Thursday, July 4, 2013

Imperialism vs. Globalism

When someone uses the phrase "capitalist imperialism," I don't expect what follows to demonstrate much intelligence or common sense ... but on the rare occasions that it is backed by rational argument, it makes me stop and think.  And in this sense, I do think that there may be some shred of merit to the aspersion that should lead to a reconsideration of certain practices.

In this instance, the accusation of imperialism was backed by the plausible, and perhaps undeniable, claim that along with products and services, Americans are exporting their culture into countries where it is not wanted and may be harmful.   Granted, it's not strictly an American problem, nor is it even an originally American one - within five minutes of listening to any European, you get the distinct sense that his perspective is that there are only two ways to do things - the European and some inferior and less effective way.   Given the values of freedom and individualism in American culture, it does seem more poignantly ironic that we would be as bigoted as Europeans, and this is likely an element of their culture that should have been left on the other side of the Atlantic.

But to return to topic ... American firms are seeking to place their products in global markets in order to generate revenue - but at the same time they are failing to consider whether the products they sell are at all appropriate to the markets they are attempting to enter.   The same principle applies domestically, when a firm wishes to mass-produce a standardized product and, instead of adapting it to the needs and preferences of a particular market segment, seek to convince the segment that they should accept the mass-produced product without modification, adapting their behavior or accepting compromised outcomes to suit the product rather than seeking a product that is suitable to their situation and needs such as they actually are.  Is there any wonder that this would cause resentment?

Because the market segment is in this practice defined by arbitrary political boundaries when discussing imperialism, the argument becomes polluted by jingoism - but if you strip away the patriotic aspects the argument still has merit.   The proper way to approach a market is to study the market first, determine its idiosyncratic needs and preferences, and then offer a product that is suitable to those needs - rather than presuming an existing product will be suitable and seeking to convince the market to purchase it.   Pushing an inappropriate product is not only more difficult and expensive, but it damages the esteem of the brand and sours the prospects to any future overtures.

Admittedly, in insisting that the customers in foreign markets have an expectation of being served by suppliers that are considerate and respectful of their needs and preferences may itself be a matter of cultural egocentricity: the desire to be respected and treated as an individual is a distinctly American value.   However, I find it absurd to consider that there are cultures that are entirely malleable, in which people have no sense of dignity and abandon themselves to external influences and are happy to abandon the "old ways" of their own culture in favor of a new foreign influence.  

That's not as ridiculous as it sounds - especially when you consider how youth the world over, desperate to define their own generation as being different to their elders, but at the same time lacking the intellectual sophistication to define a culture of their own, tend to readily adopt the trappings of other cultures (antiquated or foreign ones in particular) in order to seem distinctive.  That includes the youth in the American domestic market, for whom anything unfamiliar is attractive and there is presently a cultural void, such that anything distinctive or different, be it from a foreign market or a previous time, is embraced.

It's also not merely in foreign markets where ill-suited goods are foisted on prospects, as this often occurs even in domestic marketing, where firms aggregate populations into generic masses and executives based decisions on the assumption that customers must follow the same lines of logic that he does - or if they fail to do so, they are unintelligent and need to be educated about the product.

Even so, my sense is this is a limited segment of the population, at home and abroad, and that most people are happy with their own culture and regard external intrusion, especially when it is pushy about imposing itself, as unwelcome.  The global marketplace is not homogeneous, and will vehemently resist attempts to be homogenized, and until a common culture emerges (which is not likely to occur for quite some time), firms will need to be highly circumspect when attempting to export domestic goods abroad - or even attempting to expand markets internally on the assumption that a product appropriate to one segment will be acceptable to all.

So in the end, accusations of imperialism are likely melodrama, but there is some scintilla of value in considering the possibility that they are merely reactions to American behavior in world markets.   When we insist that foreign markets not only purchase our products, but adopt our way of life, we have likely crossed the line between globalism and imperialism, and would be best advised to step back and think things over.

No comments:

Post a Comment