Marianne Franklin, author and editor of the collection of articles 'Resounding International Relations,' gives the following example. In the 1950s-60s, the US administration encouraged tours of American jazz musicians in the USSR and other socialist countries. The reasons for this were quite simple. First, they tried to charm Soviet citizens with the appeal of American music; second, jazzmen (the vast majority of whom were black) clearly demonstrated that interracial problems in the US (which Soviet propaganda constantly reported) were not as painful.
John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, authors of the book 'The Challenge and Hidden Promises of Globalization,' note that globalization also does not mean the expansion of American mass culture. They emphasize that American films are watched all over the world, McDonald's is the first thing that comes to mind when discussing 'fast food,' and Britney Spears' songs have been heard even in Tibet. However, for example, British musicians, starting with the Beatles and Andrew Lloyd Webber, have had a tremendous influence on American music. American television imports program ideas from Europe. Foreigners own half of the largest US publishing houses and film studios. At the same time, the most popular TV shows in Europe are local, European teenagers prefer local performers, and local businessmen would rather transfer assets to a Dominica Offshore Company than entrust savings to domestic banks. Conclusion: globalization by no means signifies the triumph of one nation in the sphere of mass culture – it merely means greater choice.
In the 1970s, the US made significant efforts to liberalize global cultural markets, which was hindered not only by the USSR but also by UNESCO, which perceived this policy as a manifestation of American 'cultural imperialism.' To this day, many countries try to protect themselves from foreign cultural influence – both through direct bans and other means, such as imposing quotas on the screening of foreign films or pop music.
In 1959, in Moscow, during an American exhibition, a landmark event occurred that illustrates the importance of mass culture in American foreign policy. US President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev arrived for its opening. The exhibition included an American kitchen equipped with appliances unknown in the USSR – for example, a dishwasher and a food processor. The organizers tried to demonstrate how American housewives could save time and effort. On this 'kitchen,' a dispute broke out between Khrushchev and Nixon. Nixon stated that in the US, almost every family could afford to buy such things – and this was a merit of the American way of life. Khrushchev ironically asked why he did not see a machine that puts food in the mouth.
Mass culture also affected the political views of Americans. Michael Barson and Steven Heller, authors of the book 'Red Scared,' point out that 'People sincerely believed that the Reds (meaning agents of the USSR) were hiding under their bed. It was perceived as fact that USSR agents could influence the operation of American plumbing, that they had infiltrated the highest levels of government, and were constantly watching the US from space. The power of anti-communist propaganda was so great that Americans agreed to give up their basic rights so that the authorities could more successfully persecute their opponents.'
British researcher John Street, author of the book 'Politics and Popular Culture,' notes that in the field of international relations, pop culture has always played, plays, and will play a significant role. Many states 'bought' the loyalty of their neighbors through mass culture. For example, foreign ambassadors in Byzantium were always given a tour of the imperial palace, showing curiosities and luxury items – thus the wealth and quality of life of the Caesars were demonstrated to representatives of other elites.
Some mass culture events have become important factors in world politics. Traditionally, Hollywood films cause particular indignation. Only in the last few years have several crises of this kind been noted. The UK, for example, expressed dissatisfaction with Hollywood portraying the British Empire exclusively in a negative light (sparked by several Mel Gibson films). Iran was offended by the image of the ancient Persians in the recently released film '300 Spartans,' etc.
The history of the Olympics is illustrative. The Summer Olympics in Berlin (1936), which took place under the patronage of Adolf Hitler, fell victim to an international boycott - anti-fascists called on athletes not to go to Germany and even tried to hold alternative games in Barcelona (Spain), which failed due to the outbreak of civil war. In 1980, the US and 59 other states refused to send their teams to the Olympic Games in Moscow. This step was taken as a protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979). The US administration believed that the USSR, which attached great importance to the Olympics, would suffer seriously from these actions. In response, in 1984, the USSR and 13 other states refused to participate in the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, USA. In 1988, the Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea, were boycotted by North Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Ethiopia (North Korea resorted to a boycott in protest against being denied the right to participate in some ceremonies).
The role of mass culture acquired a new significance after the start of the global war on terrorism. Walter Laqueur, a renowned terrorism researcher and author of many books, draws attention to a telling point. Many members of Islamic terrorist organizations are outwardly consumers of Western (or American) mass culture. They may wear jeans and trendy sneakers, eat hamburgers, use cell phones, watch Hollywood movies, etc., yet the pop-cultural veneer does not affect their views. Therefore, the role of mass culture in achieving certain political goals is greatly exaggerated.
Based on materials from Washington ProFile.