THE IMPACT OF NAFTA ON THE MEXICAN CULTURE
II. THE IMPACT OF NAFTA ON THE MEXICAN CULTURE y X Free trade comes with foreign investment into the country, more product options for the consumer and economies of scale, nevertheless free trade also produces product and standard harmonization. This standardization in turn affects the cultural dimensions of the countries concerned. Although the term harmonization normally applies to the production of goods, the question of standards is also applicable to the service sector, which includes the cultural industry. In this context a culture can be invaded due to free trade. A certain culture may not be capable of withstanding the intrusive effects of another culture that monopolizes the means of cultural diffusion and penetration within a country. History is full of examples of cultures that have disappeared, either as a result of the death of its adherents or by the process of acculturation so intense that features of the original culture are difficult to discern. Thus, in Mexico after seven years of NAFTA, the issue of acculturation has become a significant concern. The extent to which the harmonization of the economies and the service industry in Mexico and the U.S. has promoted acculturation and thus a certain loss of the Mexican culture has not been studied. Cultural diffusion may be symbiotic, nevertheless, in the final analysis it is the dominant culture, in this case the United States, that will shape the final product (Del Castillo Vera 1992). While the study of culture and the way it spreads, penetrates, assimilates and transforms itself has been around since the study of classical anthropology, it is not until recently that the real concern for cultural survival is taking place. The problem today is to find those means, which aid in the development of culture and how can we utilize them as a mean of cultural survival within our modem societies. The idea of cultural control evokes images of groups or elites that exeixise power. This is very important in the NAFTA context, where such groups already exist, chai'acterized by the asymmetiy of power within the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The U.S. has been from the beginning the leader and decision maker when it comes to NAFTA regulations. In all societies that seem less complex, as well as in contemporary North American societies, cultural control is at issue, remaining in the hands of spiritual leaders, or in the collectivity of tribal chiefs. Whenever there is divergence from cultural norms, the traditional institutional mechanisms come into play in an effort to protect the old values. One has to ask who is responsible for maintaining cultural normalcy in our societies? (Del Castillo Vera 1992) Today it is the governments that should be in charge because with their power to establish free trade agreements, comes their right to protect the ever-changing country’s cultural identity in face of globalization. Any conference on United States, Canada and Mexico relations or the NAFTA negotiations addresses issues such as trade, borders and environment, poHtics, foreign investment, and the different constitutional and legal systems of the three countries. When talking about these important issues, culture tends to be overlooked and not given its necessary attention. Culture is difficult to measure and to quantify because its analysis can evoke emotion due to the inability to separate it from the political, economic, religious, social, intellectual, linguistic, and historical traditions from which it was bom. Nevertheless, it is something that should be openly talked about in International Trade Agreements and protected. Canada and France have gone a long way in the effort to protect their national identity and culture from the European Union and NAFTA respectively. While they are both economically open countries to free trade and maintain strong international commerce relations with many countries, they have managed to sustain their own cultural identity. Not condemning their national identity to “pop culture” and a world culture; these countries have wisely realized the value of their historical traits and cultural identity and have been effective in protecting it. Mexico on the other hand, has not been so effective in protecting its culture. The situation might have arisen because of its status as a developing country, or because of its dependence on the American economy, whatever it may be; the potential of NAFTA to undermine distinct national cultures has already been realized. Mexico today is a different country than what it was seven years ago before NAFTA. Nevertheless, there is still a strong identifying culture that is worth preserving. In what way has NAFTA affected Mexican culture? If the main objective of such an agreement is free trade, in what way does culture enter the equation? There is no logical reason for there being a linkage between international trade, commercial policies and culture. Yet, there is a direct linkage. First, NAFTA brings an average of U.S $18 billion dollars of direct foreign investment each year and with this its cultural implications, and secondly NAFTA also brings into Mexico with the reduction or elimination of tariffs on American products a wide selection of U.S goods which include, movies, music, books, T.V shows, clothes, brands, food, etc. With these products the U.S. is also bringing its culture, its values, its festivities as well as its way of life.
This daily influence of American products and services overtaking Mexican goods, become a commodity and a daily part of the Mexican peoples’ life, thus changing the traditional national culture and lifestyle. Mexican culture is very different fiom American culture, and this is why it is affected. Several dimensions and analytical approaches have been done in order to describe the cultural orientations of different societies. For further comparative description of Mexican vs. American culture please refer to appendices 1 and 2. So what is this American culture of which Canada and Mexico so desperately want to protect themselves? Because the U.S. is a country formed by a diversity of cultures and traditions, the only recognizable countrywide culture that is being exported is that of the convergence of state ideologies, an ascendancy of business and its values (Cross 1993). It is the modem, independent middle class style, the adoption of similar clothing, haircuts, musical choices, easy way of life, and movies. As Micheal S. Cross further describes in his article, “Towards a definition of North American Culture” the American culture is a middle-class culture. It is this culture that is imposed on Mexico and Canada through NAFTA. The American culture has become a technological one, created by the mass media and easily distributed as one through radio, music, movies, magazines, books and the Internet. Modem communications have meant the opening of the world, providing people with more information and understanding about other societies. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that modem communications have to produce cultural globalization. There is a slogan commonly used that says, “think globally, act locally” this is what globalization should be about. Countries working together, benefiting fi'cm Adam Smith’s perfect economic model of comparative advantage and economies of scale while preserving each country’s distinctive cultural identity. World communication and free trade must respect the local, regional and ethnic cultures that reflect the reality and meanings of local life. To recognize and to treasure the interrelatedness of the three countries must not mean acceptance of the homogenizing pressure of the North American culture. This cultural encounter has been further facilitated through the North American commercial agreement whose main principle is that of national treatment for foreign products and investment. Without adoption of this principle, the large-scale foreign investment sought by the Mexican government will not materialize. Without this type of guarantee, no government would be interested in signing the free trade agreement. National treatment means that foreign capital will receive equal treatment as national capital, thus eliminating the discrimination towards American products and services that had existed in the past. This in turn benefits the Mexican economy, more money and investment into the country means more economic development and the creation of more jobs. The downside is the cultural effect that this foreign investment has on the Mexican society. The following is an extreme and improbable scenaiio provided by Gustavo del Castillo Vera, that illustrates what is at stake with an unprotected cultural industry: “ Suppose that one day a foreign capitalist buys (for better or worse) the Mexican daily newspaper “Excelsior” [It should be noted that Excelsior is the largest and most widely distiibuted newspaper in Mexico]. The following day, the workers are dismissed (of course with compensation), and the newspaper is closed. Under the majority of national laws and regulations, there is no legal restraint to prohibit such a development. In such a c^e, Mexico would have lost a good daily and a basic part of its heritage. More fundamentally, what is lost in this instance would be one instrument of cultural diffusion (and perhaps a cultural creation) of certain cultural values we consider Mexican.” In the case described by Castillo Vera, what would have been lost? The main loss is daily culture. The newspaper is an instrument of dominant culture, commonly characterized as a national culture. With free trade, national treatment is not limited to the question of foreign investment that may take over the cultural industries within Mexico, it is also applicable to other aspects of the economy and society. The basic concern with this principle is that it brings about the harmonization of social policies that affect cultural aspects and that through these mechanisms a process of acculturation occui s and with it the transfer of values from one culture to another. Some people may argue that there is no national culture in Mexico, and thus no culture worth preserving, since the country is composed by a variety of regional cultures. One may wonder what common values there are between the Indians from the North and the people from Yucatan or Mexico City. However, it is a fact that after a half century of domination by one political party, the development of a dominant political system, ups and downs in the Mexican economy, the transitions from a third-world country into a developing one and hundreds of years of common festivities, religion and lifestyle; certain common values have visibly been diffused throughout the country. These values can be classified as comprising of a common, overriding, and national culture without regional barriers. These cultural values are in turn the result of domination over the smaller cultural groups within the country and co-exit with the intrinsic values of different ethnic, racial and caste groupings {Beltran 1982). The other possibility is that these sub-national cultur es owe their survival to the fact that some of them have successfully resisted the dominant culture. This is exactly what the sub national cultures as well as the modem “Mexican” culture as a whole should do. It is not whether or not there is a national Mexican culture; it is about preserving and valuing all of the Mexican cultures that differentiate the country as such, instead of trading this culture in for the stronger American counterpart. It is important to mention that there are exceptions within NAFTA to foreign investment. These limits cover a variety of sectors, and include government purchases, investment in the transportation sector and banks and financial services. The restrictions on the banks and financial services sector, however, have now been eliminated. The other main category of exceptions includes services associated with childcare, medical services and education. NAFTA also specifies that any of the involved countries may enact retaliatory measures against the other countries in the cultural sector, if it believes that discriminatory measures have been taken against that nation’s interests, and the retaliatory measure that are taken should have “similar- commercial consequences.” To further explain this clause in the agreement Canada’s position may be used. Canada has taken whatever internal measure desired to promote and to protect its cultural industries. In exchange it must be prepared to risk retaliatory measure by the United States (Lipsey and York 1988). This means that Canadian culture can be reinforced by such measures as subsidies, financial incentives, and restrictions on foreign investments or certain cultural products, if it is prepared to entertain conflict with its neighbors. As mentioned before, Canada has taken this risk, in protecting its cultural industry from the United States and h ^ done so successfully. In the following chapter it is proposed that Mexico take the next step and do the same. Histoiy reveals that cultures disappear under the pressures of a dominant power, and, it is certain, that not all cultures may be able to develop the defense mechanisms in time that may be required to survive without the assistance of the government. This is especially true in an area when we are witnessing the interests of NAFTA solely along economic and financial issues. We are witnessing a trend towards a convergence of ideologies within the thr ee member countries, and at the same time a divergence fi'om each country’s popular culture. It is difficult for these popular national cultures to gain public forum and thus political action because of the economics behind it and what NAFTA has stood for up to date. This makes Mexico’s cultural survival even more difficult. Mexico has been confronted not only by normative values foreign to its society and originating fi'om the dominant U.S. culture, but from the so-called international culture as well. It is well known that the processes of economic integration, whether in North America or in the European Union, have brought a surge or new normative values and the bases for cultural change. The decisions taken in this economic integration will further shape the process of cultural change. Today, Mexican people are still identifrably Mexican with their positive and negative recognizable traits, nevertheless, the American Pop culture invasion has changed the way they see the world, the music they listen to, the television programs they see, the movies they go to, the food they eat and even the Holidays they celebrate. The major concern is that this is only the first generation that has lived this change and influence. T ^s generation that can see and value what we have lost. But what will happen 50 years from today? What will happen when all trade barriers have been dissolved and we become a “North American Union”? While Mexico, the United States and Canada will benefit and see sustainable growth with interlacing economies as a result of NAFTA, if not careful, the price for Mexico and Canada will be their national identity and culture. It is time to stop the cultural invasion and find a way for Mexico to protect its cultural industry and its national identity.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario