{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01259093452714046, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.418312387791741, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cultural Imperialism Theories

The theory of cultural imperialism has its roots in critical communication scholarship and was used to describe the growing influence of the United States and its commercial media system around the world, specifically in the context of the Cold War, after the Second World War, when the United States and the Soviet Union were attempting to compel and persuade other countries to adopt their respective socioeconomic systems. The theory specifically focused on the ways in which US culture was being spread to and sometimes imposed upon developing nations by US communications and media corporations, by specific media products and their imagery and messages, and by the expansion of the private model of the media system. The critical edge to the theory was its staunch criticism of the strategies and tactics used by the United States in this regard and how the US communications and media system expanded and maintained the asymmetrical economic, political, and cultural power relations between the United States and other countries in the world system. Correspondingly, the theory was also used as a basis for arguing that those people who were subjected to cultural imperialism ought to be granted the right to develop their own sovereign national media systems. The struggle to develop those systems occurred within the context of national liberation struggles against the remnants of Western territorial colonialism and the new de-territorialized imperialism of both the US and Soviet empires. However, the theory was challenged on at least a couple different fronts. The first challenge came from cultural studies researchers who questioned the total homogenizing influences of mass-produced media content on audiences. Drawing from ethnographic and reception studies of audiences, these researchers demonstrated how American media influence was rarely as totalizing and complete as the cultural imperialism theory suggested. Rather, such commercial images and messages were also subject to local adaptation, indigenization and resistance and therefore not always influencing of audiences. A second line of critique focused more on the national economic and political structure of non-US media systems and whether those systems were directly influenced by the United States. Scholars within this area focused on ownership patterns and the structures of media systems, including the impact of dominant, far-reaching systems of government influence and industrial media production that establish prevalent media models or channels. In addition, these scholars focused on whether such systems enable or constrain alternative media forms and functions, and the degree to which they set routine parameters for discourse, thereby shaping the sociocultural norms that media tend to promote and the political and economic interests they routinely serve. Over time, these criticisms of the cultural imperialism thesis have been re-integrated within it, further strengthening its analytical value. Some scholars have sought to revise the theory by incorporating some of the criticisms, while others have tried to reemphasize the value of the original theory. Indeed, the theory’s utility continues to be debated, particularly in light of historical changes and other emergent trends that have reshaped the geopolitical economy of the global communication system. In addition to these ongoing debates, the theory has also shown dynamism in the way that it has been applied across various academic fields in the social sciences and the humanities.