Content uploaded by Mark Cleveland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark Cleveland on Nov 17, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Globalization and Global Consumer Culture: The Fragmentation, Fortification,
Substitution and Transmutation of Social Identities
By Mark Cleveland, University of Western Ontario
CITE AS: Cleveland, Mark (2022). Globalization and Global consumer culture: The Fragmentation,
Fortification, Substitution and Transmutation of Social Identities (Chapter 4). In: Katzarska-Miller, Iva &
Reysen, Steven (Eds.), Globalized Identities: The Impact of Globalization on Self and Identity (pp. 71-
105). Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK. ISBN: 978-3-031-04643-8, 978-3-031-04644-5.
Abstract
The character and underlying causes of global consumer culture (GCC), and the effects of
globalization on self-concept and cultural identity have been the subject of much debate. After
recapping the literature on globalization, I review social psychology theories that are pertinent
for determining how self-concept and cultural identity are fashioned by globalization. I elaborate
on the nature, acquisition and evolution of GCC, and then consider the circumstances that
nurture or hinder the preservation, amalgamation, and vacillation of particular cultural identities.
These include examining the roles played by formal institutions, informal movements,
geopolitical events and crises, and meta-trends, and appraising how these separately and jointly
foster pro-global and anti-global sentiments. Implications for theory, practice and policy are
discussed.
Key Words: Globalization, Antiglobalization, Global Consumer Culture, Cultural
Identity, Acculturation, Situational Factors
2
Globalization and Global Consumer Culture: The Fragmentation, Fortification,
Substitution and Transmutation of Social Identities
The forces of globalization, above all those connected to the movement of people across
borders and the internationalization of markets and media, are loosening and reconfiguring
cultural identities, and in some cases, stimulating resistance to globalization and promoting the
reinforcement of traditional bonds. Cultural identity was once a straightforward concept, in that
the indigenous (local) society was the primary impetus for the development of such an identity.
Cultural identity formation nowadays is a more complex phenomenon, given that an increasing
number of people identify with more than one cultural group, and they have to figure out how to
navigate between these multiple cultures. Since these multiple cultures “can be incorporated into
a person’s identity in many different ways depending on individual choices and the status or
power of the different cultures in question, cultural identities take on highly diverse forms in a
global world” (Jensen et al., 2011, p. 286).
Globalization is a popular theme in the disciplines of sociology, anthropology and political
economy, and a burgeoning literature on the subject can be found in the international business
and marketing literatures. However, globalization has attracted little research attention in
psychology (Chiu & Kwan, 2016). This is a curious omission since the psychological reactions
to globalization, including the development of identities that transcend ethnic and national
boundaries, challenges researchers’ assumptions “about the nature of community, personal
attachment, and belonging” (Woodward et al., 2008, p. 207) at a time when the connections
between cultures and countries have dramatically intensified (Arnett, 2002). Understanding the
3
social impact of globalization and individuals’ acceptance or resistance towards global identities
have important ramifications for theory and practice, and perhaps even for public policy.
This chapter focuses on how globalization and global consumer culture (hereafter, GCC)
contribute to the formation and maintenance of cultural identity. GCC comprises a set of values
and characteristics that may conflict with parochial values and characteristics, and it potentially
represents a supplementary or substitute basis for cultural identity. Grasping the effects of
globalization on identity requires the adoption of an interdisciplinary perspective, integrating
theories from social psychology and cultural anthropology with insights acquired from marketing
and consumer behavior. Following a synopsis of the globalization literature, I review social
psychology theories that are relevant for discerning how self-concept and cultural identity are
shaped by globalization. After elaborating on the character and evolution of GCC, I focus on the
dissemination and acquisition of GCC. Next, I delve into contexts and conditions that encourage
or impede the maintenance, integration, and alternation of specific cultural identities. I will touch
on the roles played by formal institutions (e.g., WTO), informal movements (e.g., populism,
environmentalism), geopolitical events (e.g., Brexit), meta-trends (e.g., immigration, technology,
social media), and crises (e.g., Covid-19), in terms of how these independently and interactively
foster pro-global and anti-global sentiments. The chapter closes with an appraisal of how these
sentiments influence cultural identities, and their ramifications for global consumer culture.
Globalization: Definition and a Brief History
Globalization is a term that was first used in the 1930s, but which did not gain currency for
decades (James & Steger, 2014). Since the mid 1990s, however, it has attracted a huge amount of
attention in the popular press, and scholars have likewise published volumes of largely
conceptual papers discussing globalization’s effects on society (Cleveland, 2018).
4
Numerous definitions for globalization have been advanced. As stated by Harvey (1999),
globalization represents the compression of time and space. Gilpin (1987) described
globalization as a swelling “…interdependence of national economies in trade, finance, and
macroeconomic policy” (p. 389). Waters (1995) alternatively defined globalization as “a social
process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in
which people become increasingly aware that they are receding” (p. 3). Albrow’s (1997)
definition explicitly notes the effect globalization has on individuals, describing globalization as
the “…diffusion of practices, values, and technology that have an influence on people’s lives
worldwide” (p. 88). Both Giddens (1990) and Robertson (1991) describe globalization being
driven by multiple factors. Giddens speaks about the discontinuous globalization processes
driven by capitalism, the inter-state system, militarism and industrialism; whereas Robertson
stresses the dynamic interdependent factors of politics (Western imperialism), economic
(capitalism), and culture (i.e., the global media system).
Taking these conceptualizations together, globalization is a pervasive, ongoing series of
multi-layered processes or forces, each progressing at varying speeds in different parts of the
world and differentially affecting sectors of the population (Cleveland & Laroche, 2007).
Globalization is neither new nor complete; neither is it a coordinated movement nor an
accomplished fact, but rather it is best considered as representing a succession of waves. In
reality, the concept of global human society predates the existence of most contemporary
ethnonational societies, going back to the Roman Empire (Robertson, 1990). Periods of
extensive economic integration have occurred for at least 2000 years, first under the Roman
Empire and later, with trade networks like the Silk Road, which operated between medieval
European kingdoms, and civilizations in Arabia, Africa, Central Asia, and the Far East. Prior to
5
the modern period, the world economy achieved peak integration before the 1900s, principally
through the British Empire and other colonial domains. During the period corresponding to the
two world wars and their aftermaths, global integration went into retreat and national identities
were resurgent. It was not until the late 1960s, as the result of technological advancements in
transportation and media, followed by trade liberalization efforts, that globalization began to
increase once again.
Many people are unaware that the nation-state is a relatively new construction, which, by
bringing together disparate regions and cities under a centralized authority, started in Europe in
the eighteenth century before spreading worldwide, particularly during the era of decolonization
following the Second World War. These developments, in turn, gave birth to national cultures
and identities that were fashioned from some mixture of truth and myth about the past of a given
area and its peoples (Cleveland & Bartsch, 2019b), and further propagated by educational,
religious, political, and other formal institutions of the state—often by force or other means of
coercion (Renan, 1882/2002)—in conjunction with its creative industries and broadcast media.
Forces that transcend nation-states are driving contemporary culture change. According to
Appadurai (1990) global cultural flows are driven by five intertwined forces, which he labelled
as (1) ethnoscapes (transfers of people), (2) mediascapes (the means for the worldwide
dissemination of information), (3) technoscapes (the diffusion of technological processes and
know-how, and the movements across supply chains), and finanscapes (denoting the financial
plumbing of globalization, including the capital and ownership instruments).
Territorialization represents “the organization of human activities by fixing them to a
spatial territory”
1
(a task usually led by the nation-state). Deterritorialization (Deleuze &
1
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199599868.001.0001/acref-9780199599868-e-1864 (Accessed July
2021).
6
Guattari, 1994) signifies the obverse. Up until the last quarter of the twentieth century stiff
national borders obstructed the flow of information exchanges across cultures, and the lives of
the vast majority of people predominantly followed local values, customs, and behavioral
expectations. With globalization, culture is increasingly deterritorialized (Hannerz, 1992); that is,
decoupled from the constraints hitherto imposed by geography. Deterritorialization concerns
each of Appadurai’s driving forces. With respect to ethnoscapes, for example, laboring
populations (immigrants and migrant workers) are increasingly being brought into the spaces of
wealthy societies; executives travel and conduct business on five continents; global diasporas of
Chinese, Indians, Jews, and others can be found in many of the large cities of the world. The
Internet, harnessed by multinational corporations, permits information and technology (i.e.,
technoscapes) of similar content and quality, to be increasingly available in all save for the
remotest corners of the globe. Regarding mediascapes, there are new markets for film
companies, television programmers, art impresarios, and travel agencies, that have cropped up to
accompany the flows of people and technology across borders. As these commodities are
transferred, consumer tastes are transformed. In terms of finanscapes, investors are pursuing the
best returns, increasingly regardless of national frontiers. In addition to the culture-shaping
power of modern media, ideas (re: ideoscapes) are shared by the growing ethnic diasporas in
many Western cities, as well as by voluntary associations of intellectuals (such as academics)
working together across frontiers.
As I will detail in this chapter, globalization has a profound influence on people’s values,
their self-concept, including their cultural identity or identities, and by extension, their level of
attachment to local, national, global and perhaps foreign communities (Cleveland & Bartsch,
2019a; Grimalda et al., 2018; Hall & Du Gay, 1996).
7
Globalization, Culture, and Cultural Identity
For the purposes of this chapter, culture represents a system of values, norms and customs
that are shared amongst a group of individuals and that, when taken together, comprise a design
for living (Cavusgil et al., 2016). Interlaced with nearly every human activity, culture is regarded
as the dominant regulator of personal thoughts, activities, and ways of life (Berry, 1997).
Incoming information percolates through the lens of culture, subconsciously affecting
individuals’ perceptual frameworks. Reference groups are those groups that serve as standards
for self-appraisals, and as a foundation to guide appropriate attitudes and norms for conduct
(Batra et al., 2000). Through the activation of reference group social norms, culture also has a
semi-conscious regulating effect on personal priorities and behavioral expectations (Cleveland,
2015). The next paragraphs delve into several interrelated social psychology theories that are
relevant for comprehending how globalization affects self-concept and cultural identity: (a)
social identity theory, (b) cognitive dissonance theory, (c) congruity theory and balance theory,
(d) optimal distinctiveness theory, (e) self-verification theory, and, most important, (f)
acculturation theory.
The need to belong is an innate and culturally universal human motivation (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1943). Expressing one’s communal membership and embracing the values
and activities that go together with this community is a way to fulfil this need. Social identity is a
sense of ‘we-ness’: the part of a person’s self-concept that derives from their involvement in
social groups, including their investment in those socially constructed categories known as
cultures. Culture provides people with a way of being, and when absorbed into their self-concept,
culture serves to guide their thoughts and actions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). According to
social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), people are motivated to preserve a positive self-
8
concept. Such feelings of social belonging motivate people to develop attitudes and engage in
behaviors that favor their in-group(s), possibly at the expense of relevant out-groups. The general
root cause of such in-group favoritism relates to the psychological need for positive
distinctiveness, meaning that people are motivated to differentiate their in-group in a positive
manner from out-groups, thereby engaging in social comparisons. The individual may come to
see their ingroup as superior, which can lead to prejudice, and if the person has the ability to
exert influence on the outgroup, this can lead to discrimination. In some cases, a pathway for
establishing positive self-concept is for people to identify with a group perceived to have a
higher status (e.g., the global ‘jet set’), and to dissociate or distance themselves from low status
groups (e.g., the parochial community).
What happens when a person belongs to two social groups that are at odds, or when the
person encounters information that paints the undesirable outgroup (enviable ingroup) in a
favorable (unfavorable) light? Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962) is the mental discomfort
experienced by a person having two or more contradictory beliefs, values or ideas at the same
time. When experiencing dissonance, a person is motivated to reduce this psychological tension
by either changing their perceptions or attitudes (e.g., about the cultural outgroup), or ignoring
information (e.g., adverse material about one’s national history) that conflicts with existing
beliefs. Congruity theory (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955) likewise posits that individuals seek
consistency in their thoughts. When a state of inconsistency exists, individuals are motivated to
modify their thoughts as a way of restoring consistency. Also positing an inherent desire for
cognitive stability, balance theory (Heider, 1958/2013) applies to systems involving three
elements, typically signifying a triadic relationship between the self, another person, and an
object/event. Being attracted to the GCC while having a partner or best friend that is strongly
9
nationalistic creates tension and is thus an example of an unbalanced structure. On the other
hand, optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1993) proposes that people face ambivalence
arising from the conflict between their intrinsic need to belong with some social group and
satisfying their motivation to be distinct from that same group. There are cases when self-esteem
may be enhanced by attaining a positively distinctive social identity, such as when an individual
identifies with a group that is disadvantaged, or with a group that is usually seen by others as
suffering from a negative intergroup comparison (Crocker et al., 1994), for example, when the
person aspires to identify with an outgroup culture (i.e., xenocentrism, the admiration or
preference of an external cultural group over the ingroup: Kent & Burnight, 1951).
Other people’s impressions are also important for social identity formation. According to
self-verification theory (Swann, 2011), individuals desire coherence and stability with respect to
their identity and want to be recognized and understood by others in ways that correspond to
their firmly held beliefs and feelings about themselves. If necessary, they will take action to
confirm and defend their identity. Such actions include developing attitudes that assist in identity
self-verification, acquiring the symbols and signs (e.g., brands) connected to their identity, and
maintaining relationships with groups that enable a sense of collective belongingness.
Social identity is affected by proximity and exposure to other cultural groups, and
acculturation can occur firsthand and indirectly. The most prominent acculturation model is that
promulgated by Berry (1997), in reference to his work on the cultural change patters of
immigrants and minorities vis-à-vis the mainstream society. His framework delineates four
patterns arising from the permutation of two issues, concerning the value of (a) maintaining
original cultural identity and traits, and (b) establishing contact with and participation in the host
culture. The first pattern is assimilation, whereby immigrants and minorities gradually
10
disassociate themselves from their original ethnic culture by embracing the mainstream cultural
entity. Immigrants’ motivation for assimilation is often due to their yearning to enjoy the benefits
associated with acceptance by the host society (Triandis et al., 1986). The opposite pattern,
separation (Berry, 1997), or resistance (Mendoza & Martinez, 1981) occurs when the ethnic
minority reaffirms their identification with, and orientation toward their ingroup, while
minimizing or excluding identification with the mainstream society. In cases when people
experience alienation or stigmatization from the mainstream, upholding one’s ‘need to belong’
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995) through ethnic affirmation (Triandis et al., 1986) is a way of
promoting happiness. Under the marginalization pattern, instead of championing the traditional
culture the individual becomes alienated from it, while also distancing themselves from the
mainstream, perhaps due to having experienced discrimination. With integration, a mingling of
traits occurs, drawing from native and alternate cultural groups. Integration implies a mixture
without the loss of distinction and is the most frequently documented cultural adjustment pattern.
The long-term effect of integration is cultural transmutation (Mendoza & Martinez, 1981), as the
comingled elements eventually fuse into a unique, creolized cultural entity and related customs
(e.g., the Cajun culture and cooking of Louisiana).
Importantly, and from a behavioral standpoint, research has shown that the enactment of
these acculturation patterns is often contextual: individuals can exhibit integration for one set of
activities, and separation, assimilation, etc. for other sets of activities (Cleveland et al., 2009b).
Cultural identity can also be triggered or exacerbated by the presence of similar others as well as
by environmental and consumption cues, particularly in culturally-relevant contexts. As I will
detail later, these patterns can be readily extended to exposure to GCC. Similar to how minority
cultures experience acculturation with respect to mainstream societies, mainstream societies
11
around the world are increasingly facing acculturative pressures from global consumer culture.
Culture change is now principally due to the sheer quantity and intensity of instruments
promoting intercultural exchanges, including tourism, business travel, immigration, international
trade and finance, global media, and technology.
Consumer Acculturation and Global Consumer Culture
The terms ‘consumer’ and ‘consuming’ have progressively become the bases for labelling the
human experience (Firat, 1995). Consumer acculturation is a subcategory of acculturation
occurring at both the individual and group levels, centering on the agents and processes
underlying the adoption and modification of information, values and activities typifying modern
consumer culture (Peñaloza, 1994), which includes the emphasis put on satisfying individual
pursuits and other characteristics connected to embracing a consumer-oriented ethos. The
prevalence of media propagating advertising themes like self-indulgence and upward social
mobility entice people to own and conspicuously display status symbols connected to
consumption (Cleveland, 2015; Cleveland et al., 2009a). Social class was typically hereditary in
pre-modern societies; however, in today’s market economy, status is increasingly perceived as
something achievable through consumption (Izberk-Bilgin, 2010).
Materialistic passion is inseparable from consumption. Consumption itself is impregnated
with social symbolism, in that “the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the
social interaction that one has with others and the society” (Blumer, 1969, p. 2). According to
Baudrillard (1970/1998), the meaning of consumer objects can only be understood when viewed
as a constellation (assemblage). For example, the combination of a designer watch, bespoke suit,
luxury sports car and country club membership are symbolic of the lifestyle of someone with
status and power, and this consumption constellation serves as inclusion and exclusion standards
12
to demarcate social class boundaries (Izberk-Bilgin, 2010). This example demonstrates how
consumer objects are part of the ‘extended self’ (Belk, 1988; McCracken, 1986): how objects are
used by individuals for personal expression as well as to signal membership in or apartness from
a social groups, and how consumption “is institutionalized and legitimized as a language that
operates beyond the control of the individual, yet one in which individuals need to be literate, so
that they know what to consume to distinguish themselves” (Izberk-Bilgin, 2010, p. 305).
Cultural identities are asserted through lifestyles, and lifestyles reinforce cultural identities.
Symbolic self-completion theory (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 2013) predicts that—similar to how
actors in a play use props—individuals acquire and display products that they perceive will assist
them to achieve identity completion. The fact that consumers extract and project cultural
meaning when consuming many consumer products reflects the notion that a person’s identity is
wrapped up in their possessions. Testifying to the notion of the progressive commodification of
culture, of the six motivations that Shrum et al. (2013) enumerated for materialism, three connect
to social membership. The first of these, belonging, stems from what was described earlier as the
inherent human need for belongingness. To enhance their chances of acceptance by his
workplace colleagues, a Chinese immigrant dwelling in Vancouver could become an enthusiastic
fan of that city’s professional hockey team, and demonstrate this devotion by donning a
Vancouver Canucks jersey on game days. That same individual may also reveal the second
motivation, continuity, which relates to the maintenance of one’s social identity, which might
include shopping at one of the many Chinese grocery stores or subscribing to one of the many
locally-published Chinese-language newspapers. Likewise, distinctiveness, the third form of
‘other signalling’, showcases consumption rituals that signal ingroup membership as well as
13
apartness from other groups, which might be revealed when the immigrant acquires Chinese-
made products and exhibits traditional artifacts when celebrating Chinese New Year.
Theodore Levitt’s 1983 publication in the Harvard Business Review is generally seen as the
genesis of the discussion on global consumer culture (GCC). A substantial literature on GCC has
developed (see Cleveland & Bartsch, 2019a), which builds upon theories connected to
acculturation, self-concept, and social identity, and draws further inspiration from the broader
discourses on how globalization is affecting culture, impinging value systems, and in due course,
altering the social identities, dispositions and behaviors of peoples worldwide. GCC has been
described as a “cultural entity not associated with a single country, but rather a larger group
generally recognized as international and transcending individual national cultures” (Alden et al.,
1999, p. 80). In their study of the social identities and consumption of ethnic Greenlanders now
living in Denmark, Askegaard et al. (2005) distinguished GCC as one of three acculturative
influences, together with contemporary Danish culture, and traditional Greenlandic society. They
described global consumer culture as foremost representing a transnational set of values and
consumption practices heavily influenced by the consumer culture which arose in the United
States, but that has since been diffused worldwide. Cleveland and Laroche (2007) conceived and
operationalized acculturation to global consumer culture (i.e., AGCC) as an instrument for
assessing the manner and extent to which consumers’ psychologies have been shaped by GCC
(Durvasula & Lysonksi, 2016). Their conceptualization spans seven dimensions.
First-hand intercultural contact via tourism, along with media, marketing and other indirect
vehicles and forms of global exchanges operate as “cultural intermediaries” (Bourdieu, 1984, p.
359), relentlessly intertwining societies. The movement of people across borders not only entails
the migration of people to other countries, but also points to the prevalence of inexpensive
14
transportation options that quickly whisk business travellers and tourists across oceans. These
physical flows of people are accelerating the dispersion of cultural elements, and creating
fragments of any one place in many other places. The AGCC dimension of travelling
experiences and attitudes represents consumers’ experiences travelling aboard, thus providing an
indication of the direct contacts the individual has with other cultures and locales. Travellers
inadvertently diffuse elements of their own culture to locals while they are abroad, and once they
return to their home country, they recount their experiences and exhibit objects acquired during
their travels, further dispersing GCC.
Physical propinquity and direct interactions are no longer obligatory for nurturing cultural
exchanges. McLuhan (1962) prophesied the arrival “…of an electronic communications system
that would figuratively shrink the globe, begetting a global village whose constituents would
have a keen sense of their collective, cosmopolitan identity” (Cleveland & Laroche, 2012, p. 66).
Nearly universal access to the Internet has radically boosted opportunities for virtual exchanges
between individuals and cultures. This infrastructure means that entertainment, other media
programming and marketing communications are now truly reaching a global audience. As a
dimension of AGCC, the global mass media exposure provided by the Internet, satellite
television, blockbuster films, global sporting events, and other international happenings fosters
the development, acquisition, and diffusion of the ethos and behavioral activities characterizing
GCC. Although cultural meanings (e.g., about objects, rituals, etc.) typically spring from some
specific location in the social world, the flow of this meaning is shaped and channeled by various
mediating agents—within the media, advertising, entertainment and fashion industries—who, in
effect, decide “which cultural products or ideas would have currency in popular taste” (Izberk-
Bilgin, 2010, p. 302; McCracken, 1986).
15
In some respects, popular culture represents a universal language (Schneider, 2006).
Examples include the worldwide embrace of Hip Hop and K-pop, cartoons and cosplay, and fast
food and fast fashion. The diffusion of popular culture is facilitated by commercial interests
(Cayla & Arnould, 2008) including, for example, Netflix, HBO, Hollywood and its counterparts
in India, Pakistan and Nigeria: Bollywood, Lollywood and Nollywood. The Internet has however
empowered consumers, enabling them to challenge and reinterpret cultural objects and codes.
Given the ubiquity of social media, individuals have a hand in shaping the contours of popular
culture and exerting a distorting influence on its dissemination (e.g., Youtube, TikTok,
Whatsapp, Facebook), in terms of what gets shared and seen among members of their social
networks. In 2012, Gangnam Style, the K-pop single by PSY, became a global sensation,
becoming the first online video to surpass 1 billion Internet hits.
2
The lyrics
3
are loosely centered
on the consumer lifestyle stereotyping the fashionably hip Gangnam district in Seoul.
As the culture of marketing is passed on clandestinely to consumers through global
programming, it is also transmitted overtly, through advertising, product placement, lifestyle
marketing, celebrity endorsements, and other promotional activities (Peñaloza & Gilly, 1999).
This meaning transfer is reinforced by the design and organization of virtual and physical
retailing environments, as well as through transactions and customer loyalty programs. Using
words, images, sounds and associations, multinational corporations transmit to individuals the
attitudes, values, norms and traits that are implicit to GCC. The degree to which consumers are
on the receiving end of this information represents exposure to multinational marketing
activities.
2
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1483733/psys-gangnam-style-video-hits-1-billion-views-unprecedented-milestone.
(Accessed January 2021).
3
http://www.wetpaint.com/glee/articles/what-is-the-english-translation-of-psys-gangnam-style. (Accessed August 2021).
16
Communication is indispensable for disseminating the non-concrete elements of culture
across time, and between people and locations. The ability to communicate in a second (or
subsequent) language provides the tools for understanding the values and rules for social
engagement in places where that language is widely spoken (Cleveland et al., 2015). Hundreds
of millions of people are learning and utilizing English as a second language, on top of the
estimated half billion native speakers (i.e., English language use and exposure). Dominating
popular culture, business, and the sciences, and used as the go-between tongue for international
institutions and tourism, English is regarded as the lingua franca of the modern era (Graddol,
1997). English is extensively used for promotional appeals and on product signage, even in
countries where few are fluent in the language, as a way of subtly conveying aspirations of
modernity and upward social mobility (Alden et al., 1999).
Whereas the first four facets of AGCC represent exposure to external forces, the other three
components of AGCC are internal, expressing individual traits. Cosmopolitanism is a favorable
disposition towards foreign outgroups and cultures. Whereas tourists are content to be social
spectators, cosmopolitans are eager to participate in daily life the way that locals do (Hannerz,
1990). Cosmopolitans have been characterized as ‘feeling at home when abroad’ (Thompson &
Tambyah, 1999): they not only readily engage with people of different backgrounds, they are
confident that they have the proficiencies to negotiate varied cultural domains (Cleveland &
Laroche, 2012). Seeking the very best cultural experiences that the world has to offer,
cosmopolitans are well placed to introduce novel cultural components to the global community.
The culture-sharing proclivity of cosmopolitans is motivated by their cultural curiosity and out of
a desire to acquire cultural capital (Holt, 1998). Cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984) is a form of
social status acquired by cosmopolitans through their accumulation of skills and knowledge, as
17
they showcase their sophisticated tastes, aesthetics, and customs. Cosmopolitans and locals share
a common goal of maintaining cultural diversity, albeit with diverging motivations (Hannerz,
1990). The cosmopolitan ties together cultural differences without wanting to homogenize them,
whereas the parochial rebuffs external influences to maintain ingroup distinctiveness but without
concern for the cultural integrity of other groups.
Pursuing a common collection of symbolic consumption objects (e.g., H&M, Apple) and
experiences (e.g., Hip-Hop, TikTok), so-called ‘global teens’ epitomize the GCC (Alden et al.,
1999) without ineludibly being cosmopolitan. Openness to GCC reflects the notion that
individuals are able to selectively borrow from the global bazaar of ideas, objects and lifestyles.
For these consumers, goal achievement is guided by a set of standards, drawn from this global
forum as appraisal benchmarks (Robertson, 1992). The global marketplace, “through the myriad
of consumption choices it provides, presents the consumer with an opportunity to reproduce,
resist, and transcend social standing” (Izberk-Bilgin, 2010, p. 309).
Self-identification with GCC goes beyond experimentation and transient participation with
the symbols of GCC. Social identity theory argues that the stronger one identifies with a given
group, the more this enduring attachment will shape their beliefs, principles, and actions. Much
like how parochial individuals cleave to indigenous traditions, the self-identified global
consumer is motivated to act out their life in harmony with the belief systems and lifestyles that
are perceived as inherent to GCC.
Never The Twain Shall Meet. How Does GCC Align, Comingle or Conflict with Other
Social Identities?
Appadurai (1990) states that “the central problem of today’s global interaction is the
tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization” (p. 295). People observe
18
globalization against the backdrop of their socio-historical circumstances, and these subsequently
shape their worldview (Powell & Steele, 2011). Receptivity to GCC depends partly on the
worldview of the receiving consumer, which in turn is a function of how GCC is congruent with
his or her own society’s cultural norms and values, and whether GCC is sensed as a threat (e.g.,
cultural imperialism). To appreciate how GCC contributes to cultural identity, researchers must
concurrently consider parochial cultural influences.
Chiu and Kwan (2016) differentiated exclusionary and integrative responses that people
have to the altering landscapes of a globalizing world. Exclusionary responses occur when
individuals deem outside influences as threatening. Ethnocentrism refers to the perception that
the group to which one belongs is the most important, and that other cultures and groups are
lesser than, or must be evaluated by, the standards of the ingroup (Hammond & Axelrod, 2006).
Due to their insecurities, perceptions of superiority, or strong ties to the existing local order,
ethnocentric individuals generally rebuff outside influences as incompatible with the domestic
ethos. Exclusionary responses can also be episodic. As public opinion of the United States in
other countries soured under President Trump (Wike et al., 2017), so perhaps too did receptivity
to those aspects of GCC perceived as ‘American’. Integrative responses ensue in cases where
outside influences are embraced as sources of valuable information and creativity. People that
are enthusiastic about the opportunities to learn from other cultures (cosmopolitanism), that are
only weakly connected to the local society (xenocentrism, or marginalization), or that aspire to
reap the perceived benefits associated with membership in modern consumer culture
(identification with GCC) have a predisposition towards integrative reactions (Cleveland &
Balakrishnan, 2019).
19
Drawing from acculturation theory (Berry, 1997) we can extricate two patterns of
exclusionary responses to GCC: separation and marginalization. Under separation, group
members will be driven to resist globalization (and GCC) if it is perceived as menacing to their
distinct identity and detrimental to ingroup cohesiveness (Cleveland & Bartsch, 2019a; Giddens,
1990). Some consumers equate GCC with Americanization (Kohut & Stokes, 2006); an
increasingly outdated viewpoint that is nevertheless informed by the longstanding,
disproportionate influence of American popular culture, media and brands on the lives of many
individuals around the world. Fears that their culture is being displaced or overwhelmed by the
GCC motivate many individuals to resist globalization and to defend their unique ethnic and
national practices and values.
Resistance. At the communal level, some groups seek to resist global consumer culture and
engage in forms of neo-ethnicism; for example, in the form of religious orthodoxy (Barber,
1996). The belief that GCC essentially constitutes cultural colonialism provokes feelings of
tribalism, and a tendency towards ethnic or national reaffirmation, and possibly, fundamentalism.
Psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) postulates that when the behavioral freedom of a
person is constrained through elimination or the threat of elimination, that person will experience
an unpleasant motivational state of arousal (reactance) that prompts them to retain the behavior
that is threatened—to preserve their personal freedom. Research has also documented that people
can experience vicarious reactance—a person can experience the feeling of having their freedom
restricted, even if they are not personally implicated in the restriction but rather, as a spectator to
the situation (Sittenthaler et al., 2015). This can explain why some people harbor
antiglobalization sentiments (elaborated later) even when they themselves (or their own culture)
are not immediately threated with GCC, if they sense that the unique character of another society
20
(e.g., an indigenous culture) is at risk. Arguably the biggest impediment to the development of a
global identity is when people collectively believe that their cultural identity is under threat of
dilution or replacement. Perceived assimilation into GCC (Levitt, 1983) has triggered a strong
counter reaction among some people, who become motivated to defend their local cultures;
paradoxically leading to a reduction of homogeneity (Cleveland et al., 2011).
Marginalization. Some people may be unsuccessful at navigating the tensions at the
juncture of globalization and local traditions. Rejecting adherence to the spatially based identities
connected to GCC, and to ethnic or national society, they may instead pursue belongingness with
counterculture entities. Although counterculture movements take root on the fringes of society
(e.g., the 1960s hippie subculture, and later the inner-city movements of punk and hip-hop),
features of them are often adopted and modified by the mainstream consumer culture (Sklair,
1995). Factions to refute GCC are led by individuals such as the iconoclast author Naomi Klein
(2009) in her bestseller book, No Logo, by activists like Greta Thunberg who rail against the
wastefulness and environmental degradation accompanying materialistic consumer culture,
4
and
by groups such as Adbusters who describes itself as ‘anti-advertising’.
5
However, the
“…centrality of consumption to identity and to social life, combined with the diversity of
consumers and types of consumption, present a difficult challenge to consumer activists seeking
culture change” (Kozinets & Handelman, 2004, p. 698).
Cultural convergence is analogous to assimilation. Levitt (1983) contends that with
globalization, cultural differences will inexorably wither away, and that individuals will come to
identify more with GCC and less with ethnic, national, etc. social groups. World systems theory
(Wallerstein, 2004) depicts a world divided into core countries and periphery countries. As the
4
http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/youth-demand-climate-action-in-global-school-strike/ (Accessed August 2021).
5
https://www.adbusters.org/ (Accessed August 2021).
21
command centres of the global economy, the leading cities of the core countries—New York,
London, etc.—have a disproportionate influence on the creation and flavoring of GCC. The
periphery countries are dependent on the core countries who, because the latter are in control of
the levers of capital and set the rules for international trade (Smith, 1979), are seen as importers
of GCC. Also known as cultural imperialism (Wilk, 1998), Coca-colonization (Hannerz, 1992),
or McWorld (Barber, 1996), this viewpoint assumes that most individuals are passive: easily
beguiled by the materialistic values conveyed by mass media and advertising channels, local
cultures stand little chance against the seductive, slick packaging of GCC.
Also contrary to Levitt’s (1983) prediction of inevitable cultural homogenization, the
marketing literature has detailed that many consumers are constructing a bicultural or
multicultural identity, drawing from global, local, and perhaps foreign cultural narratives
simultaneously (Cleveland et al., 2011, 2013). According to Kurasawa (2004), a defining
characteristic of many people is they simultaneously possess “multilayered local, national and
global identities” (p. 240). Whether particular aspects of this heterogenic cultural identity are
salient and operational depends on situational circumstances. Over time, the co-presence of these
multiple layers will result in cultural hybridization. As a contributing factor to the development
of GCC, glocalization (Robertson, 1992)—essentially, a form of cultural hybridization—
describes how local populations adjust to and indigenize GCC, as well as how components of
local culture components are appropriated and recontextualized into global forms (Cleveland &
Bartsch, 2019a). Kjeldgaard and Ostberg (2007) offer the example of Scandinavian coffee
culture, whereby the flâneur café culture popularized worldwide by Starbucks—itself, loosely-
based on the traditional Italian café—has been modified to appeal to Scandinavian sensibilities
and aesthetics. These authors argue that given the impracticality of isolating oneself from GCC,
22
the inclusion of local aspects into global consumption is a way of projecting a distinctive
collective identity.
GCC is essentially a creolized culture, constituted by the transmogrification of multiple
layers blended together in different quantities and speeds in different places. I foresee the
emergence of several global consumer cultures, each of which representing how GCC has been
variably indigenized to become compatible with local traditions and sensibilities, and each
iteration possessing unique artifacts and lifestyles. In most places, one or several transfigurations
of GCC will coincide (and sometimes clash) with cultures and accompanying social identities
deeply ensconced in tribal and other territorial meanings, as well as with identities connected to
one’s gender, generation, occupation, and even subcultures connected to pastimes and diversions
(Schouten & McAlexander, 1995).
Reaching beyond the global bicultural identity position proposed by Arnett (2002) and
others, Chen, Benet-Martínez, and Bond (2008) claim that globalization nurtures the formation
of creolized identity arising “…from the selective incorporation of cultural elements from the
various cultural world-views and practices to which a person has been exposed during his or her
life” (p. 806). Creolization is the least researched and thus most speculative outcome of cultural
globalization. Historical analogues to creolization can however be found in relation to how
various New World cultures, such as Mexican culture, developed over time through the fusion of
European characteristics with indigenous traits (Diaz-Guerrero, 1976). Post-assimilationist
globalization has drawn the interest of interpretivist researchers (e.g., Askegaard et al., 2005;
Cayla & Eckhardt, 2008) but given that creolization unfolds over decades, empirical research is
thorny.
Antiglobalization
23
As the saying goes, ‘a rising tide lifts all boats.’ Thanks to globalization, an unparalleled
number of people have been lifted out of poverty (Bergh & Nilsson, 2014). While economic
disparities between Western and developing countries have been declining, within countries,
however, there are mounting pecuniary inequalities and cultural cleavages. Many people feel that
they have been left behind at the dock by globalization and attending deindustrialization,
becoming poorer while holding the belief that an elite few have profited enormously. This view
has some truth because wealthy people are better able to move their assets to places that can
yield the best returns. By many measures, the gap between rich and poor is growing, and there is
a diminishing proportion of people occupying the middle ground (Piketty, 2014).
Globalization has become a shorthand for attributing many of the world’s most pressing
problems (Green & Griffith, 2002). The intensification and consolidated influence of
globalization has fuelled disquiet about its nature and economic impact, on both the right and the
left of the political spectrum. Moreover, there is a growing belief that national sovereignty is
being eroded and replaced by a global order that eludes government control and is seemingly
unaccountable to individual citizens of countries (Goodhart, 2001). Populist politicians foment
misperceptions or exaggerate the threats posed by globalization, international institutions,
foreigners, and neoliberalism, as a way of garnering support. These vituperative standpoints have
found sympathetic ears, as evidenced at the ballot box (the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit
referendum, etc.).
In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm (1994) wrote about the innate need
that humans have for order and security, particularly during times when people perceive turmoil.
Authoritarian politicians that promise the restoration of some (often imaginary) old order become
attractive to people looking to regain a sense of certainty and pride when experiencing feelings
24
of insecurity and personal inadequacy. Such feelings are apt to occur among those experiencing
economic displacement from the forces of globalization. Indeed, Broz et al. (2021) showed that
the upsurge in populist voting was greatest in those American counties with declining economic
and social conditions.
National cultures and identities are not at risk of imminent obsolescence due to
globalization. When confronted with a threat, the natural instinct of societies is to circle the
wagons. The pandemic and the attending economic freefall represent the single biggest threat to
globalization that has been witnessed in decades. It may take a decade to get globalization back
on the track it was prior to the pandemic, which ironically has served to emphasize how much
the distances between different societies have shriveled, at least in a virtual sense. It is important
to recall other recent periods where antiglobalization sentiments have been ascendant, such as
after the 9-11 terrorist attack, the 2007-2008 global financial crisis, and the accompanying severe
economic recession that wracked most countries. Much like earlier episodes of antiglobalization,
perhaps many of the antagonists are not against globalization itself, but rather are frustrated
about the disproportionate gains accrued by some and the harms and feelings of hopelessness
experienced by others.
Globalization and GCC: Pull vs. Push Forces
GCC flourishes in places and during times when globalization is ascendant. Globalization
itself is nourished or stalled by various factors (Table 1), which can be categorized into pull
forces (those that favor globalization that pull people towards GCC, and that foster a global
identity), and push forces (those that are detrimental to globalization, that suppress GCC, and
that discourage the development of a global identity). The push and pull forces are further
classifiable into distinct causal elements.
25
At the top are forces driven by coordinated political bodies, including geopolitical,
institutional and governmental factors (e.g., IMF, WTO). Next are forces driven primarily by
profit-oriented entities (economic, technological, media, and corporate factors). In terms of the
former, many developments over the past five years have been detrimental to the goal of global
integration. Examples include the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, the
withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the punitive tariffs imposed
by the Trump administration with the goal of easing the US trade deficit, the expanding reach of
the ‘Great Firewall of China’ (describing pervasive forms of Internet censorship in that country),
the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe and the strain on the passport-free Schengen Area, the
exclusion of Chinese firms such as Huawei from the construction of 5G technology networks in
many Western countries, and recurring episodes of ‘rare earths’ export restrictions imposed by
China (and the crippling effect upon Japan’s high tech sector). Rising political tensions, such as
between the US and Russia due to election meddling and the annexation of Crimea, and an
increasingly assertive China, have also put the brakes on globalization, further stoking
antiglobalization sentiments (Steenkamp, 2019), nationalism, and xenophobia.
The business activities of transnational corporations (exporting, foreign direct investment,
supply chain decisions, innovation, advertising, etc.) are powerful, interwoven forces driving
globalization and the dissemination of GCC. Widely viewed as wielding disproportionate
“economic, political, and cultural clout” (Thompson & Arsel, 2004, p. 633) relative to their local
counterparts, multinationals serve as lightning rods for the discontent towards globalization. In
places with lackluster economic growth, the appeal of GCC is waning. This has been
corroborated by recent surveys that show that in the United States, Britain, France, and numerous
26
other countries, fewer than half of respondents believe that globalization is a ‘force for good’,
with many believing that only the wealthy profit from globalization (Steenkamp, 2019).
Next are societal (including social movements) and cultural factors, which are less
centrally coordinated; and individual factors, which take place in people’s minds. Philosophical
movements from democracy to emancipation, and from #OccupyWallStreet and
#BlackLivesMatter, have become global dialogues amplified by global media (Bonilla & Rosa,
2015; Cleveland & Bartsch, 2019a). Finally, there are natural factors, although the category term
is probably a misnomer since these phenomena are typically caused by or exacerbated by human
activities. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has stirred many people to look for a scapegoat:
some may blame China, others the World Health Organization, but for many the biggest target of
fury is the neoliberal global world order.
Several factors arguably span several categories and straddle the push/pull boundary, for
example, social media and inequality, which traverse the social and economic realms, and which
could plausibly encourage or inhibit globalization and GCC. The ubiquity and pervasiveness of
digital technologies (especially mobile phones) means that the virtual world encapsulates most of
the world’s population, as opposed to the online world of two decades ago which was
prodigiously Western. In the West, ethnic minority communities expanding faster than the
mainstream, and consequently the Internet population in Western countries are becoming
increasingly multicultural. On the one hand, having most of the globe’s people plugged into the
virtual world vastly increases the opportunities for exchanging information across social groups.
On the other hand, social media also promotes neo-tribalism (Robards, 2018), as people can
retreat into online communities of affinity groups—be they ethnic, media, ideological and
otherwise like-minded folk—that are relatively siloed from each other. While rising inequality
27
provides a fertile ground for fostering materialism and the expression of social status through
consumption, this disparity will also sow the seeds of discontent (antiglobalization, and repelling
GCC). Given the threats posed to domestic security and to the economy, pandemics, resource
shortages and climate change can exacerbate disenchantment with globalization and its
proponents, yet the global nature these problems, representing what Sherif (1956) labelled as
superordinate goals, necessitate cooperative interaction among societies worldwide.
Table 1: Pull vs. Push Forces of Globalization and Global Consumer Culture
Category
Pull (Favorable) Forces
Push (Detrimental) Forces
Geopolitical,
institutional, and
government
Democracy
Neoliberalism
Hegemony
WTO/IMF/UN/EU
Free trade
Open borders
Transportation infrastructure
Autarky
Customs
Tariffs, protectionism
Export controls
Censorship
Political tensions
War
Economic,
technological, media,
and corporate
GDP growth
Economies of scale/scope
Foreign direct investment
Multinational corporations
Global brands
Global supply chains
Outsourcing
Containerization
Computerization/digitalization
Internet/connectivity
GDP stagnation/decline
Supply chain bottlenecks
Social media
28
Societal, cultural, and
movements
Inequality
Tourism
Hybridization/creolization
Multiculturalism
Migration & mobility
Education
Emancipation
Antiglobalization
Nationalism, neoethnicity
Xenophobia/ethnocentrism
Localism
Fundamentalism
Repatriation
Balkanization/secessionism
Terrorism
Individual
Cosmopolitanism
Xenocentrism
Global identity
Prejudice/racism
Ethnocentrism
Insecurity/fear
Natural
Pandemics
Anthropogenic climate change
Resource shortages
Implications and Conclusions
In marketing, researchers have embraced the notions of the extended self (Belk, 1988),
symbolic consumption (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995), the material self (Bagozzi et al.,
2020), and customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993), indicating that many firms are moving
towards implementing a customer-centric perspective about products and brands, and are
dismantling the formerly dominant, company-centric standpoint. Companies do not choose their
customers as much as customers choose their brands. By embodying cultural symbols, the
consumption constellations held by consumers (comprised of products and brands), function as
signals of cultural intricacies and transformation, not only in terms of how customers see and
express themselves, but also, in terms of how they wish for others to see them, which in turn,
29
influences their self-concept. This is especially true for consumers having to navigate the
crossroads of multiple social memberships.
Consumer-based brand equity is the additional value bestowed on products—including that
which is connected to social identity—that is reflected in the way consumers think, feel and act
vis-à-vis the particular brand. Customers prefer brands that they can relate to and that have
meanings, including but not limited to, meanings connected to one’s social identity or identities,
and customers are often willing to pay a premium relative to brands that are not connected, or
that are connected to undesirable social groups (Winit et al., 2014). These meanings change over
place and time, because of situational influences and accumulating life experiences, respectively.
Of relevance to this chapter, the salience, and importance of one or several social identities
fluctuate and evolve because of changing circumstances and the presence and types of other
people present, as well as due to contexts and cues that serve as triggers.
Accompanying episodes of resurgent nationalism, a growing number of consumers are
alarmed about the ascendancy of global brands and how these represent threats to or stir feelings
of nostalgia about beloved equivalent domestic counterparts (Bartsch et al., 2019; Izberk-Bilgin,
2012). Research has demonstrated that consumers often strive to authenticate, re-center, and
express their traditional identity and heritage through the re-enactment of local customs and
rituals, and the consumption of local brands (Arnould & Price, 2003; Askegaard et al., 2005;
Zhou & Belk, 2004). By themselves, antiglobalization sentiments can adversely affect attitudes
about global brands (Dimofte et al., 2008). However, what resembles an ethnocentric backlash
by consumers may stem from economic fears and employment dislocations occurring due to
technological innovations and the forces of globalization.
30
The paradox posed by globalization is that it “divides as it unites” (Bauman, 1998, p. 2).
The major issue facing policy makers is to find ways of reconfiguring globalization, in order to
preserve the benefits of relatively open economies and borders, while curbing the financial and
environmental excesses of unrestrained global capitalism. At the individual level, in order to
combat the appeal of xenophobes and antiglobalization populists, the psychologist Michele
Gelfand argues that people first need to “feel safe”.
6
Research into individuals’ dispositions
towards and affiliation with GCC can shed light on self-concept and identity, subjective well-
being and belongingness, orientations towards cultural ingroups and outgroups (both at home
and abroad), consumption behaviors, receptivity and resistance to cultural change, and perhaps,
even inform voting patterns.
In a recent article, I stated that GCC “…is a reinforcing process shaped by global culture
flows, acculturation, deterritorialization, and cultural and geographic specific entities. This
process allows individuals to indigenize GCC, and GCC to contemporaneously appropriate
aspects from myriad localized cultures, producing creolized cultures” (Cleveland & Bartsch,
2019a, p. 556). This process does not occur in a vacuum, but rather is affected by sporadic events
and long-term trends. Understanding globalization as a process rather than a destination
(Legrain, 2002) makes it easier to see that there are many forces that encourage or impede it.
These forces similarly interfere with the adoption or rejection of GCC. As GCC interacts
with geography, domestic cultural ingredients, social class and situational circumstances, it will
increasingly fragment into distinctive forms. Moreover, the underlying personality of GCC (and
its various permutations) is “progressively shifting from West to East, as the planet’s relative
economic epicenter once again swings back to the Orient” (Cleveland & Bartsch, 2019a, p. 570).
6
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/02/authoritarian-leaders-people-safe-voters (Accessed May 2021).
31
The present, partial pause of globalization opens up an opportunity for GCC in different world
regions to become further indigenized. Over time, these distinct iterations of GCC will be
exported to the global community, and the importing societies will impose further modifications
to make them more palatable to locals. Notwithstanding periodic setbacks, the wheel of GCC
will continue to turn and churn.
References
Albrow, M. (1997). The global age: State and society beyond modernity. Stanford University Press.
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. B. E-M., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through advertising in Asia,
North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 75-
87. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300106
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, Culture, & Society,
7(2-3), 295-310. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327690007002017
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), 774-783.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.10.774
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (2003). Authenticating acts and authoritative performances: Questing for
self and community. In C. Huffman, D. G. Mick, & S. Ratneshwar (Eds.), The why of consumption:
Contemporary perspectives on consumer motives, goals and desires (pp. 140-163). Routledge.
Askegaard, S., Arnould, E. J., & Kjeldgaard, D. (2005). Postassimilationist ethnic consumer research:
Qualifications and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 160-170.
https://doi.org/10.1086/426625
Bagozzi, R. P., Ruvio, A. A., & Xie, C. (2020). The material self. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 37(4), 661-677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.03.002
Barber, B. (1996). Jihad versus McWorld: How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world.
Ballentine Books.
32
Bartsch, F., Cleveland, M., Ko, E., & Cadogan, J. (2019). Facts, fantasies, foundations, formations, fights, and
fallouts of global consumer culture: An introduction to the special issue. International Marketing Review,
36(4), 556-580. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-02-2019-0057
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J-B. E. M., & Ramachander, S. (2000). Effects of
brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 9(2), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP0902_3
Baudrillard, J. (1970/1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures. Sage.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. Columbia University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
Bergh, A., & Nilsson, T. (2014). Is globalization reducing absolute poverty? World Development, 62, 42-
61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.04.007
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 46(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice-Hall.
Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). #Ferguson: digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of
social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4-17.
http://doi.org/10.1111/amet12112
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Harvard University Press.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behaviour. In M. A. Hogg &
D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 1-16). Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
33
Broz, J., Frieden, J., & Weymouth, S. (2021). Populism in place: The economic geography of the
globalization backlash. International Organization, 75(2), 464-494.
http://doi:10.1017/S0020818320000314
Cavusgil, T. S., Knight, G., & Reisenberger, J. (2016). International business: The new realities, 4th
edition. Pearson.
Cayla, J., & Arnould, E. J. (2008). A cultural approach to branding in the global marketplace. Journal of
International Marketing, 16(4), 86-112. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.16.4.86
Cayla, J., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2008). Asian brands and the shaping of a transnational imagined community.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 216-230. https://doi.org/10.1086/587629
Chen, S. X., Benet‐Martínez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and
psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigration‐based and globalization‐based
acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 803-838. http://doi.org/10/1111/j.1467-
6494.2008.00505.x
Chiu, C. Y., & Kwan, L. Y. Y. (2016). Globalization and psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8,
44-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.010
Cleveland, M. (2015). Wanting things and needing affiliation: Ethnic consumers and materialism. In A.
Jamal., L. Peñaloza, & M. Laroche. (Eds.), Routledge companion on ethnic marketing (pp. 147-182).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203080092
Cleveland, M. (2018). Acculturation to the global consumer culture: Ten years after and agenda for the
next decade. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 28(3), 257-271.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2018.1466656
Cleveland, M., & Balakrishnan, A. (2019). Appreciating vs venerating cultural outgroups. International
Marketing Review, 36(3), 416-444. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2018-0260.
Cleveland, M., & Bartsch, F. (2019a). Global consumer culture: Epistemology and ontology. International
Marketing Review, 36(4), 556-580. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0287
34
Cleveland, M., & Bartsch, F. (2019b). Commentary: Epilogue on global consumer culture: epistemology and
ontology. International Marketing Review, 36(4), 598-606. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-07-2019-379
Cleveland, M., & Laroche, M. (2007). Acculturation to the global consumer culture: Scale development
and research paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 249-259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.11.006
Cleveland, M., & Laroche, M. (2012). Becoming and being a cosmopolitan consumer. In M. Prince (Ed.),
Consumer cosmopolitanism in the age of globalization (pp. 51-100). Business Expert Press.
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Hallab, R. (2013). Globalization, culture, religion, and values: Comparing
consumption patterns of Lebanese Muslims and Christians. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 958-
967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.018
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2009a). Cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism, and
materialism: An eight-country study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of International
Marketing, 17(1), 116-146. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.17.1.116
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2015). You are what you speak? Globalization,
multilingualism, consumer dispositions and consumption. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 542-
552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.008
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., Pons, F., & Kastoun, R. (2009b). Acculturation and consumption: Textures of
cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(3), 196-212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.008
Cleveland, M., Papadopoulos, N., & Laroche, M. (2011). Identity, demographics, and consumer behaviors:
International market segmentation across product categories. International Marketing Review, 28(3),
244-266. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331111132848
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and psychological
well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20(5), 503-513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205007
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? Columbia University Press.
35
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1976). Psychology of the Mexican: Culture and personality. University of Texas Press.
Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J. K., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2008). Cognitive and affective reactions of US
consumers to global brands. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 113-135.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.16.4.113
Durvasula, S., & Lysonski, S. (2016). Finding cross-national consistency: Use of G-Theory to validate
acculturation to global consumer culture measure. Journal of Global Marketing, 29(2), 57-70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2016.1138564
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Firat, A. F. (1995). Consumer culture, or culture consumed? In J. A. Costa, & G. J. Bamossy (Eds.),
Marketing in a multicultural world (pp. 105-123). Sage.
Fromm, E. (1994). Escape from freedom. Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Polity Press.
Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.
Goodhart, M. (2001). Democracy, globalization, and the problem of the state. Polity, 33(4), 527-546.
http://www.jstor.com/stable/3235515
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English. The British Council.
Green, D., & Griffith, M. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. International Affairs, 78(1), 49-68.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00238
Grimalda, G., Buchan, N., & Brewer, M. (2018). Social identity mediates the positive effect of
globalization on individual cooperation: Results from international experiments. PloS one, 13(12),
Article e0206819. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206819
Hall, S., & Du Gay, P. (1996). Questions of cultural identity. Sage.
Hammond, R.A., & Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of ethnocentrism. Journal of Conflict Resolution,
50(6), 926-936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002706293470
Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 7(2), 237-251.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026327690007002014
36
Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning. Columbia
University Press.
Harvey, D. (1999). Time—space compression and the postmodern. In M. Waters (Ed.), Modernity, critical
concepts: After modernity (Vol. 4, pp. 98-118). Routledge.
Heider, F. (1958/2013). The Psychology of interpersonal relations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holt, D. B. (1998). Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of Consumer Research,
25(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1086/209523
Izberk‐Bilgin, E. (2010). An interdisciplinary review of resistance to consumption, some marketing
interpretations, and future research suggestions. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 13(3), 299-323.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10253861003787031
Izberk-Bilgin, E. (2012). Infidel brands: unveiling alternative meanings of global brands at the nexus of
globalization, consumer culture, and Islamism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 663-687.
https://doi.org/10.1086/665413
James, P., & Steger, M. B. (2014). A genealogy of ‘globalization’: The career of a concept. Globalizations,
11(4), 417-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2014.951186
Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., & McKenzie, J. (2011). Globalization and cultural identity. In S. J. Schwartz,
K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 285-301).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_13
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101
Kent, D. P., & Burnight, R. G. (1951). Group centrism in complex societies. American Journal of
Sociology, 57(3), 256-259. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2771646
Kjeldgaard, D., & Ostberg, J. (2007). Coffee grounds and the global cup: Glocal consumer culture in
Scandinavia. Consumption Markets & Culture, 10(2), 175-187.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10253860701256281
Klein, N. (2009). No logo. Vintage Books Canada.
37
Kohut, A., & Stokes, B. (2006). America against the world: How we are different and why we are disliked.
Time Books.
Legrain, P. (2002). Open world: The truth about globalization. Abacus.
Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 92-102.
Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements,
activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691-704.
https://doi.org/10.1086/425104
Kurasawa, F. (2004). A cosmopolitanism from below: Alternative globalization and the creation of a
solidarity without bounds. European Journal of Sociology, 45(2), 233-255.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975604001444
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. University of Toronto
Press.
McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of
the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 71-84.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209048
Mendoza, R. H., & Martinez J. L., Jr. (1981). The measurement of acculturation. In A. Baron Jr. (Ed.),
Explorations in Chicano psychology (pp. 71-82). Praeger.
Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude
change. Psychological Review, 62(1), 42-55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048153
Peñaloza, L. (1994). Atravesando fronteras/border crossings: A critical ethnographic exploration of the
consumer acculturation of Mexican immigrants. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 32-54.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209381
38
Peñaloza, L., & Gilly, M. C. (1999). Marketer acculturation: The changer and the changed. Journal of
Marketing, 63(3), 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300306
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century: A multidimensional approach to the history of
capital and social classes. The British Journal of Sociology, 65(4), 736-747.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12115
Powell, J. L., & Steel, R. (2011). Revisiting Appadurai: Globalizing scapes in a global world–the
pervasiveness of economic and cultural power. International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary
Research, 1(1), 74-80.
Renan, E. (1882/2002), “What is a nation?” In S. Woolf (Ed.), Nationalism in Europe: From 1815 to the
present (pp. 54-66). Routledge.
Robards, B. (2018). Belonging and neo-tribalism on social media site Reddit. In A. Hardy, A. Bennett, &
B. Robards (Eds.), Neo-tribes (pp. 187-206). Palgrave Macmillan.
Robertson, R. (1990). Mapping the global condition: Globalization as the central concept. Theory,
Culture & Society, 7(2-3), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327690007002002
Robertson, R. (1991). The globalization paradigm: Thinking globally. In D. G. Bromley (Ed.), Religion
and the social order (pp. 207-224). JAI Press.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. Sage.
Schneider, C. P. (2006). Cultural diplomacy: Hard to define, but you’d know it if you saw it. The Brown
Journal of World Affairs, 13(1), 191-203. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590653
Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new
bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1086/209434
Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in inter-group conflict. Scientific American, 195, 54-58.
Shrum, L. J., Wong, N., Arif, F., Chugani, S. K., Gunz, A., Lowrey, T. M., Nairn, A., Pandelaere, M.,
Ross, S. M, Ruvio, A., Scott, K., & Sundie, J. (2013). Reconceptualizing materialism as identity goal
pursuits: Functions, processes, and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1179-1185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.010
39
Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Jonas, E. (2015). Observing the restriction of another person:
vicarious reactance and the role of self-construal and culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article
1052. https//doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01052
Sklair, L. (1995). Social movements and global capitalism. Sociology, 29(3), 495-512.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038595029003007
Smith, T. (1979). The underdevelopment of development literature: The case of dependency theory. World
Politics, 31(2), 247-288. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009944
Steenkamp, J. B. E-M. (2019). The uncertain future of globalization: Implications for global consumer
culture and global brands. International Marketing Review, 36(4), 524-535.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2018-0355
Swann W. B., Jr. (2011). Self-verification theory. In P. A. M. VanLange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 23-42). Sage.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity of inter-group behavior. In S.Worchel, & W. Austin
(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall.
Thompson, C. J., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks brandscape and consumers' (anticorporate)
experiences of glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 631-642.
https://doi.org/10.1086/425098
Thompson, C. J., & Tambyah, S. K. (1999). Trying to be cosmopolitan. Journal of Consumer Research,
26(3), 214-241. https://doi.org/10.1086/209560
Triandis, H. C., Kashima, Y., Shimada, E., & Villareal, M. (1986). Acculturation indices as a means of
confirming cultural differences. International Journal of Psychology, 21(1-4), 43-70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598608247575
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis. In G. Modelski (Ed.), World system history: Encyclopedia
of life support systems (EOLSS). Eolss Publishers. http://www.eolss.net
Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. Routledge.
Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2013). Symbolic self-completion. Routledge.
40
Wike, R., Stokes, B., Poushter, J., & Fetterolf, J. (2017, June 26). US image suffers as publics around
world question Trump’s leadership. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-
trumps-leadership/
Wilk, R. (1998). Emulation, imitation, and global consumerism. Organization & Environment, 11(3), 314-
333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0921810698113003
Winit, W., Gregory, G., Cleveland, M., & Verlegh, P. (2014). Global vs local brands: How home country
bias and price differences impact brand evaluations. International Marketing Review, 31(2), 102-128.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2012-0001
Woodward, I., Skrbis, Z. & Bean, C. S. (2008). Attitudes towards globalization and cosmopolitanism:
cultural diversity, personal consumption and the national economy. British Journal of Sociology,
59(2), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2008.00190.x
Zhou, N., & Belk, R. W. (2004). Chinese consumer readings of global and local advertising appeals.
Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639169
