Personal Information
Assignment Details
Abstruct
Key Words
Introduction: The Global Media Order and Postcolonial Inquiry
Defining “Democratization” in Cultural Production
Theoretical Framework: From Cultural Imperialism to Hybrid Globalization
Methodology: Critical Literature Synthesis and Thematic Analysis
Hollywood and the Rebranding of Empire
Netflix and Streaming Colonialism: The New Empire of Algorithms
The Paradox of Hybridity and Appropriation
Economic and Structural Inequalities in Global Media
Globalization as a Double-Edged Sword
Policy and Structural Implications
Reclaiming Autonomy: Lessons from the Global South
Reassessing Democratization: Have We Progressed?
Conclusion: Toward a Decolonial Media Future
References
Name:- Rutvi Pal
Batch :- M.A. Sem 2 (2024-2026)
Enrollment Number :- 5108240025
E-mail Address :-rutvipal4@gmail.com
Roll Number :- 23
Topic : Globalization and the Future of Postcolonial Studies: Cultural Imperialism, Media Hybridization, and the Democratization of Global Culture
Paper & subject code :- 203: The Postcolonial Studies - 20408
Submitted to :- Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar
Date of Submission :- 7 November 2025
This essay explores how global media industries perpetuate Western dominance in the postcolonial era while appearing to democratize access and representation. Drawing on Ania Loomba’s critical framework in Colonialism/Postcolonialism (3rd Edition), it examines how globalization reconfigures colonial power through cultural production, focusing on Hollywood’s “safe exoticism,” Netflix’s “streaming colonialism,” and contrasting these with autonomous media industries like Nollywood and South Korea’s Hallyu Wave. Through a critical synthesis of secondary literature and case studies, this paper argues that while globalization has expanded visibility and access, it has not democratized cultural production. Instead, it has restructured cultural imperialism into algorithmic and aesthetic forms, maintaining the Global North’s control over ownership, distribution, and profit. The essay concludes by proposing policy-oriented strategies for cultural sovereignty, including domestic content quotas and equitable distribution models that could foster a truly decolonized media landscape.
Keywords
Postcolonialism , Global Media , Cultural Imperialism , Globalization , Netflix , Nollywood , Algorithmic Colonialism , Hybrid Aesthetics , Media Sovereignty
The postcolonial condition, as Ania Loomba (2015) argues, has never truly escaped the shadow of empire; it has only changed its form. In the era of globalization, power is exercised not only through military conquest or political subjugation but also through cultural production and media representation. Global media industries—particularly Hollywood, streaming platforms like Netflix, and global advertising networks—constitute what many scholars have called “the new empire of images” . The global circulation of films, series, and cultural icons creates an illusion of democratization, offering access to diverse voices and stories. However, beneath this apparent plurality lies a persistent hierarchy of representation, ownership, and profit that mirrors older colonial relations.
This essay critically examines how global media, while appearing inclusive, reproduces Western dominance through what Loomba terms “appropriated hybridity”—the selective integration of postcolonial aesthetics within Western frameworks of control. It interrogates whether globalization has genuinely democratized cultural production or merely deepened inequalities in more subtle, aestheticized forms.
Before evaluating globalization’s impact, it is essential to define what “democratization of cultural production” means. In this context, democratization can be understood along four interrelated axes:
Access and Participation: The extent to which marginalized creators can produce and circulate their work globally.
Diversity of Representation: The authenticity and plurality of voices portrayed in global media narratives.
Economic Redistribution: Who benefits financially from cultural products—the global periphery or metropolitan centers?
Control over Production Means: The ownership of media infrastructures, platforms, and distribution channels (Hesmondhalgh, 2013).
True democratization would entail a media system where power—creative, economic, and distributive—is not concentrated in the Global North but is shared across networks of producers from the Global South. However, as Loomba (2015) and Shohat & Stam (2014) note, globalization often reinforces pre-existing asymmetries, allowing for symbolic inclusion without structural transformation.
Postcolonial media theory draws heavily on Herbert Schiller’s concept of “cultural imperialism” (1976), which describes how Western nations, especially the United States, dominate global communication flows through ownership of mass media. Later theorists such as John Tomlinson (1991) and Ania Loomba (2015) expanded this model, arguing that in the era of globalization, imperialism is not imposed through overt coercion but through soft power and consensual assimilation.
Globalization’s “hybrid” nature—its blending of local and global cultures—has been celebrated by theorists like Homi Bhabha (1994) as a space of resistance and negotiation. Yet Loomba cautions against romanticizing hybridity as inherently liberating. Instead, she describes a form of “managed hybridity”, where diversity is curated under Western control to maintain global market appeal. Thus, while cultural exchange is more fluid, ownership remains deeply uneven.
This essay adopts a critical-postcolonial perspective, drawing on Loomba, Appadurai (1996), and Schiller, to analyze how global media perpetuates imperial hierarchies under neoliberal globalization.
This study employs a qualitative critical literature synthesis, combining thematic analysis of secondary sources (academic articles, industry reports, and case studies) to evaluate global media’s postcolonial dynamics. Following Snyder (2019), this approach identifies recurring conceptual themes—appropriation, hybridity, inequality, and control—across multiple peer-reviewed works.
The analysis focuses on two primary case studies: (1) Hollywood’s use of “safe exoticism” through films like Black Panther (2018), and (2) streaming colonialism in platforms like Netflix and Disney+. These are contrasted with autonomous postcolonial productions such as Nollywood (Nigeria’s film industry) to highlight structural inequities.
Limitations of this method include dependence on existing empirical data and interpretive subjectivity. However, its strength lies in synthesizing diverse academic perspectives to construct a multidimensional critique of global cultural power.
Hollywood remains the most visible engine of global cultural production, dominating approximately 70% of international box office revenue. Even as Hollywood increasingly incorporates multicultural themes, it does so within a framework that sustains Western ideological primacy.
Films like Black Panther (2018) are often celebrated for their Afrocentric imagery and predominantly Black cast. However, as scholars argue, Black Panther represents a form of “safe exoticism”—a sanitized depiction of African modernity framed through Western production values and corporate ownership (Marvel/Disney). The film’s visual aesthetics borrow from postcolonial imaginaries, yet its production profits flow almost entirely to U.S.-based conglomerates.
Contrastingly, The Wedding Party (2016), a Nigerian romantic comedy produced and distributed through Nollywood channels, demonstrates a locally rooted, self-financed model of cultural expression. It achieved significant global reach without Western intermediaries, distributed on Netflix only after domestic success. This comparison illustrates Loomba’s argument that Western global media often offers “visibility within the structure”—inclusion under Western systems—rather than “autonomous power” (Loomba, 2015).
Netflix’s global expansion since 2016 epitomizes the neoliberal reconfiguration of cultural imperialism. While the platform claims to promote “global diversity,” its algorithmic design privileges English-language and Western-produced content (Lobato, 2019).
The platform’s so-called “local originals,” such as Sacred Games (India) and Lupin (France), ostensibly represent multicultural inclusion. Yet, their financing, creative control, and global marketing remain centralized in California. As Tufekci (2021) notes, algorithmic recommendation systems reproduce global hierarchies by amplifying Western aesthetic standards as universal.
This is what scholars like Nick Couldry and Ulises Mejias (2019) call “data colonialism”: the extraction of cultural and behavioral data from users worldwide to enrich Western corporations. Just as colonial powers extracted natural resources, streaming platforms now extract attention and cultural surplus from global audiences.
Thus, while streaming has increased global access to diverse content, it has not redistributed control. The colonial logic of ownership persists—only now it operates through data and code rather than territorial domination.
Ania Loomba (2015) emphasizes that postcolonial hybridity, once theorized as resistance, can easily be appropriated into capitalist aesthetics. This commodified hybridity is evident in how Western media strategically deploys non-Western motifs—African rhythms, Indian visual styles, East Asian narratives—to signal “global sophistication.”
.jpeg)
A striking example is Disney’s Mulan (2020), marketed as culturally authentic yet produced with minimal Chinese creative input. Scholars criticized it as “Orientalism 2.0”—a form of cultural borrowing stripped of political and historical depth.
.jpeg)
By contrast, independent East Asian filmmakers such as Bong Joon-ho (Parasite, 2019) have leveraged global circuits while maintaining local creative sovereignty, winning international acclaim without fully capitulating to Hollywood models. This contrast underscores that hybridity becomes politically meaningful only when accompanied by control over production and narrative framing, not merely aesthetic inclusion.
PARASITE - Official Trailer #2 - Now Playing in New York & Los Angeles.
Despite appearances of inclusivity, the global media economy remains profoundly asymmetrical. According to a UNCTAD (2023) report, over 80% of global intellectual property in film and television is owned by corporations headquartered in the United States or Western Europe.
This concentration perpetuates what postcolonial economists call “symbolic dependency”—the economic reliance of the Global South on Western distribution systems and media technologies (Thussu, 2006). Even as countries like India, Nigeria, and South Korea develop vibrant domestic industries, their global circulation is often mediated through Western gatekeepers such as Netflix, Amazon, and Disney.
As Appadurai (1996) observes, globalization does not dissolve power but “reterritorializes it in corporate form.” The rhetoric of “borderless culture” conceals a deeply bordered economy. Hence, the apparent democratization of access conceals the persistence of colonial modes of accumulation—only now enacted through intellectual property and platform capitalism.
To be sure, globalization has expanded visibility for many non-Western creators. Filmmakers like Mira Nair (Monsoon Wedding), Alfonso Cuarón (Roma), and Bong Joon-ho (Parasite) have used global platforms to challenge Western hegemony. Yet, as scholar cautions, such successes often rely on Western validation—film festivals, awards, and critical discourses dominated by Euro-American institutions.
Thus, globalization produces a paradox: while more voices enter the global stage, the terms of recognition remain Western-defined. Loomba’s question—“Who speaks, and who listens?”—remains central. True democratization would require not just diverse storytelling but the redistribution of interpretive and economic authority.
The persistence of postcolonial inequalities in global media calls for concrete policy interventions. Cultural scholars argue that state-supported media sovereignty—protecting local industries from monopolistic global players—is essential .
Following the model of South Korea’s cultural policy (the Hallyu or Korean Wave), governments can implement content quotas for domestic productions on streaming platforms. These policies helped South Korea transform from a peripheral market into a cultural exporter. Similarly, Nigeria’s National Film and Video Censors Board (NFVCB) and India’s Ministry of Information & Broadcasting could enforce revenue-sharing and local partnership mandates for global streamers.
Such reforms align with UNESCO’s Convention on Cultural Diversity (2005), which asserts that global trade must respect local cultural autonomy. Without such measures, globalization risks deepening the asymmetry between creative labor in the Global South and profit accumulation in the Global North.
The rise of industries like Nollywood and K-drama demonstrates that postcolonial nations can reclaim agency through self-owned infrastructures. Nollywood’s low-budget, high-volume production model reflects an indigenous adaptation to material constraints, turning scarcity into creativity (Jedlowski, 2017).
Meanwhile, South Korea’s deliberate cultural investment since the 1990s—subsidizing domestic studios, mandating local quotas, and exporting soft power—illustrates how policy can convert peripheral industries into global leaders. The Hallyu wave’s global success contrasts sharply with Hollywood’s extractive model, representing a form of postcolonial rebalancing.
However, even these models face risks of re-colonization through platform dependency; Netflix now co-produces and controls global distribution of Korean content. Thus, autonomy remains contingent and contested.
When measured against the four axes defined earlier—access, diversity, redistribution, and control—the evidence suggests that globalization has expanded participation but not equalized power.
- Access: More creators can share content globally due to digital technologies.
- Diversity: Representation has improved in form but often remains superficial.
- Redistribution: Economic benefits still flow northward.
- Control: Western corporations dominate technological and narrative infrastructures.
- Hence, democratization has occurred in appearance but not in substance. Global media offers inclusion without transformation—a simulacrum of equality under persistent colonial logics of ownership and recognition.
Ania Loomba’s question—“What does postcolonialism mean in a globalized world?”—remains profoundly relevant. This essay has shown that while globalization has diversified media forms, it has not dismantled the structural hierarchies that sustain Western dominance. Through safe exoticism, algorithmic bias, and platform imperialism, global media industries reproduce colonial logics under neoliberal veneers.
Yet, resistance persists. The successes of Nollywood, K-drama, and independent global filmmakers signal emerging forms of postcolonial autonomy. The task ahead is not to reject globalization but to decolonize it—to ensure that global cultural exchange operates on equitable terms of ownership, representation, and voice.
The future of postcolonial media studies thus lies not merely in critique but in reimagining global communication as a genuinely multipolar cultural sphere, where visibility translates into sovereignty, and hybridity into shared power.
References :
Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press, 1996. https://mtusociology.github.io/assets/files/%5BArjun_Appadurai%5D_Modernity_at_Large_Cultural_Dim(Bookos.org).pdf
Couldry, Nick, and Ulises A. Mejias. The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Preface & Chapter 1. Stanford University Press, 2019. University of Melbourne Law School Repository, https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/3290381/Couldry-and-Mejias-Preface-and-Ch-1.pdf
Davis, Stuart. “What Is Netflix Imperialism? Interrogating the Monopoly Aspirations of the ‘World’s Largest Television Network.’” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 26, no. 6, 2021, pp. 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1993955
Hesmondhalgh, David. The Cultural Industries. 3rd ed., SAGE Publications, 2013. ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261554803_The_Cultural_Industries_3rd_Ed
Ihunwo, Ovunda. “The Rise of Nollywood in Global Culture: A Socio-Cultural Perspective.” Helsinki Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, vol. 9, no. 2, Apr. 2025, pp. 110–127. IIGD Publishers, https://iigdpublishers.com/storage/Cz6B1JPuUuS4wC9yie0o1acpUl24BV-metaVEhFIFJJU0UgT0YgTk9MTFlXT09EIElOIEdMT0JBTCBDVUxUVVJFIDExMC0xMjcucGRm-.pdf
Jin, Dal Yong. “Netflix’s Effect on the Local Cultural Industries.” Cultural Production of Hallyu in the Digital Platform Era: Industry Perspectives, University of Michigan Press, 2025, pp. 89–110. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.14416305.10
Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2015. PDF, https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781317614579_A24757724/preview-9781317614579_A24757724.pdf
Zhao, Meijuan, Lay Hoon Ang, and Haw Ching Florence Toh. “Hybridization of the Cultural Identity in Disney’s Mulan.” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 9, no. 5, Sept. 2020, pp. 27–37. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/37bb/0f5cb8a91f4939ea9658dda9a7740bfb77b9.pdf
Words : 2400
Video : 5
No comments:
Post a Comment