The problem concerning whether the Internet plays a pivotal part in globalization is a very contentious and debatable topic. Globalization, frequently defined as the integration of financial capital markets and culture throughout the world is watched as a concept that has both damaging and also positive advantages. The rate of development in the globalization of countries and geographical areas is enjoyed to be seriously assisted by the speed of info knowledge that the Internet delivers.
However, although in theory, the sharing of knowledge is supposedly to be beneficial towards the development of mankind, the Internet equally delivers a pathway to homogenizing culture and creating an unequal playing field for developing countries. This argument is clearly watched just in case research of Asian countries, specifically in Thailand. Hence, the utilization of Internet as well as the development of companies found on the Internet have improved, the query raised is the fact that although development has advanced correspondence and knowledge, has this benefit affected persons living in developing nations, or has the gap between your wealthy as well as the bad widened?
The Internet is a special shape of media. It has the force to reach several but this really is affected by factors including financial status, technological talent, knowledge, as well as the want for the medium. The Internet is not always appropriate or potential for everyone to have, and in a nation like Thailand, it may be clearly enjoyed that the less lucky have been marginalized, specifically the uneducated and those from remote regions. As an example, seventy % of Thailands Internet consumers are concentrated in The Bangkok Metropolitan Area (Hongladaron, 2003) and just 4 to five % of Rural Thailand has access to the Internet.
In a some of his articles the scholar Hongladaron has moreover discussed the marginalization of remote Thai people. Hongladaron states the pros of the Internet, but then confirms from his analysis that because these advantages are just accessible by the rich, therefore, due to the bad being marginalized, the Internet is regarded as a discriminatory shape of medium. However, Hongladaron additionally argues that the Internet refuses to homogenize cultures. He states that the connection between computer-mediated correspondence technologies and regional cultures is characterized neither with a homogenizing impact, not by an erecting of barriers separating 1 culture from another. (Hongladaron, 1998).
Hongladaron came to a conclusion about the Internet homogenizing culture, but just to a limited extent. With limited info being accessible found on the techniques that Thai folks communicate found on the Internet, or see the Internet as a medium, its difficult to conclude whether the total impact of the Internet is homogenizing. But, it may be clearly reported that the Internet does marginalize those that are unable to employ this medium.
As use of the Internet becomes more favored, the debate of homogenizing culture is fiercely discussed. Some academics argue that because the Internet benefits the wealthy as well as the educated, those that are capable to utilize the Internet often have a amount of mental capability, therefore, the homogenizing of culture is just appropriate to a limited extent. As an example, the Bengali tribes in Bangladesh practice sustainable living and never value the knowledge that is presented found on the Internet. They see the Internet as a rather bad shape of correspondence, as individual contact is not prepared. Members of the Bengali tribe reside by the Hindu religion and everyone in the tribe has a certain character.
Thus, the tribe as a entire is self-sufficient and members never feel the requirement to follow the values as well as the teachings of the Internet. Furthermore, indigenous Tibetans are another illustration where the knowledge of the Internet refuses to reach the individuals. Due to their belief of the Buddhist training of the Livelihood, they believe in living in tranquility with their surrounding land. Members of these indigenous communities never believe in the Internet as they might argue that the computer is a need and not a need. Hence, in considering the problem of whether the Internet is a tool for the homogenization of culture, although some might state yes due to developing Asian countries becoming westernized due to propaganda found on the Internet, others might argue that just Asian communities that have been westernized utilize the Internet. These academics might argue that some Asian communities, incredibly those in indigenous tribal communities, wouldn’t employ the Internet due to their cultural paradigm, therefore the Internet community is absolutely focused on simply 1 group of culture with 1 group of individuals sharing a prevalent belief: that the Internet is a worthwhile tool.
Finally, it happens to be not disputed that the Internet is a area of information sharing and this sharing of knowledge might cause certain ideologies being more prominent and change the thoughts and practices of additional cultures. But, numerous might argue that although this really is inevitable found on the Internet, the Internet cannot control the life-style of the persons lifetime and values, therefore the Internet could just present another persons discourse, but cannot force a persons ideology to change.