1rst WEEK OF PRESENTATIONS:

DUBAI & STARBUCKS, my favourites...



This week's lecture was definitely a change of pace, providing quite a compelling class, and generating a lot of constructive discussion and debate. Four groups presented their own individual topics relating to the course material; Group 1 discussed Dubai’s Media City, Group 2 chose the corporate giant Starbucks, Group 3 focused on Cuba; mainly targeting Fidel Castro’s resignation, and Group 4 examined the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (aka the SPP). Each presentation proved to be quite unique in their scope and approach, as each focused on a different topic of interest. However, even given the uniqueness of each subject matter, the groups still managed to examine their topic with the use of several major underlying and pertinent themes. Globalization, homogenization, cultural imperialism and the role of the media all seemed to be common themes embedded within each.
The first presentation in my opinion was the most appealing, as I have always been fascinated in Dubai as a city, however have not had the opportunity to gain any concrete knowledge about its current global status or political structure. It was enlightening to learn not only about how technologically advanced it has become, but also about how its political infrastructure outside of ‘media’ city still remains to be quite primitive. The topic of censorship ( both self censorship and censorship of media) was raised and focused on throughout the presentation, and the lack of rights that Dubai citizens have as free agents really stuck with me. Living in such a democratic country as Canada, the ability to access information at no cost, and with incredible availability, makes me stop and cringe at the rights we take for granted. The most confusing part for me was the explanation of the divide between life in the media city and life outside. Its interesting for me to imagine a community like Dubai, in which there exists a miniature ‘global world’ within such a traditionally oriented geographic location. It just seems so bizarre. The issue of whether or not censorship will eventually ‘die’ in the United Arab Emirates was raised, along with several reasons supporting its death. I definitely believe, given the advancements in technology and the ever increasing global expansion of media and communications, formal censorship specifically within UAE will disappear. I am not as certain with regards to other surrounding nations, however given Dubai’s unique case, and its present position within the global media market, I think it’s nations censorship shift is imminent. Although the issue of religion and tradition, as it was brought up in class, plays a central role in determining the country’s reasons for upholding censorship, I still believe modernity and its corresponding values will supersede. Religion and tradition are obviously deeply embedded within Middle Eastern culture, however UAE it seems, has the ability, and the potential, to actively preserve its strong religious and traditional beliefs, while simultaneously enter the global democratic media arena. Essentially, in my opinion, if Dubai’s media city aims to survive into the next century as a global corporate centre, the UAE will need to embrace, as a nation, the forthcoming era dominated by free press and fluid communication networks.
On another note, the presentation that proved to exert the greatest amount of personal dissonance was the Group 2 who chose Starbucks. Besides the fact that it is another corporate media giant, whose success has exploded almost overnight, I honestly do not see the passion that lies beneath so many peoples hatred. The topic of cultural imperialism was raised as a topic of debate, an issue that lead to a long discussion that initiated a strong but silent personal reaction. As a communications student, I guess I am exhausted when I hear the same anti corporate, anti capitalist responses that I hear every time the topic centers on a major successful corporation. I am an advocate for scholarly analysis and I am an advocate for examining issues from a variety of angles and under the scope of an array of theoretical approaches, however, I get irritated, listening to the same redundant reasons why another corporation is the big bad imperialistic bully. In my opinion, Starbucks, in comparison to countless other corporately owned ‘restaurant chains’, is of least importance when it comes to the issue of cultural imperialism.
Starbucks is essentially a multinational coffee house that provides an extensive menu in a relaxing venue that grounds its superiority in the coffee market. Starbucks also does seem to replace smaller, more local coffee houses and put them out of business. Starbucks does offer an endless array of beverages, coffees, teas, shakes, and juices, to satisfy almost any consumer; however at very high prices. It does provide a casual, and comfortable environment in which customers can either enjoy their purchases or engage in other ‘coffee- house activities’. It also relies on a certain restaurant prototype in which the layout and visual structure of the store is essentially replicated for almost all its multinational locations. It does not completely adapt or mold to fit whichever country or city in which it is located. Starbucks also provides very friendly and attentive staff that are all oriented toward the goals inherent in traditional ‘American’ ideals of customer service. Starbucks is also suspect of utilizing unfair coffee trade methods, and scrutinized for it, although they communicate and advocate otherwise (for the anti-Starbucks individuals; where do you think smaller, more local coffee shops get their coffee? Do you think they get it from legitimate sources?). All of these issues were mentioned in class leading to the discussion that the company is indeed engaging in cultural imperialism.
In my opinion if Starbucks was not an American corporate giant, accumulating immense amounts of revenue, I do not think it would be pinpointed as a bad guy. I do not think that just because there is a Starbucks in Athens that it takes away from Greek culture. I also do not think that just because their is a Starbucks in London, that it places any pressure on English culture to adopt American ideals. As a tourist, and also as a local resident in any city in which a Starbucks resides, a choice is always provided; to go to Starbucks or not to go to Starbucks. Starbucks in my opinion does not over advertise and it does not over saturate the market with messages disseminating a certain lifestyle like many other multinational corporations. As of right now, I believe the expansion of Starbucks is not a bad thing at all, as it is just a coffee house, however if it does reach similar numbers to the fast food giant McDonald’s than there might be something to worry about. Then again, an invasion of caffeine doesn't seem as bad, as an invasion of cholesterol.