Cultural imperialism

Cultural imperialism, sometimes called cultural colonialism, refers to the processes by which the culture, values and symbolic systems of a powerful society are imposed upon, or come to dominate, those of less powerful societies. It concerns the cultural dimensions of imperialism, including language, religion, education, media, fashion, architecture, and everyday practices, through which unequal political and economic relationships are created, justified and maintained. Unlike ordinary cultural exchange, cultural imperialism is closely linked to power, hierarchy and hegemony, and is often understood as a key mechanism through which empires and dominant states secure influence beyond their borders.

Background and definitions

The term imperialism generally denotes practices by which one state or social group extends control over another. In cultural imperialism, this control operates primarily through symbols, meanings and institutions rather than, or in addition to, overt military or economic domination. It may appear as:

• an attitude of cultural superiority,
• a formal policy in education, media or language,
• or practices backed by military, economic or diplomatic power.

Cultural imperialism is often contrasted with cultural diffusion, the relatively spontaneous spread and borrowing of cultural traits between societies. It is also distinguished from cultural globalisation, the worldwide circulation of cultural products and images, although the two processes may overlap. In cultural imperialism, the flow of influence is markedly unequal, with powerful societies disproportionately shaping the cultural environment of weaker ones.
Modern usage of the term became prominent in the 1960s and 1970s, especially in communication and media studies, international relations, sociology, postcolonial studies and critical education. A cluster of related concepts – such as media imperialism, electronic colonialism, cultural dependency, ideological imperialism and structural imperialism – often refer to similar processes of transnational cultural domination.

Historical contexts and mechanisms

Historically, cultural imperialism is closely associated with colonial rule. European empires frequently restructured the educational, religious and linguistic systems of colonised territories to resemble those of the metropole. School curricula, mission activity and administrative practices aimed to marginalise indigenous languages and belief systems, replacing them with European languages and Christian doctrines. The result was not only political subordination but also a reordering of cultural hierarchies in which Western norms were presented as superior, modern and universal.
Key mechanisms of cultural imperialism have included:

• Education systems modelled on those of the imperial power, with textbooks and syllabi embedding foreign values.
• Missionary and religious institutions seeking to transform local cosmologies and rituals.
• Mass media and broadcasting, where films, television programmes and news flows from powerful states dominate local screens.
• Advertising and consumer culture, promoting foreign lifestyles, brands and ideals of beauty or success.
• Language policies, favouring imperial languages in administration, schooling and prestige domains.

These mechanisms have often worked together with economic and political pressures to reorient local elites towards the norms of the dominant power.

Herbert Schiller and media-based cultural imperialism

The work of Herbert Schiller is central to the classic formulation of cultural imperialism. He argued that the expansion of the United States after the Second World War created a US-centred world system in which American media, corporations and state agencies promoted a particular way of life across the globe. For Schiller, cultural imperialism was:

• coercive, in that societies were pressured, forced or bribed to integrate into an expansive capitalist order; and
• persuasive, in that it relied on attraction, consent and the voluntary collaboration of local elites.

Schiller emphasised the role of public and commercial media as penetrative instruments. To achieve large-scale influence, the dominating power had to capture or reshape broadcasting and other communication infrastructures, often through the commercialisation of radio and television. In this view, cultural imperialism was not merely an economic phenomenon but a complex set of symbolic processes that reconfigured social institutions, aspirations and identities in line with the interests of dominant centres.
Subsequent political economy of communication research examined these processes in detail, tracing how global media conglomerates, advertising industries and international regulatory frameworks structure the flow of information and cultural products in ways that privilege powerful states and corporations.

Poststructuralist perspectives and power

In poststructuralist theory, cultural imperialism is often analysed through broader conceptions of power, discourse and subjectivity. The work of Michel Foucault has been especially influential. Foucault conceptualised power not simply as something possessed by states or individuals, but as a network of relations that shapes what can be known, said and done in a given context. Power and truth are intimately connected: systems of power produce accepted regimes of truth by regulating which statements are legitimate, credible and authoritative.
From this perspective, cultural imperialism can be seen as a configuration of power–knowledge relations in which Western or imperial discourses define what counts as rational, civilised, modern or normal. These discourses are reproduced through governmental practices, expert knowledge, educational institutions and media representations. Foucault’s notion of governmentality – the broad art of governing populations, households, souls and conduct – underlines how cultural norms and self-understandings become instruments of rule, extending beyond formal state apparatuses into everyday life.
Such analyses highlight that cultural imperialism need not rely on overt coercion. It can operate through subtle processes in which people internalise external standards, judge themselves and others accordingly, and voluntarily align their conduct with distant centres of power.

Postcolonial theory and Orientalism

Postcolonial theorists have further developed critiques of cultural imperialism by examining the enduring legacies of colonial discourse. Edward Said’s work Orientalism is particularly significant. He argued that Western scholarship, literature and art produced a stylised and often stereotypical image of “the Orient”, contrasted with a rational and civilised “Occident”. This binary structure positioned the East as exotic, passive, irrational or backward, thereby justifying colonial intervention and control.
In Culture and Imperialism, Said later showed how, even after formal decolonisation, such representational patterns persist, shaping how formerly colonised regions and peoples are perceived and how they perceive themselves. Cultural imperialism thus appears not only in state policy or media exports but also in canonical literature, academic disciplines and everyday common sense.
Postcolonial approaches draw attention to:

• the continuing asymmetries in who produces globally circulating knowledge and images;
• the ways in which colonised or marginalised groups are spoken about rather than heard; and
• the hybrid cultural forms that arise when imposed symbols are reworked, resisted or re-appropriated by local populations.

Cultural engineering, media space and identity

Contemporary analyses often describe cultural imperialism as a form of cultural engineering, in which powerful actors attempt to reorganise symbolic environments so that local populations eventually identify with new cultural symbols and narratives. This process may:

• isolate residents within media and information spheres dominated by foreign images and languages;
• normalise foreign cultural symbols so that they appear natural or domestic rather than external; and
• weaken intergenerational transmission of indigenous languages, rituals and worldviews.

The father who continues to wear traditional clothing while his son adopts Western dress exemplifies how cultural imperialism can manifest in everyday choices of appearance, consumption and self-presentation. Over time, such shifts may alter senses of belonging and historical continuity, though they are rarely uniform or uncontested.

Distinction from diffusion and globalisation

Although the spread of cultural elements around the world is a long-standing and largely natural process, cultural imperialism stresses power inequalities and directional flows. Key distinctions include:

• Intentionality and structure: Cultural imperialism involves planned interventions and structural advantages, such as control of media infrastructures or educational systems, rather than spontaneous borrowing.
• Asymmetry: The flow of commodities, narratives and symbols predominantly runs from powerful to less powerful societies, with limited reciprocal influence.
• Consequences: Local cultures may be marginalised, commodified or redefined according to external criteria, while the dominant culture is rarely transformed to the same degree.

In the context of cultural globalisation, some scholars argue that audiences actively reinterpret imported cultural products, producing hybrid forms rather than simply absorbing foreign norms. Others maintain that underlying economic and institutional arrangements continue to privilege certain centres of production, making cultural imperialism a useful concept for understanding contemporary inequalities.

Contemporary debates and significance

Today, cultural imperialism remains a contested concept. Critics suggest that it can be vague or overgeneral, sometimes overlooking local agency, resistance and creativity. They argue that people in less powerful societies do not merely receive foreign culture passively but selectively adopt, adapt or reject elements in complex ways.
Nevertheless, the notion of cultural imperialism continues to be employed in debates about:

• dominance of Western, especially Anglophone, media and digital platforms;
• global advertising and branding strategies;
• the spread of particular models of higher education, science and expertise;
• language shift and the decline of minority languages;
• and the cultural dimensions of neoliberal economic policies.