production of
hegemonic codes that cement the social together.

Communication plays a central role in creating global consciousness and in the reflexive

processes of creating and recreating human community (Cobley, 2006: 380). The realization

of centrality of communication to maintenance of global dominance, perhaps informs the

Western investments in global communication infrastructures. Institutions of global news

sourcing and trade through their various agencies like the Associated Press (AP), Reuters,

Agence France Presse (AFP), among others, provide necessary information that towers the

West above other regions of the world. The entire global media marketplace today is also

dominated by Western-oriented megacorporations with ‘tentacles’ in virtually every facet of

symbolic production and distribution. Murtada, Abubakar and Mustapha (2009: 17), for

instance, chronicle the dominance of the United States- based media conglomerates like

television, where CNN, Disney World and MTV hold sway; the film world of Hollywood;

Internet search engine as Google’s turf and the ubiquitous software that is the domain of

11
Microsoft. The U. S. control of geo-synchronous orbit that serves as the ‘clearing house’ of

global information flow is also a pointer to the dominance of the West over the global

communication infrastructures

Not a few today hold the belief that what is being viewed as globalization is another appellation

for United States domination of the rest of the world, called Americanization and at times

euphemistically Coca-colonization and McDonaldization. The vast reach of American media

system lends credence to this assertion. For instance, a popular American medium, MTV, is

said to be offering programmes in music, fashion, lifestyle and support directed at 12-34-year-

olds, reaching 480 million households in 179 countries in 22 languages via 50 locally

programmed and operated channels in Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, Russia, Africa

and the United States (Gopinath, 2008: 152). With the viewers of CNN, Disney, Sky TV, and

the users of Microsoft, Google as well as other media from Hollywood and big mainstream

publishers of great mind-moulding format- books, United States today controls the cultural

markets that serve the global audience.

Concerns about the dominance of global media domain have been expressed by many scholars

from many perspectives. Citing UNESCO report in the late 1980s, Sreberny (2000: 100) for

example, paints a picture of domination as forty-eight of seventy-eight firms listed were United

States’ or Japanese; the rest being European, Canadian or Australian while none was based in

the Third World. She went further to say that “many of these corporations are Americans, and

for many sectors of American cultural industry, international sales are now a crucial source of

income.” This means that other nations, particularly those of the Third World, are captive

consumers of United States mass-mediated products. But if Sreberny’s concern based on late

1980s reports worries cultural studies scholars, McChesney’s (2004: 9) account of the twenty-

12
first century Western dominance of global media market, that was oligopolistic in nature, is

alarming. According to him, “the global media market has come to be dominated by nine

transnational corporations: General Electric (owner of NBC), AT&T/Liberty Media, Disney,

AOL-Time Warner, Sony, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi and Bertelsmann. These

corporations are not only in the league of largest firms in the world, they all have their core

operations in America and five of them are truly American.” The table below depicts areas of

interest of these media conglomerates and revenues in excess of annual national budgets of

many Third World nations.

Table1: Ownership Chart and Revenue of Big Global Media Conglomerates

Conglomerates TV Film Publishing Online Internet Radio Others Revenue

Holdings $ Billion
General Electric √ √ √ √ X X √ 157.0
Walt Disney √ √ √ √ X √ √ 36.1
News Corp √ √ √ √ X X √ 30.4
TimeWarner √ √ √ X √ X √ 25.8
Bertelsmann √ √ √ X X √ √ 14.7

Viacom √ √ √ √ X √ √ 13.6
CBS √ X √ √ X √ √ 13.0

Key: √ Owned X Not owned

Source: FreePress (http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main)

The import of the above is that the much-touted free market and its notion of competition and

efficiency is working only in favour of the capitalistic world. Therefore, as the media market

explodes, the contents implode, owing to high concentration of ownership and the monolithic

mode of operations. An index of the afore-mentioned global media infrastructures reveals the

monolithic source of global symbolic products. This also reflects in virtually every sphere of

domestic media operation of the developing nations that have caught the bug of ‘doing it the

way of the West.’ From programme genres to presentation format, hardly can one distinguish

from what is obtained from the Western media and the domestic ones in many Third World
13
nations. It is this uniformity of forms and format that have enraged many who today have made

issues out of the sameness that is characterizing the global cultural topography.

With the world becoming increasingly integrated, yet geographically separated, the media

become the means by which its inhabitants make meaning, decode multitudes of events and

get integrated into the society. Thus, Cobley (2006: 381) says “...the globalization of radio,

television, the Internet, movies, telephone, and other means of communication provides

images, sounds, events, ideas, and knowledge from distant locations around the globe to other

distant locations around the globe.” Therefore, chances are that reliance on these media and

their inherent influence will continue to attract attention of scholars and policy makers alike.

The discrepancy that characterized their ownership puts the peripheral nations at the mercy of

core nations’ media mega corporations that fill the global knowledge voids about the world

outside their immediate environment. This dependency will thus leave the global audience with

whatever image created of the world beyond their reach as aptly captured by Baran and Davis

(2010: 274):

As our world becomes more complex and as it changes more rapidly, we not
only need the media to a greater degree to help us make sense, to help us
understand what our best responses might be, and to help us relax and cope,
but also we ultimately come to know that world largely through those media.

According to the ritual model of communication, the mass media carry ideological and cultural

contents (McQuail, 2005). The dominance of the global media sphere by a side of the world

thus poses the danger of acculturating other vast areas that are not only incapable of resisting

the monolithic cultural dominance but have no alternative response mechanism, even when

they are unjustly vilified, underrepresented or misrepresented. This unilateral domination of

the global cultural landscape has opened a superfluity of research agenda designated cultural

imperialism, cultural globalization and globalization of cultures, among others.

14
Initially premised on the belief that it will afford unprecedented and multifaceted beneficial

interactions, globalization has come to unify the world culture and left the ‘culturally weak’ to

be gobbled by the ‘culturally strong’. This much was expressed by Hamelink (2006: 478) who

says “the proliferation of mass media offered possibilities of unprecedented cultural interaction

as well as risk of cultural uniformity. The spread of a consumer society - largely promoted by

the mass media - raised serious concern about the emergence of a homogenous global culture.”

The corporatization of cultural industry reinforced by the political economy inherent in

globalization is telling on the creation and distribution of cultures, which now follow the

patterns of other commodities thriving on the account of economies of scale. “Media moguls

such as Rupert Murdoch, Silvio Berlusconi and Henry Luce with Warner Brothers have created

corporate structures that span continents, combine holdings in broadcast, print and film

production and also control distribution facilities such as satellite and cable networks”

(Sreberny, 2000: 99). Therefore, it is easy to diffuse a unilateral culture, which is of economic

benefits to the moguls and their empires. Hence, the pervasiveness of Western political, social,

economic and cultural ways of life cannot be divorced from the activities of these ‘cultural

missionaries.’

Mediated Homogenisation of Global Culture

Tomlinson (1999: 71) defines global culture as “the emergence of one single culture embracing

everyone on earth” (Xue, 2008). This is achieved via deployment of global homogenizing

forces such as standardized hardware and software media forms and format, which influence

cultural consciousness across the world (Thussu, 2000: 78). To acculturate their vast and

diverse global audience, the media system needs to be global and homogeneous in outlook.

This means that the global media system has become a megalith with the power to support

other willing institutions in the exploitation of opportunities created by the globalizing currents.

15
Relying on ‘free flow’ as operating mechanism, these media are not only opportune to market

their products (news, information and entertainment), they, in the process, have the potential

to serve as vehicles for other industries’ marketing exploits through advertising, which

coincidentally is the media lifeblood. It is, therefore, glaring that the American-championed

free flow doctrine is to soften the ground for eventual, unobtrusive penetration of the world by

its enterprises at all fronts, thus infusing people of the world with the ‘American way.’ To

demonstrate that ‘free flow’ doctrine is an exploitative agenda, Thussu (2000: 55) opinionated

that it serves the economic and political agenda of the media-rich nations by having their media

to “dissuade others from erecting trade barriers to their products or from making it difficult to

gather news or make programmes on their territories.”

Media internationalization ensures the bombardment of the media-poor countries with Western

lifestyle through cheap, and sometimes free, cultural products. While such global media culture

may appear value-free, it embodies a good many of the values of Western capitalism, including

individualism and consumerism, hedonism and commercialism (Marsella, 2005; McQuail,

2005). Writing in the same token, Machin and Leeuwen (2006) note that media formats are not

value-free, not mere containers, but key technologies for the dissemination of the global

corporate ethos. These views agree with Durham and Keller’s (2006: 279) position that “a wide

and diverse range of theorists have argued that today’s world is organized by accelerating

globalization, which is strengthening the dominance of a world capitalist economic system,

supplanting the primacy of the nation-state by transnational corporation and organizations, and

eroding local culture and tradition through a global culture.”

That Western media serve as conduits for diffusion of ideological contents is not in doubt, for

cultural products being distributed have been equated with cultural imperialism, as they

16
acculturate, albeit subtly, the recipients into the beliefs and values of originating nations. From

children comics to adult soaps, the world seems to be under the continued bombardment of

Western cultural ‘artilleries and missiles’ with their deleterious consequences. Since cultural

imperialism has homogenization as one of its features, it suffices to say that the domination of

the global cultural milieu by universal cultural artefacts is symptomatic of the cultural

homogeny the world has been plunged into by the globalization project. Wise (2008:34-35)

writes on the homogeneous global cultural artefact to include the same looks of international

tourist hotels, the same fast food restaurants, the same television channels (CNN, MTV) and

so on. Supporting the cultural imperialism thesis, he argues thus:

While the old political empires have crumbled, the Western nations still control
the symbolic and cultural world by controlling the mass media. Though foreign
troops may not be deployed, and a foreign government established, the presence
of the empire is felt in the everyday presence of Western media products.

There is increasing palpable diatribes among globalization scholars concerning its nature,

modus operandi and impacts. According to Burton (2005: 332), one of the views is about the

imposition of (media) culture by the West on the world - as opposed to a model of free cultural

exchange and mutual benefit; the other being the fear of inevitable rise of global powers and

formations, to the detriment of local culture and difference. Durham and Keller (2006: 579)

also write that “the polarization in the globalization discourse is such that the critics see the

term as providing umbrella for global capitalism and imperialism while its defenders believe it

is an extension of modernization - a progressive force that will intensify increased wealth,

freedom, democracy and happiness.”

CONTEMPORARY OBSERVATIONS
Contentious Notions
Notwithstanding the staunch position of the homogenization and cultural imperialism scholars,

there exists an alternative perspective that believes in the volitional embracement of

17
globalization and, hence, cultural hybridization rather than homogenization. To the scholars in

this paradigm, globalization is a process that results in cultural integration and the melding of

cultures into a hybrid form that is not a property of any locale but that of the new community

created by the technology-oriented temporo-spatial distanciation.

These multiple perspectives are a function of fluidity and the improbability of consensus on

effects of globalization. Tomlinson (2007), for instance, uses deterritorialization thesis to

denounce global cultural homogenization, claiming that “global culture is less determined by

location because location is increasingly penetrated by ‘distance’- by the integration of

structure of global connectivity” (p. 153). While Pieterse (2006: 659) believes that “...the

process of globalization, past and present, can be adequately described as processes of

hybridization’” Berger (2002: 7) holds an active audience perspective by hypothesising that

“homogenization greatly underestimates the capacity of human beings to be creative and

innovative in the face of cultural challenges.” Using the Chilean foreign television content

viewers as example, he reasoned that foreign consumption of popular culture is arguably

superficial in the sense that it does not have a deep effect on people’s beliefs, values, or

behaviour, as wearing jeans, running shoes, eating hamburgers and watching Disney cartoon

may not remove one from his/her culture and tradition. He stoically claims “that evangelical

Protestantism, especially in its Pentecostal version, is the most important popular movement

serving (most inadvertently) as a vehicle of cultural globalization.”

Also implicit in Gidden’s (1990) conceptualization of globalization is the notion of

hybridization as opposed to homogenization. He says globalization is “the intensification of

worldwide social relations’ which links distant localities in such a way that local happenings

18
are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (Sreberny, 2000: 93). A

potent and staunch defender of globalization, ArjunAppadurai says:

The globalization of culture is not the same as its homogenization, but

globalization involves the use of a variety of instrument of homogenization
(armament, advertising techniques, language hegemonies, and clothing style)
that are absorbed into local political and cultural economies, only to be
repatriated as heterogeneous dialogue of national sovereignty, free enterprise,
and fundamentalism in which the state plays an increasingly delicate role
(cited in Durham & Kellner, 2006: 93).

Ritzer (2008: 165), however, provides a benchmark to delineate between homogenization and

hybridization when he says “global heterogeneity predominates when local (or indigenous)

practices are dominant in different geographical locations throughout the world.... In contrast,

the predominance of the global in different locals throughout the world is associated with

greater homogeneity.” This sounds plausible but since nothing is hardly value-free, the

polemics will continue, perhaps waxing stronger, given the hijacking of the world political and

economic scenes by multinationals in tandem with their home governments with varying

ambitions, predominantly power.

Whatever perspective one holds of globalization, the fact is that it has inexorably assumed a

dominating force in the contemporary global system. It has not only resulted in acceleration of

movement of people and capital across the globe, but has also led to the development of many

forms of alliances and institutions that are fundamentally reshaping, if not eroding, the

significance of nation states. How this is managed in the face of gross inequalities it met and

exacerbated remain contentious. And since those at the helm of global political and economic

affairs have always operated as hegemons with their ambitions shrouded in one ideological

form or the other and fought for on the platform or ‘Hot’ or ‘Cold’ war, a great concern looms,

as the West under the leadership of the United States takes on the East, with Islamic world for

their anti-West ideology being the main target.

19
Islam and Muslims in the Globalized World
The Scripture containing Islam doctrines and Muslims ways of life is unequivocal about the

unity of mankind, which is one of the social consequences of contemporary global project

represented by globalization. Qur’an (Baqarah: 213) says:

Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) Prophets as bearer of
good tiding and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth
that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differ...

This singular verse demonstrates that what we are seeing through globalization, to the extent

that they are not violating other fundamental Islamic principles, is ordained. In essence the

Islam vision of the world is by definition global (Ahmed, 2006: 26).

Fundamental to the contemporary global cultural integration, however, is the American notions

of individualism, capitalism, unbridled competition, consumerism and hedonism, which are

antitheses of Islamic teaching. In place of the old integrative culture of nation states, there is

currently emerging a fragmented global culture built upon more popular pleasure (Stevenson,

2002: 47). However, the resistance of these values by Islamic communities seems to be

intolerable to their promoters, particularly the United States. The end of the Cold War that

thrusts the U. S. into the position of the ‘arch-controller’ of the world has been described as the

beginning of another ideological contention, pitting the capitalist orientation of America and

her allies against Islamic welfarist and anti-secular ideology. Islamic society is based on socio-

economic and political system, synthesized from Islamic moral and ethical values and drawn

from Shar’iah - the Islamic law (Ayoob, 2008; Ishak, 2010; Rodison, 2007). This, like the

Communist ideology of the defunct Soviet Union, is intolerable to the Westerners who in their

ethnocentric beliefs view their civilization as the most superior (Al-Qaradawi, 1998: 14). This

undoubtedly has been central to the new ideological polemics raised in one of the most

controversial texts - Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World

20
Order. This highly polemical piece has been described as fanning the West’s fear over the

Islamic revival (Kutty, 2006: 2).

According to Baktiari (2008: 142), “a standard assertion about globalization’s impact on

religion and cultural values claims that globalization leads to cultural homogeneity, increases

integration and diminishes differences, and inculcates global norms, ideas or practices that

overtake local mores.” If this assertion is anything to go by, then the response of Islamic nations

and Muslims towards preservation of Islamic culture and values is not only necessary but

vigorously desirable. An Islamic state, according to Al-Qaradawi (1998: 39-40), “is neither an

ethnic nor a territorial state and has its politics, economics, culture, education, morals and

customs distilled from the Qur’an, hence the unity of her faith, God, Prophet, book, Qiblah,

law, constitution, culture and ceremony.” These ideals were sustained among Islamic

communities before the incursion of the Western-led colonization and subsequent

modernization projects.

The resurgence of Islamic movements in the late twentieth century was in response to the

dilution of Islamic culture with Western secularism, which many viewed as orchestrated to

weaken the Islamic nations economically, politically and culturally, and permanently send into

oblivion the vigour and resilience that characterized Islamic civilization, which ebbed with

dissolution of Ottoman empire. On their part, Muslims believe in the protection of their faith,

values and culture from the corrosive influence of secularism, which is likely to lead to colossal

loss of what remains of Islam values. While many Muslims see Islamic reawakening as an

alternative to secular materialism, a reassertion of their identity and a return to their roots, the

West perceives Islamic resurgence negatively, as the so-called “Islamic threat” due to their

21
belief that Islam remains the only alternative system capable of transcending ethnics and

national barriers in the post-Communist era (Kutty, 2006: 1).

Barghouti (1995: 154) avers that “the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc, the

end of Cold War, and the domination of the U.S. over world affairs are the main factors in the

radical global change of which Arab and Islamic world has no direct input but remains the most

affected by their results than any other region in the Third World.” Baktiari (2008: 142)

graphically describes the reasons for Islamic revival that has precipitated Western negative

perceptions of Islam and Muslim thus:

By the late 1960s, Muslim societies faced a profound crisis with cultural,
political, social, economic, psychological and spiritual dimension. Secular
ideology and model of development had failed to produce prosperous
societies that could match those of the West... the very integrity of the Islamic
culture and way of life is threatened by non-Islamic forces of secularism and
modernity encouraged by Muslim government.

According to Baktiari, this led to the emergence of Islamic revivalists who felt that Islam must

be insulated from the aggrandizing influence of secularism, liberalism and consumerism that

are vivid indicators of globalization. In order to browbeat the Islamic world and Muslims into,

perhaps, allowing the rampaging currents of globalization and supremacy of Western culture,

a lot of psychological warfare have been waged, ranging from name-calling, to bandwagon and

other forms of propagandistic measures.

A big army has also been recruited, consisting of scholars, political leaders, analysts of every

hue and, of course, the media leading the attack. No time epitomised this staunch alliance

against Islam and Muslim that the immediate post-9/11 discourse in the U.S media, where

discourses on the incident were framed along Islam, culture and civilization prisms

(Abrahamian, 2003). The negative portrayal emanating from the post-9/11 discourses in the

media contributes stereotypical perceptions of Islam and Muslims among Americans in

22
particular and Westerners in general (Sides & Gross, 2011). For a civilization (America) that

thrives via engaging in one controversy or the other, the inability of Muslims to jettison their

ideals for the global reigning ideology led by the American market-oriented political economy

has opened avenues for another ideological diatribe. Thus, the ‘we and them’ strategy of the

Cold War era has been re-enacted and pursued with their powerful informational arsenal and

other political economic mechanisms that will sustain the status quo. Hence, Stevenson (2002:

47) writes that “the search for the exposure of political domination by the use of reason was

replaced by the imposition of an ideological consensus through the mechanisms of economic

and political manipulation.” Thus after the disappearance of the Communist bloc, strong

propaganda began in the West, which viewed Islam and Islamic fundamentalism as its main

enemy (Barghouti, 1995: 154). This allegation assumes a new height after the 9/11 event,

substituting American ‘War on Communism’ with ‘War on Terrorism,’ with terrorism being

operationalized as reins of terror on Western civilizations by the Islamic fundamentalists and

Muslims.

Having created the mediatised homogenized global culture, it is easier for the West to create

‘master symbols’, a la Harold Lasswell, that will assist her in the vilification of Islam and

Muslims in the subtle but raging cultural and civilizations war between the West and the East.

With this, many, even the liberals, can be charged into emotional battles against Islam and

Muslims, since postmodernism gives more power to symbols rather than reasoning. Little

wonder, Sayre (2008: 1313) opines that “in the new ‘global’ culture, the control of information,

the control of the media - from television to the Internet - was the most effective means of

controlling people’s mind.” This position corresponds with Hall’s (1997) view that “the codes

that represent the real are gathered from a limited field of dominant discourses drawing on a

restricted range of social explanations. The preferred codes achieve their ideological effects by

23
appealing to be natural” (Stevenson, 2002: 137). As a major agency of cradle-to-grave

socialization, the media help to propagate and continually sell a worldview that allows few

options for independent, critical thinking (Marshall &Kingbury, 1996: 21). Today, media

portrayal of Islam and Muslims has been organised to depict them as ‘cultural others,’ needing

to be associated with cautiously if not outrightly avoided.

Gaining currency in the Western stereotyping of Islam and Muslims is the idea of Islamophobia

- a mediated pathological fear and anxiety about Islam and Muslims by the Westerners. This

prejudicial discrimination is meant to reduce Islam as a civilization and threaten Muslims of

their rights and privileges as global citizens. The strategy mostly employed is to pervasively

frame Muslims and Islam as anti-West, thus fuelling resentment against them by the

Westerners. By framing Islam as a repressive and violent religion that is antagonistic of

Western values and traditions of individualism, human rights, freedom and democracy,

Western mass media take the centre stage in creating hateful identity for Muslims (Hafez,

2000). Islamophobia, therefore, is aimed at weakening Islam and Muslims socially, politically

and economically, thus increasing their exploitation by the West that egocentrically dwells in

the notion of being a better civilization.

Mass media of all types - television, radio, newspapers and magazines, books and even films -

have been used to diffuse hate messages against Islam with the intention of driving their

consumers into extreme viewpoints where issues about Islam and Muslims are concerned. Ali

and Syed (2010), for example, hold that the Western mass media are central to perceptions of

Islam and Muslims among multitudes of global audience. Ahmed (2006: 22) takes an inventory

of Hollywood products such as True Lies, Executive Decision and The Siege, which are plotted

to condition their viewers to expect the worst from a civilization widely described as

24
‘terrorists’, ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘fanatics’- Islam. The effects of these when combined with

other formats of misrepresentation and disinformation, such as television, cartoons

programmes and prints’ cartoon, will no doubt resonate and cultivate in the audience a

stereotyped worldview as intended by the sponsors. Citing the inflammatory statements of

many political leaders, academics and even sporting commentaries at the opening of Sydney

Olympic, where Muslim contingents were badly complimented, Quraishi (2001) writes that

“the stereotype image of Islam has become a crutch on which the survival of Western cultural

identity depends”. All these put together will continue to microscopically and macroscopically

affect Islam and Muslim, even as resulting provocations and reactions remain ill-winds that

blow nobody any good.

CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD

Events in the world have proved that no war ended outside the roundtable. Therefore, the

current mediated cultural fiasco between the West and the East (most importantly the Islamic

world) requires cooperation and understanding of the parties involved as its panoramic nature

has shown that unilateral measures will keep escalating the differences. The starting point is to

shed the toga of ethnocentrism that has beclouded appreciation of alternative viewpoints. This

is a condition precedent for forging unity in diversity in today’s technologically united but

culturally divided world. For this reason, both the accuser and the accused have roles to play.

For Islam and the Muslims, there is a great and enormous duty in the hands of the leaders and

the followers alike. To start, with those portions of the Holy Qur’an that emphasize unity in

diversity should be followed to the letter. The Qur’an (Al-Hujurat:13), for example, says “we

are created differently so that we can learn from and appreciate each other. Qur’an (Ar Rum:

22) also says “and of His signs is the creation of the heaven and the earth, and the difference

of your languages and colours.” Therefore, Muslims should see fellow human beings as

25
creatures of God for purpose best known to God. In the same token, there is the great need for

dialogue. Repeated about fifty times in the Qur’an is the verb aqala, which means ‘connect

ideas together, reason, understand an intellectual argument (Rodison, 2007: 115), as dialogue

creates understanding hitherto unavailable amongst opponents. Supporting this notion, Qur’an

(Al-Anfal: 32; Yunus: 100) says “Allah particularly detests those who are unwilling to subject

their fundamental ideas to re-examination: such people are the worst in His eyes”.

There is increasing need for unity among the Umma to purse those ideals that will assist in

putting Islam in its ordained path of galvanising mankind to the ways of Allah. “The

community of Muslims were like the joint stock company of Locke” (Ahmad, 1981: 102). This

presupposes that bonding is a characteristic of Islamic society as opposed to individualism of

the West. Therefore, efforts should be made to unite various sub-sects that have been the roots

of rancorous misunderstanding, which allows for infiltration of their camps by those with

nefarious intentions. Muslim leaders should not relent in their effort to educate the masses of

followers on both material and Godly paths. This idea of sound education as a fundamental

strategy in building a formidable civil society within Islamic community has been at the heart

of the crusade of a Turkish Islamic intellectual of global repute, FethullahGülen (Cetin, 2009).

Ishak (2010) echoes the above by recommending the creation of righteous man based on

investment in socio-political Islamic programmes and projects among government, education,

parents and the society at large.

There is the great need for the teeming youths being indoctrinated with a false perception of

Jihad to know that Allah (SWT) detests injustice to fellow human beings. To this end, Islamic

bodies across the world should be bold at condemning image-damaging acts such as hijacking,

bombing, hostages and unwarranted rampages that serve the sensational desires of the global

26
media corporations, who delight in bias and propagandistic reporting. One of the duties of

Islamic states, according to Al-Qaradawi (1998: 21), is to “educate and raise the Ummah on

the teachings and principles of Islam, prepare a positive atmosphere and suitable climate for

turning Islam’s creed, ideology and teachings into a guidance, and proof against any deviant

person.” Hence, there is no doubt that serious commitment to education of the youths will

imbue them with values and virtues that will make them good ambassadors of Islam wherever

they found themselves.

Of much importance is the need to educate the Westerners about Islam and Muslims. The

barriers that the age-long hostilities between the two civilizations have built are in part due to

inadequate information exchange. According to Basil Akel, misunderstanding about Islam and

Muslims stems from equating Jihad with senseless bloody war, seeing Islam as only Arab and

Middle Easterner that account for only 18% of global Muslims, categorising wrongdoings of

individuals and groups belonging to Islamic faith as manifestations of Islamic teaching, even

when fellow Muslims condemn such acts and outright political economy consideration of

media to attract audience through sensational reporting. All these require the attentions of

critical Islamic stakeholders, who can engage the issues logically, intellectually and maturely.

It will not be out of place to engage in massive re-education of those feeding their fellow

compatriots with ‘terror frames’ about Islam and Muslims. This can be achieved through

interfaith dialogue, workshops, seminars, exchange programmes, and other diplomatic

avenues. By persistently educating non-Muslims, particularly those in the West, about history,

culture, values and virtues of Islam, image of Islam will be improved (Imam, n. d).

A very essential mechanism of leveraging Islam and Muslims image in this circumstance is

the development of a research and development-based response strategies advocated by Khan,

Ibrahim and Aharari (2008). Contemporary alternative media, particularly social media, should

27
be employed to inform Western audiences about Islam and Muslims. Alternative media will

facilitate diffusion of gatekeepers’ free information devoid of frames and slants that have been

sensationally used by the mainstream media in their Islam and Muslims’ discourses, news and

entertainment. The availability of alternative channels would expand the information horizons

of critical Westerners who may end up re-educating their compatriots about the missing truths.

These novel media also afford Muslims the opportunity to respond to wrong notions

occasionally emanating from traditional media. There is no doubt that implementation of above

formulations by Muslims will narrow, if not bridge the gulf of hatred between Islam, Muslims

and the West.

The Western world, like the Muslim world, equally has tremendous roles to play in bringing

about true and just peace to the people of the globe. The starting point is to remember Samuel

Huntington’s warning: “The West won the world not by superiority of its ideas and values or

religion...but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget

this fact; non-Westerners never do” (Perry, 2006: 242). Therefore, there is the sincere need on

the part of the West to acknowledge that ‘might’ does not automatically translates to ‘right.’

The West should live up to the dictate of her political doctrines of freedom, equity, fairness

and respect for dignity of man.

There is a great need to know that treating the symptoms of a malady without attacking the

cause will continually yield prophylactic rather than curative results. Therefore, sincere and

open approach to addressing the problems of Muslims must be pursued without delay. Some

of these concerns are raised by Paul Craig Roberts (2006), the Assistant Secretary of Treasury

under Ronald Reagan administration, in his incisive write-up Gullible Americans. In this eye-

opening piece, he cited a book The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, written by co-chairmen

28
of 9/11 commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, which exposed the retinue of lies being

suppressed via the interconnection of the political leaders, the military and security agencies.

The cover-ups, which among others include, the improbability of Muslim terrorists being

responsible for the 9/11 incident, the manufacturing of terror scare to divert public attention,

recruitment of Muslims for sting operations by intelligence agencies of Federal Bureau of

Intelligence ilk, playing on the naivety of Americans and the suppression of Muslims’

complaints about the Palestinian issue and American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan from

the final report, are enough to elongate Islam-West face-off.

The recruitment of the media in what has been described as ‘war of oil’ is also tantamount to

abuse of power. It smacks of irresponsible journalism on the part of a media system that prides

itself as being socially responsible. The Western media systems, particularly the American,

that have been the leading information and news purveyors in today’s world should assume

responsibilities beyond their immediate domains if the idea of a peaceful global village is to be

realised; if the West and the East should peacefully co-habit in the information-created global

village. The media should not only purse the bottom-line but balance their representations of

diverse cultures and civilizations of the people of the world.

The social responsibility theory, which emerged out of the Hutchins Commission on Freedom

of the Press, remains the normative media theoretical orientation of most of the Western

nations, particularly the United States (Barans & Davis, 2010; Severin & Tankard, 2010). If

the journalistic ethos promoted by this theory were well adhered to, many Americans, for

instance, would not have been fooled into supporting needless war orchestrated by The New

York Times Judith Miller’s fictitious Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) stories. The series

of stories, based on White House hand-outs were masqueraded as objective investigative

29
reporting. Upon discovery of this malfeasance, Miller was softly eased out of The New York

Times, leaving the organization pleading that it has been fooled to fool the nation by her

reporter (Baran& Davis, 2010: 110). The most unfortunate consequence, however, is that many

lives that have been lost in the needless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be returned neither

could the injustices be repaired. But the moral lesson here is that the world superpower, the

United States, needs to know that cultural diplomacy would help bring about peace than

imperialistic and egocentric impositions.

America should keep in mind that democracy can be promoted, supported and nurtured, but

not enforced or imposed (Abbas, 2007: 78). Like the U. S., other regions of the world have

ways of evolving a people-centred political system. This explains why democracy was

operating in different colourations across the world. From an Islamic perspective, Fetullah

Gülen’s intellectual contributions to global democracy, with special emphasis on Islamic

democratic theory, are germane to any notion of understanding Islamic political system.

According to Gülen, “the understanding of democracy and human rights within the theoretical

heritage of Islam is not dogmatic but it centers around values such as compromise, stability,

the protection of the life, honor and dignity of the human being, justice, equity, dialogue and

consultation” (Cetin, 2009). There is the need, therefore, for the Western democratic crusaders

to understand the differential attributes of other cultures so as not to create problems in their

bid to ‘modernize’ them. The warnings of Mohammad Sirozi (2007: 177) are instructive:

The West will not succeed in simply imposing its ideological agenda on
Islamic countries. The effort to reform international and intercultural relations
has to be a global collective effort, towards the realization of the goal of
cosmopolitan democracy. The institution(s) of communication have to be
democratized, with the West making sincere effort to understand not only the
cultural dynamics of Islamic life but also some of the historical cause of the
resentment that many Muslims feel towards the West. Instead of peddling a
set of stereotypes and other prejudices about Islam, the popular media in the
West need to explore diversity and complexity of Islamic thought and action...
(Citing FazalRizvi, 2003).

30
What all these portend is for the West to understand and empathise with the rest of the world,

particularly the Muslim world that was once at the helm of world civilization, now undergoing

serious crises within and without her milieus. Meddlesomeness occasioned by egocentric

interest has represented by the West’s support for repressive government in Muslim nations or

anywhere in the world will always result in domestic annihilation of civil society that will

eventually result into anarchy, which effects will metastasize into every nook and cranny of

the world. The policy of external power should be such that will not undermine the interest of

other sovereignties at the altar of self-interestas done in the Cold War era and chronicled in

many texts of which Edward Herman and Naom Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent remains

a masterpiece. The way forward, therefore, revolves around understanding, consultation and

compromise, which will not only avert the clash of civilizations but make the global village a

just and peaceful abode for the realization of alliance of civilizations.

REFERENCES

Abbas, H. (2007). Islam versus the West and the political thought of AbdokarimSoroush. In
B. Rubin (Ed.),Political Islam: Critical concept in Islamic studies, vol. III. London:
Routledge.

Abrahamian, E. (2003). The US media, Huntington and September 11. Third World
Quarterly, 24 (3), 529–544.

Ahmad, I. (1981). The social contract and the Islamic state. New Delhi: KitabBhavan.

Ahmad, M. B., Abubakar, I. Y. & Mustapha, L. K. (2009).Global media and Muslim

representations. In Muntohar, A. S. et al. (Eds.) Proceeding 2nd UMY-IIUM International
Joint Seminar, Kuala Lumpur: International Joint Seminar.

Ahmed, A. S. (2006). IbnKhaldun’s understanding of civilizations and the dilemmas of Islam

and the West today. In S. Akbarzadah (Ed.), Islam and globalization: Critical concepts
in Islamic studies. London: Routledge.

Ali, S. N. & Syed, A. R. (2010). Post-9/11 perceptions of Islamic finance. International

Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 39, 27-39.

Al Qaradawi, Y (1998). Islam the future civilization. Cairo: El-Falah.

31
Ayoob, M. (2008).The many faces of political Islam: Religion and politics in Muslim world.
Singapore: National University Singapore Press.

Babran, S. (2008).Media, globalization of cultural, and identity crisis in developing

countries.Intercultural Communication Studies, 17 (2), 212-221.

Baktiari, B. (2008). Globalization and religion.In The Emirate Centre for Strategic Studies and
Research (2008).Globalization in the twenty first century: How interconnected is the
world? Abu Dhabi: The Emirate Centre for Strategic Studies and Research.

Baran, S. J and Davis, D. K. (2010). Mass communication theory: Foundation, ferment and
future, 5th Ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Barghouti, I. (1995). The Islamist in Jordan and Palestinian occupied territories. In L.
Gauzzone (Ed.),The Islamist dilemma: The political role of Islamist covements in the
Contemporary Arab world. Berkshire: Ithaca Press.

Berger, P. L. (2002). The cultural dynamics of globalization. In P. L. Berger & S. P. Huntington

(Eds.),Many globalizations: Cultural diversity in the contemporary world. New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.

Burton, G. (2005). Media and society: Critical perspectives. England: Open University Press.

Carey, J. W. (2008). A cultural approach to communication. In D. McQuail(Ed.), Mass

communication: Theories, basic concepts and varieties of approach, vol. I. London: SAGE
Publications Limited.

Castles, S. (2006). Globalization and migration: Some pressing contradictions. In P. James &R.
R. Sharma (Eds.),Globalization and violence: Transnational vonflict, Vol. 4. Thousand
Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications, Inc.

Cetin, M. (2009).FetullahGülen and the contribution of Islamic scholarship to democracy. The

Fountain, Issue 67, Jan-Feb, 2009, pp. 52-57.

Cottle, S. (2009).Journalism and globalization. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T.Hanitzsch

(Eds.),The handbook of journalism studies. New York: Routledge.

Durham, M. G. &Kellner, D. M. (Eds.) (2006). Media and cultural studies: KeyWorks, Revised
Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Firouzeh, N. (2004). Globalization and homogenization of culture: The role of mass media in
developing countries. Human Ecology, 12, 235-239.

Galeota, J. (2004). Cultural imperialism: An American tradition. The Humanist, 22-46.

Retrieved from: http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/essays3mayjune04.pdf
on 23 July, 2011.

Gilboa, E. (2002). Global communication and foreign policy.Journal of Communication, 54,

(4), 731-748.

32
Gopinath, C. (2008). Globalization: A multidimensional system. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Gordion, N. S. A. (2009). Globalization and cultural imperialism in Jamaica: The

homogenization of content and Americanization of Jamaica TV through programme
modelling. International Journal of Communication, 3, 307-331.

Hafez, K. (2003). The west and Islam in the mass media: Cornerstone for a new international
culture of communication in the 21st century. Retrieved from:
http://aei.pitt.edu/181/1/dp_C61_hafez.pdf on 23 July, 2011.

Hamelink, C. E. (2006). Excerpt from ‘Human rights for information society. In P. Cobley
(Ed.),Communication theories: Critical concept in media and cultural studies. London:
Routledge.

Hannigan, J. (2002). Culture, globalization, and social cohesion: Towards a de-territorialized

global flow model. Canadian Journal of communication, 27, 277-287.

Ishak, M. S. H. (2010). Negative media effects and Islamic remedies. Journal of Islam in Asia,
7 (2), 1-27.

Jan, M. (2009). Globalization and media: Key issues and dimensions. European Journal of
Scientific Research, 29 (1), 66-75.

Khan, F. R., Ibrahim, A. &Aharari, S. (2008). Global media image of Islam and Muslims and
the problematic of a response strategy. A Paper Presented at International Conference on
Misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims in the Media. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August,
2008

Korhan, D. (n. d). Globalization, culture and the role of mass media.Retrieved from
http://www.duygukorhan.com/articles/henrikfinal.pdf on 23 July, 2011.

Kutty, F. (2006). Issues in Islam: Islamist and the West, coexistence or confrontation. In S.
Akbarzadah (Ed.),Islam and globalization: Critical concepts in Islamic studies. London:
Routledge.

Marsella, A. J. (2005). “Hegemonic” globalization and cultural diversity: The risk of global
monoculturalism. Australian Mosaic, 11 (13), 15-19.

Marshall, I. &Kingbury, D. (1996).Media realities: The news Media and power in Australia
society. Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty Limited.

McChesney, R. W. (2004). The political economy of international communications. In P. N.

Thomas & Z. Nain (Eds.),Who owns the media: Global trends and local resistance.
Penang, Malaysia: Southbound Sdn. Bhd.

McGrew, A. (2007). Organized violence in the making (and remaking) of D. Held & A.
McGrew (Eds.),Globalization theory: Approaches and controversies. Malden, MA:
Polity Press.

33
McLuhan, M. (1964).Understanding media: The extensions of man. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.

McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s mass communication theory, 5th Ed. London: SAGE
Publications Limited.

Murdock, G. (2004). Pass the posts: Rethinking change, retrieving critique: European Journal
of Communication, 19 (1), 19-38.

Palvic, J. V. (1998). New media technology: Cultural and commercial perspectives, 2nd Ed.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Papp, D. S. (2002).Contemporary international relations: Frameworks for understanding,

6thed. New York: Longman.

Pieterse, J. N. (2006). Globalization and hybridization. In M. G. Durham & D. M. Kellner

(Eds.), Media and cultural studies: KeyWorks, Revised Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.

Preston, P. &Keer, A. (2001). Digital media, nation-state and local culture: The case of
multimedia ‘content’ production. Media, Culture and Society, 23 (1), 109-131.

Quraisi, B. (2001). Islam in the western media.The Multi-Cultural Skycraper Newsletter,

October 12, 2001.

Rauschenberger, E. (2003). It’s only movie right? Deconstructing cultural imperialism:

Examining the mechanism behind U. S. domination of global cultural trade. Retrieved
from http://politics.as.nyu.edu/documents/IO/4600/rauschenbergerthesis.pdf on 23 July,
2011.

Riley, P. &Monge, P. R. (1998).Communication in global community.Communication

Research, 1 (4), 355-358.

Ritzer, G. (2008).The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Rodison, M. (2007).Islam and capitalism. London: Saqi Essentials.

Roukis, G. S. &Zarb, F. G. (2006).Globalization, organizational opaqueness and

conspiracy.Journal of Management Development, 25(1), 970-980.

Sajoo, A. B. (2008). Muslim modernities: Expression of the civil imagination. London: I. B.

Tauris Publishers.

Sayre, H. M. (2008). The humanities: Culture, continuity and change, vol. II: 1600 to the
Present. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Sides, J. & Gross, K. (2011). Stereotypes of Muslims and support for the war on terror.
Retrieved 29 August, 2011 from: fhttp://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/muslims.pdf.

34
 Sinclair, J. (1996). Culture and trade: Some theoretical and practical consideration. In E. G.
McAnany & K. T. Wilkinson (Eds.), Mass media and free trade: NAFTA and cultural
industries. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Sirozi, M. (2007). The intellectual roots of Islamic radicalism in Indonesia: Jafar Umar Thalib
of Laskar Jihad (Jihad Fighters) and His educational Background. In B. Rubin, (Ed.),
Political Islam: Critical concept in Islamic studies, vol. III. London: Routledge.

Sreberny, A. (2000). The global and the local. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch(Eds.),Mass media
and society, 3rd Ed. London: Arnold.

Stevenson, N. (2002). Understanding media culture, 2nd Ed. London: SAGE Publications
Limited.

The Emirate Centre for Strategic Studies and Research (2008). Globalization in the twenty first
century: How interconnected is the world? Abu Dhabi: The Emirate Centre for Strategic
Studies and Research.

Thussu, D. K. (2000).International communication: Continuity and change. London: Arnold.

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Internationalism, globalization and cultural imperialism.In K. Thompson

(ed.), Media and cultural regulation. London: Open University/Sage.

Tomlinson, J. (2003). Globalization and cultural identity.Retrieved from

http://www.polity.co.uk/glocal/pdf/GTReader2eTomlinson.pdf on 23 July, 2011.

Tomlinson, J. (2007). Globalization and cultural analysis. In D. Held & A. McGrew

(Eds.),Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Waisbord, S. (1998).When the cart of media is before the horse of identity: A critique of
technology-centred views of globalization. Communication Research, 25(4), 377-398.

Wang, D. (2008). Globalization of the media: Does it undermine national culture? Intercultural
Communication Studies, 17 (2), 203-211.

Wise, J. M. (2008). Cultural globalization: A user’s guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Xue, C. (2008). A review of Tomlinson’s view on cultural globalization.Asia Social Science 4

(6), 112-114.

Zekos, G. I. (2004). Ethics versus corruption in globalization. Journal of Management

Development, 23 (7), 631-647.

35

View publication stats