Diasporic Media in the UK: Journal #3

We discussed in Monday's class the old perceptions of diasporic communities in host countries and how they have changed, as well as the different types of media outlets diasporic communities create. One theory we discussed that seemed especially relevant on a personal level was Ulrech Becks' concept of "cosmopolitanism," the tendency of an individual to identify with a global, non-nationalistic culture. As a US transplant in the United Kingdom at a time when attitudes aren't necessarily pro-American, I have found myself detaching from my identity as an American. Though I am proud of my American heritage, I have found that I learn more in a foreign place by remaining open and non-biased to the people with whom I am speaking. While talking to an Italian friend, I found myself referring to my home country as "the US," rather than "home," a matter of speaking directly correlated with Beck's theory. As opposed to "othering," treating your home country as the basis for all other cultural comparisons, Cosmopolitanism promotes the acceptance of the "otherness" of countries, acknowledging that all are others in different contexts and emphasizing the importance of understanding for personal and national survival in an increasingly Global society. Going back to last's week's discussion, I wonder if this increase in Cosmopolitan thought is contributing to cultural homogeneity, especially for other citizens who are displaced from their birth culture like I am. How can we balance loyalty to our home countries while maintaining an open and multi-perspectival view of world policy? That question has yet to be answered.

Diasporic Media in the UK: Journal #2

In our second week of class, we discussed the impact of globalization on the United Kingdom. Globalization is a hotly-debated topic in contemporary times, and while some argue that widespread communication can only improve conditions for people all over the world, others cite the opportunity globalization creates for cultural homogeneity and dominance of capitalist countries.
In the United Kingdom--a wealthy country with a capitalist economy and access to technological resources--globalization seems to have had positive effects on the lives of citizens, especially ethnic minorities separated from friends and family in their native countries. With improvements in global communication technology, families can stay in contact with their far-away loved ones (if they have access to the same technologies, which many may not). Furthermore, global communication has allowed ethnic minorities more representation in the media of the United Kingdom. The huge Bengali population in London, for example, has prompted a surge in Bengali representation in both film and television, especially in programs geared toward younger audiences. I was guiltily watching the cheesy soap opera Hollyoaks on E4, and found amongst the scandalous stories of love, sex, and betrayal, a storyline based around racism toward an Asian student. In fact, a number of members of the young, ridiculously attractive cast represent the large minority groups of London. For countries as wealthy as London, globalization seems beneficial both socially and economically. As media outlets recognize the expanding market of ethnic minorities of the UK, members of these groups gain more media representation, and, as a result, are less alienated and more accepted into society. This is a rather simplified explanation, and inclusion in one culture may bring issues of cultural allegiance into play, but overall, for capitalist countries and the citizens who inhabit them, globalization seems to have positive effects on society. The implications for smaller, poorer countries, however, may not be so beneficial.

Diasporic Media in the UK: Journal #1

I have been in London for a total of twelve days now, but for some reason, it feels like it's been months. Though the city is lively and fast-paced, it is not intimidating, and I feel like I'm already assimilating into the rhythm of life here. I have always found comfort in large cities like London or New York. Because the population is so dense and diverse and the city is so accessible (via walking and/or public transport), an individual is forced to interact with all sorts of people on a daily basis. As a result, it seems there is more freedom to look, act, or behave (to a certain degree) however one chooses.

This observation is particularly relevant when considering ethnic identity in London. In America, especially in a community like Los Angeles, a great pressure is placed on the individual to assimilate into American dress and culture. One is either "Americanized" or confined within a closed cultural community. It is rare to spot a Saudi woman wearing an abaya at the local supermarket, for example. Yet in London, various nationalities are represented throughout the city. It is difficult to walk a block without spotting a local curry shop, or visit a large chain restaurant like Pret-a-Manger without recognizing the Carribbean, Middle-Eastern, or Asian influences on various menu options. Though I am new here, and run the risk of sounding idealistic or ignorant, it seems that cultural difference is a much more commonplace and accepted occurrence in London.

Hello

Hi everyone! I'm starting this blog for a Comm class as a US student spending the semester in London. I'm pretty sure no one's going to read this, but I figured this blog would give me a good opportunity to write journal entries for class and chronicle my time here for my own enjoyment. I'll try to update it regularly (i.e. not forget I have it)
Cheers!