Using examples, distinguish between cultural imperialism and cultural diffusion.

Examine the range of responses to the loss of national sovereignty that globalization can bring.

There is no universal agreement on the precise meaning of these terms, but expect a general distinction to be made between voluntary/consented changes (diffusion) and enforced/pressured changes (imperialism). In reality, there is a spectrum of pressure, and candidates may take different positions on this. All arguments should be judged on their individual merits.

Cultural imperialism denotes the projection of power – wherein a subaltern community or subordinate country experiences the “top-down”/forced imposition of cultural traits eg religion (missionaries), language, legal structures, dress codes, etc. Examples might include English language insistence in some Alaskan Inuit schools in recent times; or China in Tibet today; Indonesia and East Timor. Global domination of English – via the internet – is another contemporary theme, or American cultural hegemony (Hollywood, etc).

Cultural diffusion denotes a wider set of processes of cultural spread of which imperialism is just one avenue. Traits may be sought out and adopted voluntarily(eg Japanese teenagers adopting US music, film, etc). There are many avenues for diffusion, notably migration and music (via the internet). Adoption of Mexican diaspora cultural traits (especially food) by wider US society might be explored (or parallel examples elsewhere, eg UK, Sweden).

Political viewpoints may differ as to how the actions of TNCs should be categorized (the spread of consumerism may be seen either as a form of imperialism, or as diffusion) and different arguments should be judged on their own merits and in light of the evidence presented.

Good answers may touch on the growing projection of eg Indian and Chinese culture as exemplification, rather than being restricted entirely to historical European and USA superpower examples.

To access band C, both concepts/processes must be addressed and examples provided; and at band D, an attempt at distinguishing should be made, with specific examples of both provided (though the distinction may not be entirely convincing, because the concepts are sophisticated ones).

To access band E, the response should be well-balanced, well-articulated and well-exemplified.

Other approaches may be equally valid. Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

Credit all content in line with the markbands. Credit unexpected approaches wherever relevant.

Loss of sovereignty describes a state surrendering legislative power (eg can no longer act unilaterally when setting tariffs, migration controls etc). Loss of sovereignty could also be seen as a growing dependency on foreign-based TNCs, and foreign influences on national culture, etc. Some may argue the retreat of national identity, due to cultural diffusion [Guide 5] is progressive (“global citizen” ideas).

Reasons for loss of actual political sovereignty could include the growth of multi-governmental organizations (MGOs) or trade blocs, the actions of global organizations such as World Bank and IMF, the growth of international treaties and courts, as well as the excessive power of large global corporations [Guide 6]. Do not expect all of these themes to be covered, even in a good answer.

The economic logic behind MGOs may be appreciated and the benefits this can have for freer financial flows and migration flows, which may bring wealth to host and source regions [Guide 3]. Thus, some groups/companies/governments respond to globalization by embracing the benefits associated with MGO membership (weaker answers may simply cite the benefits, rather than explaining why some businesses show enthusiasm for MGO membership).

The negative response against globalization – such as resurgence of nationalism and opposition to migration in the EU – are likely themes [Guide 6] that can be extended through the analysis of the reaction of civil society and the organized rejection of this aspect of globalization, perhaps through political or religious pressure groups.

There is also the larger-scale idea of countries “opting out” of globalization (N Korea, Bhutan) [Guide 7]. These may determine what degree of sovereignty is ceded (not all European nations have joined EU, for instance).

Positive responses to globalization can thus be weighed against the fear of possible losses, costs and challenges. Any conclusion reached will be context-dependent. The arguments may be different for an account focused on the EU, in comparison to a discussion of NAFTA or MERCOSUR.

Band C answers describe a narrow range of responses that are linked to globalization or may explain why sovereignty is lost/threatened (but do not link this to the responses of particular actors). At the upper end of this level, there may be a simple, assertive conclusion based on a narrow synthesis of information.

For band D there should be a synthesis of several evidenced themes taken from the subject guide or a conclusion that reflects on a range of responses (perhaps weighing the net balance of positive and negative responses, or taking into account the differing perspectives of different actors). At band E, expect both of these elements (both synthesis and some proper evaluation).

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

This topic is clearly taught very differently by different centres. Some regard McDonaldization as a form of imperialism (in the neo-colonial mould), whereas others see it as a more pervasive form of cultural diffusion (on the basis that no-one is forced to eat a Big Mac at gunpoint). Either political view is fine, provided it can be justified and argued. Some good answers linked the diffusion/imperialism distinction with inequalities in power (that is, they contrasted an essentially one-way exchange, imperialism, with a two-way exchange of culture, diffusion). Another popular interpretation involved analysing cultural imperialism as the way culture is “rolled out” globally by powerful TNCs, whereas cultural diffusion was explained as being the “grass roots” embracing of traits belonging to migrant/diaspora groups by the wider population. Again, this was a fine approach to take if it could be argued coherently. In conclusion, there was no definitive “right” answer here; rather, there was an entire spectrum of “right” answers. “Wrong” answers, in contrast to these, typically tended to be self-contradictory (that is, the actions of TNCs were described as being both imperialism and diffusion, with no actual distinction made).

The subject guide (part 3, section 6) provides a teaching focus on geopolitical aspects of the loss of sovereignty (that is, the creation of MGOs) but also widens the geographical inquiry to encompass the power of TNCs. Thus, the cultural imperialism concept can be used in this wider context too, and many candidates made the connection. But it was a shame that some of those who chose this topic did not grasp the centrality of MGOs to the discussion at all, and knew little about the geopolitics of trade bloc membership and the mixed reaction of civil society. Some other weak responses did not answer the question directly and instead wrote only about how loss of sovereignty happens, not what the “range of responses” to this then are. Thus, they could write about English language spreading globally and threatening other tongues but did not, for instance, examine the response of either the French or Chinese government to this (setting quotas for the amount of foreign-language music, or films, respectively). In contrast, the best answers were properly synthetic and covered all of the key themes. Some showed very good current affairs knowledge of events in Greece and the Eurozone, or of “resource nationalism” (another reaction) in South America.