{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027288514016373108, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01935003721161002, 'mean_word_length': 5.53484602917342, '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}}
Can cultural localization protect national identity in the era of globalization?

Globalization has expanded its influence since the early 1980s hugely since Reagan and Thatcher were in power and devoted themselves to advocating its key ideas, such as deregulation and privatization. These two international leaders were not only successful in achieving their goals domestically, but also managed to effectively export neoliberalism to the international community (Chiang, 2011, 2013; Harvey, 2005a). It has been argued that as a typical capitalist country (Wallerstein, 2004), the USA has acted as a transnational corporation, undertaking an exportation of ideals that eventually constructed neoliberalism as the new prevailing world value, greatly assisting the expansion of globalization (Berberoglu, 2003; Chiang, 2011) through the establishment of international financial institutions, such as the OECD (Rizvi & Lingard, 2006), the WTO (Robertson, Bonal, & Dale, 2006), the WB, and the IMF (Stiglitz, 2002). This situation has also made it possible for the USA to gain a hegemonic position in the exportation of its culture. Some researchers have argued that as culture is the foundation upon which people build their identities, such cultural exportation may jeopardize the national identity of citizens of ‘importing’ countries. In order to solve this political crisis, these countries are likely to adopt a strategy of localization, in order to protect their local culture from this kind of cultural ‘invasion’ (Lingard, 2000; Rizvi, 2000; Schriewer, 2003). This localization is heavily reliant upon schooling (Green, 2006) because schools are the main site for cultural cultivation and transmission. Furthermore, global norms and rules tend to affect school curriculum contents (Baker & LeTendre, 2005) because of the conjugation between schooling and globalization, as documented by Cha and Ham (2014) who found out that in order to develop global citizenship, globalized countries addressed the value of multicultural education. This argument tends to adopt a presumption of cultural predetermination, in which a static and tight connection between cultures and sovereignty is assumed. Hytrek and Zentgraf (2008) argue that Marxists tend to view the state as a tool for maximizing capitalist profit and, in turn, state sovereignty is unable to sustain its neutrality under the impact of globalization. However, a globalized system needs its members’ cooperation in order to carry out the functions of international institutions, so that the state can retain its legitimate right in the international system. Globalization also assists states to maximize their governmental authority because while policies of privatization and deregulation favor the interest of capitalists and big enterprises, the state is the primary site of struggle over political policies. In a similar vein, D. Harvey points out that in terms of its nature, a globalized market is different from the state because ‘the capitalist operates in continuous space and time, whereas the politician operates in a territorialized space’ (Harvey, 2005b, 27). Therefore, as a political entity, a country needs to gain more advantages than its rivals in the international community by preserving asymmetries that arise out of spatial exchange relations. Failure in this mission is likely to diminish its wealth and power. For Olssen (2006), the combination of globalization and international institutions forces many countries to move from a domestic regime to the international arena. While this shift may trim their power, they never give up their sovereignty, but rather adopt an active strategy to empower themselves, in order to maximize their interests in the new context created by globalization. Evidently, this interactive relation prompts the dynamic characteristic of state sovereignty. This dynamic tends to disentangle the linkages between cultures and national identity, so that if sovereignty is an unstable entity presenting specific meanings