What is cultural MERCOSUR, and why was it created?
Cultural Mercosur is a custom system that was established in the Southern Europe to enhance the economic globalization in the region. The Mercosur organization was formed as a result of an agreement between two countries at first, Argentina and Brazil. However, years later some other countries joined in including Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela. This organization was established with the main aim of establishing a cultural custom of free-trade between the member countries. Cultural Mercosur was formed to promote what Miller and Yudice describe as commercial cultures in some of the Latin American states (108). The aim of establishing the Mercosur agreement was to reduce the barriers in the market; for example, the tariffs on goods between the member countries.
Miller and Yudice state that in the Soviet Union, the culture was about more than entertainment. What, specifically, was it about according to them?
According to Miller and Yudice, culture had more significance in Soviet Union community than one would imagine. In Most cases when we talk of culture, someone may only think of the social-cultural aspects of the society. However, in the Soviet Union, the role of culture extended beyond the socio-cultural aspects. The culture had a great impact on the Germans economy and politics. The role culture played in the Soviet Union was more of enhancing political awareness than entertainment. As Miller and Yudice explain, in the Soviet Union, culture played the role of liberating the society from political and social discrimination like capitalism. For example, the authors further explain that the need to stay away from the capitalistic influence led to the dissolution of the proletarian arts organization by the Russian education system and adopting the Czarist education system. The re-adoption of this old system of education was mainly to fight off the anti-communists Marxism ideology that was widely spreading across Europe by that time.
Is culture about more than entertainment across the world today? Should it be?
The question whether culture still has influence on other aspects like it used to be the case in the Soviet Union is obvious. In todays world, culture has a role beyond entertainment. Currently, we experience what we may term as cultural globalization where people learn new cultures from other communities not with the intention of getting knowledge but with the main intention of establishing a close relationship with the community so as to benefit economically and politically. Just like in the Soviet Union where the culture was used to enhance the Russian revolution, it is still used in the modern society to enhance some other aspects apart from the entertainment that it should enhance. Although, there is no difference with the days of Soviet; but in the modern world, culture is used for selfish reasons. Therefore, it should not be encouraged; it should not be because the beneficiaries are not the community as a whole but few egocentric individuals who want to put their interests ahead of the entire community.
Considering the above questions about culture and entertainment, what role should policymakers take (if any)? Why?
Policy makers have a great influence in most of the societal aspects. What we see in the modern society is more of selfishness than serving people. People are given the responsibilities in the policy-making sectors but they misuse their powers to promote their egocentric desires. Culture is more related to the social aspects of the community; how the community behaves and their beliefs. However, as we can see in the modern society, the idea of promoting the societal beliefs has been tarnished by few individuals who change things for their benefits. Therefore, policy makers should try to emphasize on enhancing the social aspects of culture like entertainment and promoting cultural values of the society; and it should not be the case that we see today especially in capitalistic societies like the US where policy makers introduce a policy that favors their political and economic agendas. The cultural industry should be given freedom to exercise their roles freely other than being influenced by the external body like the government that dictates what it does or not.
What was Nazi Germanys Federal structure of cultural policy? Is it similar or dissimilar to the U.S. Federal structure? Explain.
Nazi Germanys Federal cultural policy structure was dissimilar to the U.S Federal structure, something that was mainly contributed by the difference in ideologies between the west and the East. Germany falling under the East side advocated for the socialism ideology, something that was despised by the westerners like U.S who advocated for capitalism. In Germany, cultural policy was structured in a manner that it enabled the artists to participate in the establishment of the new social system (Miller & Yudice 113). In the US, the capitalism idea was so rampant that it influenced even the entertainment industry. The cultural policy that allowed the privatization of the film production studios enhanced the ideology. The Nazi Germanys Federal structure of cultural policy was different with that of the US.
In what ways is globalization beneficial to the arts? In what ways is it detrimental? Discuss fully, and give examples.
Globalization is both beneficial and detrimental to the arts industry. As Miller and Yudice discuss, the process of globalization has not only influenced the economic aspects but social and cultural as well. In most cases when we talk of globalization, people first relate it to the economic development alone. Although, the case is different; when we talk of globalization especially in the modern society, we relate all aspects political, social, and economic because they are affected equally. Globalization has befitted the arts sector in various ways; for example, it has promoted cultural integration and understanding in various regions. Films are acted in either US, Germany or the even UK but they can be able to reach the people in other continents like Asia or Africa easily. People from such regions like Africa and Asia are able to watch the films because they can understand the cultures. However, it is not entirely beneficial to the arts sector; there are some negative effects as well. Most of the societal cultures are lost in the process of embracing globalization. For example, when one adopts a new culture; it is most likely that he/she is going to abandon the previous one; thus, contributing to the loss of important cultural values.
Miller and Yudice state that culture is more than a frosting to capitalist Latin Americas economic community. What does that mean?
As Miller and Yudice explain, culture in the Latin America was more than a decoration to the capitalist economic community. The culture was a symbol of change in establishing a new ideology in the region after independence. The culture was used to bring out the distinction between the ideologies of the west and the east. Culture played the role of binding the many cultures that existed after independence in America and promote what Miller and Yudice term as transculturation (118). Culture played a major role in the revolution of America after independence when it comes to economic aspects. The West where America belongs believed in capitalism that was greatly discouraged in the East. Therefore, after independence, there was a need for each country to establish their unique culture that would have nothing to do with the colonial masters. As a result, the culture was used to anchor the establishment of this unique custom and ideology in the Latin America that was distinct from the East through a process that Miller and Yudice call Latin Americas cultural maturity (119).
Should members of a particular culture be the only ones who can tell the history (or story) of that culture? Why?
The fact that only a certain members of a given community should be the ones to tell the story of that community is an ideal that can only be accepted by the states or people who believe in capitalism ideology. Capitalists believe that something is owned by an individual and not communal as the case of socialism. As Miller and Yudice explain, capitalist states like the US embraced the privatization of commodities; as compared to the socialist states like the Soviet Union where most things were owned by the state and most decisions made by the states. However, when it comes to cultural aspect, the story of a given community should not be told by the people from that community only because it will be seen as more of selfishness. As globalization continues to spread, it is the time that we accept other peoples cultures and values, something that can only happen when people share the values and ideas amongst themselves. Therefore, telling a story about the community should be done by anyone who understands the communitys culture and it does not necessarily mean that the storyteller has to be from that community.
What does it mean to democratize access? How can policy affect this?
To democratize access is whereby people are allowed to participate in the establishment of the legal responsibilities. As Miller and Yudice explain, the divide between the imperialists and the juridical people became even wider, something that forced the policymakers to involve the intellectuals and states people in designing a new education programs that aimed at reducing this gap (Miller & Yudice 123). To democratize access is to encourage the participation of the civilian in policy making and implementation. Therefore, when the policy makers take it upon themselves to make and implement the policies that affect wider community, it affects the democratization access.
How might culture be used as a policing device? Give at least one example, and explain
According to Miller and Yudice, culture can be used as a policing device when it is effectively allowed to take part in the support of institutions that embrace creativity and collective way of life. However, this can only be achieved through a systematic establishment and implementation of cultural democracy, effective language policy, and effective support of cultural rights. For example, preserving the heritage that seems important to the community can greatly help in using the culture as a policing device.
Miller and Yudice state that at each step of the history of Latin America, culture or its imputed absence has provided a model of human worth to legitimize or contest the status quo. Is this an appropriate or effective use of culture? Why?
After independence America became one of the continents that contained diverse races, and each of the race had its unique culture. According to Miller and Yudice, the absence of common culture in the Latin America has greatly influenced the fight towards the realization of status quo in the region. The adoption of culture in the education system was as a result of recognizing education as an agent of change. as Miller and Yudice explain, in most of the Latin American countries like Chile education was regarded as a means to change customs and acculturate the masses into well-being (124). I believe this is an appropriate use of culture because there would not the essence of having a culture that only favors a small group of people for everyone to adopt. Adopting a new culture that would favor everyone in the region irrespective of the race or color is the most appropriate and effective use of culture.
In the above question, what is meant by culture?
Based on the above question, culture is a means of intermediary that exists between the government and the common people in the society (Miller & Yudice 124). Through the integration of cultural practices in the education system which...
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: