Globalization. George Ritzer

further complication stems from the fact that there are also many processes closely linked to the US, and being disseminated to the rest of the world, that could be thought of as Americanization. For example, Dezalay argues that the legal field throughout much of the world has been Americanized:

      The Wall Street law firm, invented over a century ago in response to the demands of American finance and industry, has become a model for similar developments everywhere, as the local lawyers, in a struggle for survival, feel they must adopt the model of the corporate law firm. (Dezalay 1990: 281)

      For another, there is much talk of the Americanization of sport in many places throughout the world with one example being the commercialization, and therefore the Americanization, of sports in New Zealand (Grainger and Jackson 2005). On the global stage, the Olympics have been shaped by Americanization, or its subset, “Californization.” Specifically action sports (e.g. beach volleyball and snowboarding) have become very popular at the Olympics and “were incubated in California and are linked to the promotion of American visions of affluence” (Dyreson 2013: 256). One other example is the Disneyization of the European fairy tale (Darcy 2004: 181–96), and one could look more generally, as was mentioned above, at Disneyization, as well as McDonaldization, Wal-Martization, Starbuckization, and the like. However, while all of these are traceable to the US, and have important elements in common, much is lost if they are all simply subsumed under the heading of Americanization. A more nuanced analysis would look at each of these processes to see in what ways they are similar and how they differ, as well as the ways in which each relates to Americanization.

      Furthermore, at least some of these processes cannot be restricted to an association with America. For example, McDonaldization has its roots in the bureaucratization and rationalization of German society and Max Weber’s analysis of them. And all of them, at least to some degree, have escaped from their roots in the US and are now thriving elsewhere.

      There are other ways of slicing and dicing the concept of Americanization, as well. For example, in discussing Americanization, are we focusing on, among many other possibilities, its impact on people’s subconscious? On their bodies; the way Americanization is embodied by those in other societies? On the “landscapes” (Campbell 2004) of everyday life? Clearly, we could deal with all of these domains –and many others – and Americanization would mean very different things, and apply in very different ways, in each.

      Analyses of Americanization can also be even more fine-grained. One example is the Americanization of the Holocaust (Eder 2016; Sznaider 2003). Here we have a phenomenon (the Holocaust) that is not American in origin and is certainly not usually associated with America and Americanization. Yet, Americans, especially American Jews, have developed a distinctive view of the Holocaust, the importance of having it memorialized, and the ways in which it should be commemorated (e.g. the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC). And this has been exported elsewhere (even to Berlin, Germany where the Jewish Museum opened in 2001), where we see the emergence of similar structures and ways of memorializing the event.

Then there is the issue of what counts as Americanization? Does something merely need to carry the American label (“made in America”) to qualify as Americanization? Or, do those who produce it, and more importantly those who import it, need to identify it as American? On the former, many products made in America (e.g. internal components for various machines, tourist trinkets for specific foreign markets) do not bring with them much, if anything, in the way of Americanization. On the latter, one can conceive of very American products that are not so identified by those in other nations. For example, many in Japan think of McDonald’s as a Japanese restaurant chain and when they travel are surprised to find it in the US (Watson 1997).

      Further complexity results from the diversity that exists among other nations, and even sub-areas (local, regional) within those nations, in terms of their relationship to Americanization. It is clearly the case that some nations, and areas within them, are much more the target of, and more susceptible to, Americanization than others. France is not a nation that one thinks of as being receptive to Americanization, but in Kuisel’s view it was Americanized, at least to some extent, in the last half of the twentieth century (although it certainly has not lost its distinctive culture and identity), but some areas of France (e.g. small towns and rural areas) were, and are, less Americanized than others. In addition to variation in its impact, Americanization is also more of a public issue in some places than others and there are even locales where it may be a non-issue. That is, Americanization is more likely to spark public outcries and demonstrations in some places than in others. It could even be, and has been, welcomed in many locales.

      It could be argued that Americanization has as much, or more, to do with the nation (or area) on its receiving end than it does with America (Hodson 2001). Thus, it might be argued that the focus when examining Americanization should not be on what transpires in the US, but rather on the receiving nations and the dynamics in, and differences among, them.

      Then there is the view that a focus on either the US or the receiving nation is wrongheaded and that the focus should be on the relationship among and between them. Receiving nations are not passive and may play an active role in shaping Americanization. For its part, what is exported by the US may be shaped by what it (or more accurately elements in it such as big business) thinks other nations will accept and various nations may be receptive to different American exports. Americanization, then, exists in this reciprocal relationship and not in either America or the receiving nations alone.

      There is also much diversity in the US and we must specify what aspects of it we are discussing when analyzing Americanization. Thus, for example, we can talk about something like “African Americanization” (White 2004: 164) – for example, in the global dissemination of jazz, hip hop, or rap music – and recognize that some nations are being affected more by it than others. Furthermore, if there is such a thing as African Americanization, there is certainly Native American, Latin–American, and Jewish–American Americanization (e.g. as discussed above in the case of the Holocaust), and so on. Furthermore, there is growing diversity in the US increasing the number of possibilities. An example is the growing number of Latin Americans and their exports to various countries, especially to Central and South America (e.g. of money in the form of remittances; see Chapter 10).

With the rise of former President Donald Trump in the US, and his “America first” policy, Americanization is further complicated. For starters, research has shown that the public image of the US around the world declined under Trump (Pew Research Center 2017). People around the world viewed Trump as arrogant, intolerant, and dangerous, with widespread disagreement with his policy proposals. If Americanization is largely dependent on the receptivity of a country or their inter-relationship with the US, which is likely to suffer under an “America first” policy, then demand for Americanization can naturally decrease. On the other hand, the same research shows continued high praise for American people, culture, and civil liberties. And while favorability for the US decreased around the world under Trump (although it actually increased in Russia) at least some global support is likely to return under President Biden. For a more detailed breakdown of support for the US under former Presidents Obama and Trump, refer to Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Trump Ratings Were Low Around Globe, While Views of US Stayed Mostly Favorable. In comparison to President Obama, global views of President Trump were much lower. However, views of the US remained mostly favourable, with some exceptions. The US was viewed most positively in Israel, the Philippines, Poland, and South Korea, and most negatively in Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, and Mexico. Source: Redrawn from How people around the world see the U.S. and Donald Trump in 10 charts. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/08/how-people-around-the-world-see-the-u-s-and-donald-trump-in-10-charts/

      More