Somewhat perversely, it might be expedient to begin by pointing out that this paper is not about the music video per se. There will be no close textual analysis of individual clips. Eminent pop philosopher Elvis Costello once said that “writing about music is like dancing about architecture. It’s a really stupid thing to want to do” (quoted in Goodwin, 1993: 1).
Conscious that ‘accidents can happen”, this paper is concerned with the institutional as opposed to the purely textual; with the processes of production and reception (although it should be noted that it is perhaps inevitable that such a consideration will touch upon the channel – if not the videos themselves – as “text” in its most socially-engaged sense). The focus here, then, is on those organisations which broadcast music videos, on Music Television (MTV) in particular, and on the possible impact of what has become a truly global phenomenon.
There is a common perception that American products dominate the world’s markets. Coke and Pepsi slug it out across continents. It would appear that there is no place on earth where one cannot purchase a Big Mac. In his book Superculture, Christopher Bigsby offers this assessment of America’s global dominance: American corporations shape the physical and mental environment, influence the eating habits, define the leisure pursuits, produce TV programmes and movies: devise, in other words, the fact and fantasy of the late twentieth century (Bigsby, 1975: 4).
The perceived threat of globalisation has prompted fears and resentments not dissimilar in temper and tone to those by-now familiar reactions to the threat of Americanisation. Globalisation is sometimes seen as a force that will erode or, worse still, dissolve cultural difference and variety. Yet, the presence and pervasiveness of American-made goods does not necessarily signal the death of the local, regional or national. As Frederic Jameson notes, late modern or postmodern capitalism has led to a more disorganised set of relationships between trading nations.
Thus, it is one of the characteristics of the dreaded “P”-concept – postmodernism or, perhaps more accurately, postmodernity – that it leads to uncertainty and paradox, as opposed to certainty and confidence. As a kind of postmodern capitalism, globalisation reflects this. For with it, the act of cultural transfer becomes more problematic, the flow of goods and ideas so much more difficult to “police”. Economically, globalisation refers to a shift in capitalist practice. Today’s multi- nationals talk of “global marketing strategies” and securing a “global market share” – corporate- speak which alludes to a kind of capitalism sans frontieres.
Economically, there can be no doubting the level of control exerted by predominantly western multi-nationals over the flow of goods and information. At an empirical level, the issue of ownership is not really open to debate. Despite challenges from Japanese giants like Sony or Matsushita, it is companies of the West – and of the United States in particular – which continue to play a leading role and hold a controlling interest in trans-national capitalism. Looked at this way, we could continue to argue for the existence of a form of Western economic imperialism today.
In cultural terms too, the world-wide dissemination of Western-made products – together with the ideological values these are often said to carry – is seen by many to pose a very real threat to the identity and autonomy of certain of local, regional and national cultures. It is perhaps the logic of globalisation that it pushes towards standardisation and homogenisation of markets, goods and tastes, seeking a “one size fits all” approach to cultural production and consumption. In this one can hear echoes of Marshall Berman’s oft-quoted statement concerning the effects of modernity:
Modern environments and experiences cut across all boundaries of geography, ethnicity, of class and nationality, of religion and ideology: in this sense, modernity can be said to unite all mankind (Berman, 1983: 15)1 . At the forefront of globalisation are giant multi-national media empires like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Such corporations possess not only the means of production, but also the means of distribution. Quite obviously, multi-nationals are key players in the globalisation process.
