Mediaboss Marketing

Next, Im describing a world in which divergence turns into conflict, especially as great powers compete for resources and dominance. China and Russia clearly want to establish regional zones that they dominate. Some of this is the kind of conflict that historically exists between opposing political systems, similar to what we saw during the Cold War. This is the global struggle between the forces of authoritarianism and the forces of democratization. Illiberal regimes are building closer alliances with one another. They are investing more in one anothers economies. At the other end, democratic governments are building closer alliances with one another. The walls are going up. Korea was the first major battleground of the Cold War. Ukraine could be the first battleground in what turns out to be a long struggle between diametrically opposed political systems.

But something bigger is happening today that is different from the great power struggles of the past, that is different from the Cold War. This is not just a political or an economic conflict. Its a conflict about politics, economics, culture, status, psychology, morality and religion all at once. More specifically, its a rejection of Western ways of doing things by hundreds of millions of people along a wide array of fronts.

To define this conflict most generously, Id say its the difference between the Wests emphasis on personal dignity and much of the rest of the worlds emphasis on communal cohesion. But thats not all thats going on here. Whats important is the way these longstanding and normal cultural differences are being whipped up by autocrats who want to expand their power and sow chaos in the democratic world. Authoritarian rulers now routinely weaponize cultural differences, religious tensions and status resentments to mobilize supporters, attract allies and expand their own power. This is cultural difference transmogrified by status resentment into culture war.

Some people have revived Samuel Huntingtons clash of civilizations theory to capture whats going on. Huntington was right that ideas, psychology and values drive history as much as material interests. But these divides dont break down on the neat civilizational lines that Huntington described.

In fact, what haunts me most is that this rejection of Western liberalism, individualism, pluralism, gender equality and all the rest is not only happening between nations but also within nations. The status resentment against Western cultural, economic and political elites that flows from the mouths of illiberal leaders like Putin and Modi and Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil sounds quite a lot like the status resentment that flows from the mouths of the Trumpian right, from the French right, from the Italian and Hungarian right.

Theres a lot of complexity here the Trumpians obviously have no love for China but sometimes when I look at world affairs I see a giant, global maximalist version of Americas familiar contest between Reds and Blues. In America weve divided along regional, educational, religious, cultural, generational and urban/rural lines, and now the world is fragmenting in ways that often seem to mimic our own. The paths various populists prefer may differ, and their nationalistic passions often conflict, but what theyre revolting against is often the same thing.

Continue reading here:
Globalization Is Over. The Global Culture Wars Have Begun.

David Brooks: Over the last few decades, as Republicans have been using cultural issues to rally support more and more, Democrats have understood whats going on less and less. Many progressives have developed an inability to see how good and wise people could be on the other side, a lazy tendency to assume that anybody whos not a social progressive must be a racist or a misogynist, a tendency to think the culture wars are merely a distraction Republican politicians kick up to divert attention from the real issues, like economics as if the moral health of society was some trivial sideshow.

Even worse, many progressives have been blind to their own cultural power. Liberals dominate the elite cultural institutions the universities, much of the mainstream news media, entertainment, many of the big nonprofits and many do not seem to understand how infuriatingly condescending it looks when they describe their opponents as rubes and bigots.

The Republican Party capitalizes on this. Some days it seems as if this is the only thing the party does. For example, Republican candidates could probably cruise to victory in this falls elections just by talking about inflation. Instead, many are doubling down on the sort of cultural issues that helped propel Glenn Youngkin to the governors office in Virginia.

See the article here:
Why Democrats Keep Losing the Culture Wars

Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of well-reasoned and well-researched opinions. This piece reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors.

(OPINION) We tend to pay attention to news that impacts us most directly. So for Americans, the culture war playing out between religious and some nonreligious traditionalists and social progressives is most compelling.

Halfway around the world, however, another building struggle over religion and culture has heated up yet again. This one has direct international ramifications and has the potential to negatively impact global religious-political alignments, perhaps as much or more than Americas nasty cultural war.

It also contains an important lesson about the possible consequences of governments and politicians employing divisive culture war tactics for political gain (more on this theme below.) I do not think it absurd to fear that our homegrown culture war could become just as bad, or worse.

Im referring to India, a constitutionally secular nation wracked by interreligious conflict between majority Hindus and minority Muslims. Christians have been caught in this imbroglio, too, but put that aside for the duration of this post.

Heres a recent overview of Indias situation from The Washington Post. And heres the top of that report:

NEW DELHI After a spokeswoman for Indias ruling party made disparaging remarks about the prophet Muhammad during a recent televised debate, rioters took to the streets in the northern city of Kanpur, throwing rocks and clashing with police.

It was only the beginning of a controversy that would have global repercussions.

Indian products were soon taken off shelves in the Persian Gulf after a high-ranking Muslim cleric called for boycotts. Hashtags expressing anger at Prime Minister Narendra Modi began trending on Arabic-language Twitter. Three Muslim-majority countries Qatar, Kuwait and Iran summoned their Indian ambassadors to convey their displeasure. The governments of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Afghanistan on Monday condemned the spokeswoman, Nupur Sharma, as did the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Inflammatory comments by right-wing activists and political leaders in India often make headlines and spark outrage on social media. But rarely do they elicit the kind of attention that Sharma drew in [early June], which sent her political party and Indias diplomats scrambling to contain an international public relations crisis.

Lets step back from the news coverage for a moment to consider some underlying dynamics and their impact on journalism.

Culture wars, to my mind, are in essence political struggles in which one group seeks to impose its values, structures and narrative its world view, in short on another. At least, this is the way the term is used in most mainstream coverage, as opposed to the actual work of the sociologist James Davison Hunter who wrote the most influential book on this topic.

Individual and societal values drawn from religious sources provide the ammunition for clashes over gender and sexuality issues, religious tolerance and intolerance, acceptable speech, immigration and other hot-button topics spurred by todays unprecedented rate of social change.

Americans have seen how ugly culture wars can become when electoral politics are caught in its talons. Witness the vitriol that dominates the news out of Washington and various state capitals these days.

Witness the level of culture wars manipulation that occurred under former President Donald Trump of course pro-MAGA conservatives will argue that progressive Democrats are the problem. And witness what happened in Idaho, where 31 anti-gay demonstrators were arrested for allegedly planning to riot at a gay pride parade last Saturday. The Coeur dAlene incident underscored how dangerous Americas culture war has become and what we might expect more of.

The situation in India the worlds largest Hindu-majority nation with the third-largest Muslim population after Indonesia and Pakistan is arguably even worse. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party have long been accused of rallying their Hindu nationalist base by sowing, for example, Hindu fears about Muslim men seducing Hindu women.

In truth, many Muslims seem no more accepting of Hindu-Muslim unions than are Hindus. This Hindustan Times story from May underscores this reality.

Heres a bit more explanation from the Post piece to which I linked above.

The (insult) controversy highlights one of the challenges to Indian foreign policy at a time when Modi is seeking a greater role on the world stage: Although his government has cultivated strong diplomatic ties with many Muslim nations, including both Saudi Arabia and Iran, his party has come under growing criticism for its treatment of Indias Muslim minority. It is accused by rights groups of stoking Hindu nationalist sentiment and turning a blind eye to religious violence.

India under Modi has been quite deft in dealing with the Muslim world, but this was almost inevitable, said Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science at Indiana University. At home, a lynching takes place and Modi remains deafeningly silent. Now, he feels compelled to act because he realizes the damage abroad could be extensive. When it comes to foreign policy, the stakes are high.

The Indian government has sought to downplay a string of local religious controversies in recent months, including a ban on headscarves for female students, the razing of Muslim neighborhoods after communal clashes, and efforts by Hindu nationalists to reclaim high-profile mosques (that were once Hindu temple sites).

To better understand Indias complicated religious landscape, read these two partisan pieces. The first is from an Indian Hindu perspective. The second is from a Muslim viewpoint, featured at Religion News Service.

Whats my bottom line? Governments and groups that stir conflict by focusing on religion and culture, for their own preservationist desires, are playing with fire.

Examples abound: From the American Civil War to Nazi Germany, from Israel and Palestine to Northern Irelands Protestant-Catholic troubles, to Myanmars treatment of its Rohingya Muslims and Chinas claim that its minority Muslim groups all represent a terrorist threat.

The reality is political leaders have long perhaps always used so-called culture war tactics to harden their support. Is it worse today? I cant really say.

What I can say, however, is that the deadliness of modern weaponry a category that includes the internet as well as tactical nuclear weapons raises the specter of culture wars becoming bloodier than ever. That includes the United States of America because were no smarter about these incessant problems than are Indians or any other of the other nationalities mentioned here.

That, dear readers, should worry you. It should also make you wonder about the responsibility journalists have in this issue.

My take is that its not enough to just regurgitate manipulative comments from leaders on both sides and then call it fair and objective journalism. I think we need context and the courage to challenge those who care more about careers than the country.

Walking that path is, of course, far from easy. It has its own set of problems that are far too complex for me to detail here. But if you simply give additional serious thought to this issue, Ill consider my work here done.

This piece is republished with permission from GetReligion.org. Ira Rifkin is an award-winning journalist and author specializing in the intersection of religion, culture, and politics, with special emphasis on globalization. He was formerly the news director of Belief Net, a Washington-based national correspondent for Religion News Service and has contributed to many publications, including the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun and others.

View original post here:
What Responsibility Do Journalists Have When Covering Incendiary Wars About Religion And Culture? - Religion Unplugged

The culture wars can seem all-consuming. They certainly consume corners of the advertising industry pretty regularly. For example, a recent update to the famous Netflix culture memo insists that Netflix will not "censor specific artists or voices". Addressing workers, it said if youd find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you. For The Drum's Creativity in Focus Deep Dive, Patrice Pollack of Momentum Worldwide looks at how to tread the line between free expression and respecting marginalized voices without stifling creativity.

There is a culture war taking place where mainstream media has become the battleground, and advertising is very much a part of that media. As a result, we currently walk a blurry line; do we work to reflect a larger experience, or do we maintain the status quo?

If we accept, as an industry, that advertising fuels culture and culture fuels advertising, then we need to continue pushing the boundaries of free speech and self-expression. We ultimately try to seek out and expose the experiences that shape the targets truth; to show what it is to be human and illuminate that which gets overlooked and create something that connects with as many people as possible. Sometimes, frankly, that is uncomfortable. We know that freedom of expression doesnt make us free from consequence, and the consequences of that discomfort can hold us (and clients) back.

Maintaining comfort, however, means maintaining the status quo, and that also means excluding those truths that are so necessary to break through and transform culture for the better. Those truths are ones most of us want to see.

The Edelman trust barometer shows that businesses are more trusted than governments, NGOs and media, and that most people believe that most of us aren't capable of civil discourse. Having a different perspective, being more diverse and inclusive, and speaking to the truth of consumers lives (and the role we play in them) isnt divisive or risky. Its simply (or not so simply) the truth. Exposing truth quite literally sets us free.

So why is it that 'progressive' is said with a sneer when the fact is that we have progressed? Imagine if brands still portrayed women like they did in the 50s, if dad was still the disengaged parent or if the nuclear family was the epitome of normal? Imagine if we listened to the few that scream, No! Keep it this way!

We often take the feedback we get online - which is polarizing and, in many cases, skewed towards sensationalism - as being reflective of the full picture of societys beliefs. Yet only 23% of Americans are on Twitter, and only 25% of those users produce 97% of Tweets. That's less than 20 million people. But the most vocal among us aren't necessarily speaking for all of us. In fact, they speak for very few. And social medias accessibility to the global community even furthers that discrepancy.

The largest group of people, the people that live in the middle ground, arent being heard at all. As advertisers, we need to work with our clients to make space for quieter voices to be heard and then reflected upon. We need to steer clear of perceived safety, because that safety is actually quite dangerous, not only for brands, but for the progression of culture.

So how can we walk away from making normal even more normal? How can we be brave enough to continue pushing (or progressing)? We can start by asking ourselves if exposing the brave, bold truth can be done without harming anyone and including more of everyone. If we can do that, then the work we do can make a positive impactboth on the business and on the world. Not an easy feat, but it's why we're all here, right?

To keep up to date with our coverage head over to the Creativity in Focus hub.

See the rest here:
What Is Advertising's Role In The Culture Wars? - The Drum

Pizza Hut is drawing fire in some quarters for the reading selections used in its highly successful Book It! program, a 38-year-old initiative aimed at turning kids into lifelong book lovers. The stuff is too left-leaning and disrespectful of traditional values, say the critics.

And thats not even the jaw-dropping example of restaurants susceptibility to the culture wars, according to this weeks Working Lunch podcast. Co-hosts Joe Kefauver and Franklin Coley look at the creation by Republican congressmen of an alternate U.S. Chamber of Commerce thats more in line with their style of capitalism.

The stated mission of the new The American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce is to push back on the woke type of capitalism promoted by the actual Chamber.

Its classic Beltway gamesmanship. But, ask the Align Public Strategies principals, will the gambit land restaurant executives and other corporate leaders in a political tug-of-war with the GOP?

Listen to what the veteran lobbyists have to say about that situation and the other political challenges facing the business, including the landmark Fast Act that advanced in California last week. Youll find this episode and all the installments wherever you get your podcasts.

Members help make our journalism possible. Become a Restaurant Business member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.

Read more from the original source:
Restaurants catch their share of flak in the culture wars - Restaurant Business Online