Copyright Sociological Research Online, 2003

Bum Soo Chon, George Barnett and Young Choi (2003) 'Clustering Local Tastes in Global Culture: The Reception Structure of Hollywood Films'
Sociological Research Online, vol. 8, no. 1, <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/1/chon.html>

Abstract

This paper describes the shared structure of Hollywood film consumption based on data obtained from the Variety International Film Guide (1995, 1998, 2000). It focuses on the consumption of the top 10 films in over 30 countries, using a longitudinal study to explain the structure of cultural consumption, how it has transformed over time, and how it is related to cultural factors. The results indicate that the structure of film consumption is comprised of three cultural clusters: local film-based, strong and weak homogenization clusters. The results suggest that countries consume the Hollywood films in different ways and have different selection for foreign films. Also, the results suggest that the film consumption pattern was significantly related to cultural zone network.

Keywords:

Global Culture, Hollywood Films, Cultural Zones

Introduction

1.1

Since the late 1980s there has been a dramatic restructuring of world's media industries, along with the emergence of a global commercial media market. The newly developing global media are dominated by three or four-dozen large transnational corporations, with "fewer than ten mostly U.S.-based media conglomerates towering over the global market" (Herman & McChesney, 1997, p.189). This implies that the expansion of capitalism into the global sphere has also increased the volume of cultural goods through monopolization in production and distribution.

1.2

For Hollywood, international markets are an additional source of viewers and their revenues. In 1995, 50.9 percent of Hollywood's total income came from international markets (40.7% in 1986, 41.8% in 1995) (Vogel, 1998). This percentage has increased steadily since the 1970s (Han, 1998). Likewise, the Hollywood film industry has dominated the global film industry in terms of production, distribution and exhibition (Guback, 1987). The increasing movement of Hollywood films across cultural spaces has emerged as one of the most important sources transforming cultural industries in other countries. In this sense, many scholars argue that cultural homogenization, which refers to standardized culture around American pattern, is a consequence of globalization (Boyd-Barrett, 1977).

1.3

However, as Boli and Thomas (1997) contend, most arguments for global culture are not based on direct evidence but abstract inference. In addition, previous research on "international flow of cultural products has led to neglect of theoretical applications to communication within First World countries, or between First World and Third World countries" (Park, 1998, p.80). That is, most research on cultural globalization and homogenization has mainly focused on the impact of Western multinational corporations including Hollywood film distributors on developing countries (Hamelink, 1983; Mattelart, 1979). In this context, the issues of cultural trade have tended to concentrate on the one-way flow of cultural products such as films and television programs from the U.S. (Varis, 1985).

1.4

However, because this approach is based on the analyses of production and distribution in exchanging cultural goods, it may neglect the dynamics of change in audience reception at the local level. Simply, the global culture perspective underestimates the importance of local identity and cultural difference in the developing world. As Mowlana (1996) argues, global culture does not imply that all audiences for cultural goods are situated in the same position in terms of value or attitude. As a result, the primary issue of global communication has become the "tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization" (Appadurai, 1990, p.5). Likewise, the cultural consequences of globalization can vary (Holton, 2000), producing different receptions for cultural products across countries. They may be related to coherent and distinct cultural zones (Inglehart & Carballo, 1997; Barnett, 2001). The cultural zone is an important form of relationship among countries that share cultural factors including ethnicity, religion and language.

1.5

Using network analysis, this paper describes the structure of cultural commonalities and the relationship among cultural zones characterized as having similar religion, language and ethnic histories. More specifically, this paper focuses on the shared structure among countries as consumers of Hollywood films. It examines how countries can be clustered based on Hollywood film consumption and their relationship with cultural zones.

Theory

Globalization and Cultural Zones

2.1

Since the 1980s, there has been a great deal of attention to the problem of cultural homogenization, which is characterized by the process of standardizing cultural patterns through the major Hollywood studios and Western media corporations. Proponents of global culture argue that the world is becoming a single world society by intercultural communication (Rogers & Kincaid, 1981; Waters, 1995). They find "structural homology across countries and this homology results from an overarching global culture" (Boli & Thomas, 1997, p.172).

2.2

However, the debate about whether there is cultural homogenization remains open because previous research has not provided any empirical outcomes. Economic globalization may have various kinds of cultural consequences such as homogenization, polarization and hybridization (Holton, 2000). Therefore, the cultural globalization perspective may be inadequate for explaining complexity of global communication flow, consumption and impact because the cultural consequences of globalization can be diverse and complex (Choi & Danowski, 2002; Holton, 2000). This perspective on the cultural consequences of economic globalization has advantages in explaining the production, distribution and consumption of cultural products such as Hollywood films. In some countries such as the UK and Canada, it is easy to observe the homogenization to Hollywood in terms of film distribution, which signifies the erosion of cultural differences and domination by U.S. production. On the other hand, it is possible to explore cultural resistance or hybridization to Hollywood films in other countries.

2.3

In this sense, it can be suggested that although U.S. has dominated international film production and distribution and has led to the similarities of cultural patterns, the reception processes may be differentiated by cultural differences. As Olson (1999, p.38) argues, "the global reception of American media cannot be based merely on data reflecting export volume, but on data reflecting reception". Countries may consume Hollywood films in different or similar ways, because "they are different in their cinematic tastes, different in their selections for reception" (Olson, 1999, p.41).

2.4

Differences in reception of Hollywood films can be related to coherent and distinct cultural zones (Inglehart & Carballo, 1997). The cultural zone is an important form of relationship among countries that share cultural factors including ethnicity, religion and language. On the basis of the World Value Surveys, Inglehart and Carballo (1997) revealed that huge differences between the basic values of people in different cultural zones including Lain American, African, Confucian, English-speaking and ex-Communist. Their argument is based on Huntington's (1996) notion of world civilizations that are composed of seven or eight major civilizations including Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, western, Latin American, Orthodox and African. Those civilizations encompass the underlying religions, language and cultural divisions, and shape member countries' behavior. Simply, Huntington's approach focuses on the shared membership based on cultural commonalities.

2.5

As a result, the concept of cultural zone can be understoood as having the similar value among countries. Here, a value has the meaning of "an enduring belief "(Rokeach, 1972) embedded in a social system. According to Hyun (2001, p.205), "each culture has its own distinctive value systems and orientations which illuminate what is of significance within that society". In other words, each culture has its own distinctive value system that endures over long periods of time based on traditional values (Inglehart & Baker, 2001). This perspective emphasizes the persistence of distinctive cultural traditions (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). In this context, cultural membership of countries can be defined as shared ethnic, historical or religion spheres. Membership in the same political and economic spheres may lead to similarities in cultural consumption and values or to reduction in conflicts within the same group. For example, Henderson and Tucker (2001) examined the relationship between civilization membership and interstate conflicts, arguing that civilization membership was not significantly associated with the onset of interstate war during the Cold War era (1946-1988). Barnett (2001) found distinct clusters of nations resulting from the patterns of communication among the countries of the world. They are consistent with Huntington's world civilizations.

2.6

Thus, it is important to ask the following questions; how do cultural commonalities influence countries' behavior? Are there any cultural differences among cultural zones? Taken together, it may be argued that cultural membership may partially control the cultural behavior of individual country in the structure of cultural flow. Thus, research on cultural membership may explain the variance in cultural consumption in the global system. Inglehart and Baker (2001) suggest that although economic development may cause shifts in the values of people in developing nations, it will not produce a uniform global culture, arguing that long-established cultural zones played important roles in basic values. In addition, they emphasize that a society's religious institutions, political experience, language, geographical location and other cultural factors should be included in attempting to understand a county's value system. In this sense, it can be inferred that the reception of Hollywood films can be differentiated by diverse cultural factors.

2.7

As noted above, this paper examines the shared structure of film consumption using network analysis. It focuses on when and how an individual country is linked with others through film consumption. Specifically, the paper empirically analyzes the shared structure of Hollywood film consumption among countries at three points in time, 1993, 1995 and 1998. This study is based on the structural analysis of the film reception. Its main purpose is to trace geo-cultural clusters based on shared films, as a measure of relationship of the extent to which countries cluster together. Thus, it addresses the following research questions:

• RQ 1: What is the shared structure of cultural consumption? How are countries clustered in terms of Hollywood film consumption?
• RQ 2: How has the shared structure of film consumption changed over time? Are there any changes in countries' structural positions in the cultural network?
• RQ 3: What are the relationships between the reception structure of Hollywood films and other cultural and economic factors such as language similarity, trade bloc membership and cultural zones?

Method

Data

3.1

The Top 10 Films. Data on shared film consumption among countries were obtained from the Variety International Film Guide. Those books include the world box-office survey such as the top 10 films. In this paper, three points in time (1993, 1995 and 1998) were gathered to examine the changing structure. Although data vary slightly in size and membership in each year (n=44 in 1998 and 1995, and n=37 in 1993), it is adequate for meaningful analysis. There are thirty countries included in all three years and these countries are the significant film markets in the world. They will be compared for cultural consumption.

3.2

In our analysis, an individual Hollywood film was assigned as an independent node. However, several non-Hollywood films were reassigned or combined. Local films were assigned as a node that was produced and exhibited in a certain country. Asian, European, African and Oceania films were defined as nodes that were produced in foreign countries, except the U.S., and exhibited in foreign countries except the film producing country. For example, when a British film was listed in the top 10 films in France, it was coded as a European film.

• Language. Data on shared language patterns were gathered from Encyclopedia Britannica Website (www.britannica.com). It includes the nations' official language(s).
• Trade Blocs. A network was created based on joint trade bloc membership. If two countries shared membership in the same bloc the cell received a 1. If they were not members of the same bloc, the cell was coded 0. The countries comprise four trade blocs, The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the European Union (EU), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA), the Economic Community of Western African (ECOWAS), the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and Bangkok Agreement. The data were gathered from the World Trade Organization (Available at:http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/wtregw4 1_e.doc).
• Cultural Zones. Data on cultural zones were gathered from the Inglehart & Baker's (2000) classification of world civilizations. A network was created based on joint cultural zone membership. If two nodes shared membership in the same zone the cell received a 1. If they were not members of the same zone, the cell was coded 0.

Network Analysis

3.3

The structure of shared film consumption may be examined with several network analysis methods. The use of multiple methods has some advantages such as avoidance of monomethod bias and the richness of description (Barnett & Danowski, 1992). Here, network analysis is a set of research procedures for identifying global structures based on the relationships among nodes in a certain boundary (Barnett, Danowski & Richards, 1993; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981). In Wellman's (1988) view, "social structures can be represented as networks - as sets of nodes and sets of ties depicting their interconnections" (p.4). Thus, this method will be appropriate for examining the relationships among cultural zones in term of the reception of Hollywood films, using network analysis.

3.4

Simply, this paper describes the relations among both country and films based on the shared top 10 films in each country. The clustering of countries based on the co-occurrence among the top ten films is examined. The top 10 films in this study refer to the 10 largest box office earning films. The basic network data set is an affiliation matrix A (n x k), where n equals the number of countries and k equals the number of films in the analysis. Specifically, an affiliation matrix of countries by films was constructed in order to analyze the shared structure in film consumption. Each cell in the matrix indicates how frequently a film was represented in the corresponding country.

3.5

This paper examines the shared structure of Hollywood film consumption. It focuses on the consumption of the top 10 films in over 30 countries, using longitudinal analysis to explain the structure of cultural consumption, how it has transformed over time, and how it is related to cultural factors. Given its form, a number of different mathematical or statistical methods may be applied to facilitate the description of the network structure. In this paper, centrality (Bonacich, 1987; Freeman, 1979), cluster analysis (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984), multidimensional scaling (Woelfel & Fink, 1980; Barnett & Woelfel, 1988), and QAP analysis (Krackhardt, 1987) are employed to describe the shared structure of film consumption.

3.6

More specifically, the measure of Bonacich centrality was used to explore positional structures at the nation-state level (Bonacich, 1987). The spatial formation of subgroups was investigated by using MDS (Multidimensional Scaling). MDS has been used in the past to examine communication networks (Barnett & Choi, 1995; Barnett et al., 1999). The formation of cohesive blocks in the network is detected by using cluster analysis. Cluster analysis identifies those groupings or clusters of nodes that best represent their measured relations (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). Next, the structural relationships between different networks were examined by comparing the networks through the QAP correlation analysis.

Results

Cultural Similarity in 1993

4.1

The results of the centralities for the top 63 films in 1993 indicate that local films are by far the most central film, followed by Jurrasic Park, The Bodyguard, Cliffhanger, The Fugitive and Indecent Proposal. Table 1 shows hierarchies of the top 10 films in 1993 in terms of Bonacich eigenvector centralities. The results suggest that the American films were most frequently ranked in the top 10 category in the 37 countries. The centralities for the 37 countries in 1993 are presented in Table 2. The higher the value of country's centrality coefficient, the greater the degree of local film consumption. In contrast, the lower the value of country's centrality coefficient, the greater the degree of Hollywood film consumption. They indicated that India is by far the most central node, followed by Hong Kong, Pakistan, Serbia, Japan and Denmark. Most peripheral in the network are Syria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Hungary, Egypt and South Africa. The results suggest that countries consume Hollywood films differently than local films.

---

Table 1: The top 10 Films by Bonacich Eigenvector Centralities

---

Ranking	1998	1995	1993
1	Local Movies	Local Movies	Local Movies
2	Titanic	Die Hard 3	Jurassic Park
3	Armageddon	Batman Forever	The Bodyguard
4	Saving Private Ryan	Forrest Gump	Cliffhanger
5	Godzilla	Casper	The Fugitive
6	As Good As It Gets	Pochahontas	Indecent Proposal
7	Deep Impact	Waterworld	Aladdin
8	There's Something about Mary	Apollo 13	Home Alone 2
9	Mulan	Dumb and Dummer	Hot Shots
10	Tomorrow Never Die	The Lion King	The Firm

---

---

Table 2: Hierarchies of Bonacich Eigenvector Centralities for Countries Over Time

---

Year	Higher Group: More Local Films	Middle Group: Partly Local Films	Lower Group: Mainly Hollywood Films
1993	India, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Serbia, Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Mexico, Korea, Argentina	Slovakia, Australia, Taiwan, Turkey, Indonesia, Australia, Netherlands, Spain, Chile, UK, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland	USA, Poland, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, Hungary, Luxembourg, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Syria
1995	Pakistan, Hong Kong, France, India, Iran, Thailand, Sweden, Japan, New Zealand, Finland, Korea	Italy, Serbia, Argentina, Indonesia, Czech, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, Romania, Iceland, UK, Mexico	USA, Australia, Chile, Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Hungary, Slovakia, South Africa, Bulgaria, Spain, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Greece, Taiwan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Syria
1998	Iran, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Serbia, Sweden, Poland, Korea, France, Turkey, Hong Kong, Japan	Ireland, Argentina, UK, Denmark, Czech, Spain, Norway, Austria, Singapore, Netherlands, Latvia, Indonesia, Greece, Italy, Germany, New Zealand, Belgium, Iceland, Slovakia, Switzerland	USA, Brazil, Chile, South Africa, Australia, Venezuela, Thailand, Mexico, Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania

---

4.2

The partitioning of positions was done based on the cluster analysis because cluster analysis best classifies nodes into subgroups that have similar attributions (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). The cluster analysis of the shared film network in 1993 identified four groups. Table 3 shows the results of cluster analysis. The first and largest group was composed of eighteen countries. Among them, India and Hong Kong were most central and clustered more tightly together. Cluster 1 may be divided into two groupings: (a) Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Serbia, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, Denmark, Korea, Japan, Iceland, Norway, Mexico, Argentina, Slovakia, Australia, and (b) Switzerland, Austria. The second group had six countries with two pairs of countries that were tightly clustered. Cluster 2 may be divided into two groupings: (a) Hungary, Egypt, Italy, and (b) France, Syria, Bulgaria. The third group was of seven countries. Cluster 3 may be divided into two groupings: (a) Germany, South Africa, and (b) Luxembourg, Poland, Brazil, Chile, Spain. The last group was composed of six countries. It may be divided into two groupings: (a) Finland, Indonesia, and (b) Netherlands, Ireland, U.K., U.S.A. These results indicated that the film consumption is clustered based on the degree of Hollywood film consumption.

Table 3. Cluster Analysis of Film Consumption

4.3

The results of the multidimensional scaling in 1993 are presented in Young, 1987, p.204) and stress value less than .20 is considered acceptable" (Choi & Danowski, 2002). The two dimensions are displayed in Figure 1. Dimension 2 differentiates local film-based groups from homogenization groups. In the lower part are Hollywood-represented groups such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico and Germany. Local film-based countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Japan, Denmark, Serbia, Hong Kong and Korea are in the upper left.

Figure 1. Multidimensional Scaling of International Film in 1993

Cultural Similarity in 1995

4.4

Like the 1993 results, the results of the centralities for the top 58 films in 1995 indicate that local films are by far the most central film, followed by Die Hard 3, Batman Forever, Forrest Gump, Casper, Golden Eye and Pochahontas. The hierarchies of the centralities for the 44 countries in 1995 are also presented in Table 2. They indicated that Pakistan is by far the most central node, followed by Hong Kong, France, Iran and India, Thailand, Sweden and Japan. Those countries tended to consume more local than Hollywood films. In contrast, peripheral in the network are Syria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Greece, Egypt and Taiwan. Those countries' top 10 film configuration was shaped by Hollywood films.

4.5

Overall, like the 1993 results, the cluster analysis identified same number of clusters, but the pattern shows some differences except local film-based group. The largest group was composed of fifteen countries. They are Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Japan, France, Thailand, Finland, Iran, New Zealand, Korea, Italy, Indonesia and Ireland. Among them, Pakistan and Hong Kong were the most central and clustered more tightly together. This membership configuration is very similar to the1993 results. The second group had seven countries. This cluster may be divided into two sub- groupings: (a) Serbia, Lithuania, Latvia, Greece, and (b) Romania, Estonia, Syria. Overall, they are mainly comprised of Orthodox countries. The third group was composed of twelve countries. It may be divided into three groupings: (a) Denmark, Norway, (b) Brazil, Hungary, Czech, Egypt, Poland, Slovakia, and (c) Bulgaria, Argentina, Chile, South Africa. The fourth group had ten countries that are heavily dependent on Hollywood films in terms of film consumption. This group may be divided into three groupings: (a) Taiwan, Mexico, Spain, (b) Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and (c) English speaking countries such as Australia, Iceland, U.K. and U.S.A.

4.6

The results of the multidimensional scaling in 1995 are presented in Figure 2. A two-dimensional solution produced stress level of 0.180. Dimension 2 differentiates local film-based group from cultural homogenization group. In the lower section is the local film based group composed of India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, France and Japan. Hollywood film-based countries such as Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Switzerland and Denmark are in the upper portion of the graph.

Figure 2. Multidimensional Scaling of International Film in 1995

Cultural Similarity in 1998

4.7

The results of the centralities for the top 50 films in 1998 indicate that local films are by far the most central, followed by the U.S. films - Titanic, Amageddon, Saving Private Ryan, There's Something About Mary and Godzilla. As with the international difference, the centralities for the 44 countries in 1998 are presented in Table 1. They indicated that Iran is by far the most central, followed by India, Pakistan, Egypt, Serbia, Sweden, Korea and France. Most peripheral in the network are the former Eastern Bloc countries such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania. The results suggest that countries consume the Hollywood films in different ways and have different selection for foreign films.

4.8

The cluster analysis of the shared film network in 1998 identified three groups. They identified a different number of clusters from both 1993 and 1995 results. The first and largest group was composed of twenty- two countries, including Iran, India, Egypt, Pakistan, Serbia, Korea. Turkey, U.K., Poland, Hong Kong, France, Japan, Ireland, Denmark, Argentina, Czech, Spain, Norway, Singapore, Indonesia and Italy. Among them, India and Iran were most central and clustered more tightly together. This cluster may be characterized as local film-based group. Overall, it has tended to maintain its membership structure over time. The second group had twelve countries with four pairs of countries that were tightly clustered. Thus, cluster 2 may be divided into four groupings: (a) Greece, Switzerland, (b) Netherlands, Belgium, Slovakia, (c) Austria, Germany, Iceland, and (d) South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, U.S.A. This cluster can be considered the Hollywood film-based group. The third group was composed of ten countries. It may be divided into three groupings: (a) Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Thailand, (b) Mexico, Bulgaria, Estonia, and (c) Brazil, Chile, Venezuela. Interestingly, this cluster is mainly comprised of the former East European countries. Overall, the results imply that cultural consumption among countries can be differentiated based on different tastes for Hollywood films.

4.9

The results of the multidimensional scaling in 1998 are presented in Figure 3. A two-dimensional solution produced an excessive stress level of 0.156. The two dimensions are displayed in Figure 3. Dimension 2 differentiates a local film-based group from a cultural homogenization group. In the lower section is the Hollywood film-based group, including Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico and Germany. The local film-based countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Japan, Denmark, Serbia, Hong Kong and Korea are in the higher left.

Figure 3. Multidimensional Scaling of International Film in 1998

Comparing three networks

4.10

QAP. The QAP analysis was conducted to examine the correlations among the three matrices.^[1] The results are presented in Table 4. All the networks are significantly related to each other. In terms of the comparison between two years, 1993 and 1995 was the strongest with a correlation of 0.576 (p<. 000), followed by 1993 and 1998 (r=0.442, p<. 001) and, 1995 and 1998 (r=0.416, p<. 001). The results suggest that the structure of the film consumption network was stable over time.

Table 4: QAP correlations among 1993, 1995 and 1998
Year	1993	1995	1998
1993	1.0
1995	0.576	1.0
1998	0.442	0.416	1.0
* All correlations are significant beyond the 0.001 level.

The Cultural Network within Global Networks

4.11

QAP. QAP analysis was also conducted to examine the correlations between the film network and other cultural networks.^[2] The results of the QAP correlations are presented in Table 5. The film network was significantly related to cultural zones (r =. 112, p =.02). The other global networks consisting of language similarity and trading bloc were not significantly related to the pattern of consumption.

Table 5: QAP correlations among variables
	Film	Language	Zone	Bloc
Film	1.0
Language Similarity	0.001 (0.478)	1.0
Cultural Zone	0.161 (0.002)	0.102 (0.021)	1.0
Trade Bloc	- 0.005 (0.510)	0.185 (0.001)	0.112 (0.021)	1.0

Discussion

5.1

This paper raised three research questions. The first question asked, "What is the shared structure of cultural consumption? In other words, How are countries clustered in terms of film consumption?" A cluster analysis shows how much each subgroup has similar patterns of film consumption. That is, the overall cluster analysis of the film network identified three or four groups over time, showing that film consumption networks were grouped into three representative clusters: local film-based and Hollywood film-based. Although local film-based group is mainly comprised of Confucian and Islamic countries, Hollywood film-based group is composed of Western, Orthodox and Latin American countries. It signifies the coexistence of cultural homogenization and hybridization in terms of film consumption. Simply, the reception structure of Hollywood films is differentiated by the diversity of local identity and cultural difference in the world.

5.2

The second research question examined the longitudinal structure of film consumption. The QAP analysis shows that the reception structure remained relatively stable over the period of investigation except for some countries. As Inglehart and Baker (2002) argue, long-established cultural histories may play an important role in the reception of Hollywood films. In this sense, it can be argued that cultural monopolization by Hollywood studios has not led to the similarities of cultural patterns at the global scale.

5.3

The third research question asked, "What are the relationships between the reception structure of Hollywood films and other cultural and economic factors such as language similarity, trade blocs and cultural zones?". A QAP analysis showed that cultural zones among countries and Hollywood film consumption were significantly related. However, the relationship between Hollywood film consumption and language, and between trade block membership and the film network were not statistically significant. Simply, the structure of Hollywood film consumption is mainly determined by cultural zone. The results support Inglehart and Carballo's (1997) arguments that coherent and distinct cultural zones may be related to different cultural behaviors across countries.

5.4

From the brief review of empirical trends in the Hollywood film reception, it seems clear that although evidence for expansion of production and distribution by Hollywood at a global level was strongest, strong tastes for local films also existed in some countries such as India, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and France. Overall, it appears that countries with many local films in the Confucian and Islam spheres have distinct paths to global culture. Simply, although Hollywood dominates the global film industry, there were some different consumption modes of Hollywood films. Hollywood films were disproportionately consumed based on the condition of local markets and cultural histories.

5.5

Such findings have implications for understanding cultural globalization as a dual process of both hybridization and homogenization. In this sense, the cultural homogenization approaches such as cultural imperialism and global mono-culture have a theoretical weakness in that it regards global expansion of the U.S. media industries as the main determinant of cultural dependency. They ignore the importance of audience reception in consuming cultural goods. Although Western transnational corporations have major advantages in terms of their film libraries, countries may have different tastes for consuming foreign cultural products.

5.6

There is an important point that should not be ignored. Cultural consumption of Hollywood films was related to not the economic but to cultural clusters. This result is not consistent with previous research that focused on the effect of economic clusters on cultural trade (Mowlana, 1996). Rather, it is more related with Barnett et al. (1999) and Barnett (2001) arguments that the world system can be differentiated by cultural differences, or Straubhaar's (1997) contention that cultural and historical similarities have led to a regional cultural market. Both arguments point to the importance of geo-cultural groupings based on shared culture.

5.7

The findings of this study only concern the shared structure of top 10 Hollywood films and do not deal with the contents and genres that may have differentiated cultural values. Consequently, what kinds of film genres and contents are linked among countries is still open to question and requires further study. Although the data in this paper came from three points in time, this paper did not address the historical changes taking place in the structure of shared film consumption in more detail. Thus, the time period of study should be expanded. In addition, this paper did not explore the implication of dominance of local films in some countries. Thus, it will be valuable to trace how and why local films are produced and consumed. As a result, future studies should attempt to examine more variables such as television-films or dramas and music, or other cultural variables including ethnic distribution and migration should be included to more accurately represent the reception structure of international films.

Notes

¹ The sample sizes for these analyses were: N = 30 for the QAP correlations among the three years. Those countries are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, U.K. and U.S.

² The sample sizes for this analysis: N = 44 for the QAP correlations. Those countries are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, U.K., U.S. and Venezuela.

References

ALDENDERFER, M.S. & BLASHFIELD, R.K. (1984). Cluster Analysis.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

APPADURAI,A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2, 2, 1-24.

BARNETT,G. A. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of the international telecommunication network, 1978-1996. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 10, 1638- 1655.

BARNETT, G. A., & CHOI, Y. (1995). Physical distance and language as determinants of the international telecommunications network. International Political Science Review, 16, 249-265.

BARNETT, G. A. & DANOWSKI, J. A. (1992). The structure of communication: A network analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research,19, 2, 264-285.

BARNETT, G.A., & WOELFEL, J. (Eds.)(1988). Readings in the Galileo System: Theory, methods and applications. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

BARNETT, G. A., DANOWSKI, J. A., RICHARDS, W. D., Jr. (1993). Communication networks and network analysis: A current assessment, in W. D. Richards & G.A. Barnett (eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences 12 (pp.1-19). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

BARNETT, G.A., SALISBURY, J.G.T., KIM, C., & LANGHORNE, A. (1999). Globalization and international communication: An examination of monetary, telecommunications, and trade networks. The Journal of International Communication, 6, 2, 7-49.

BOLI, J. & THOMAS, G.M. (1997). World culture in the world polity: A century of international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review,62, 171-190.

BONACICH,P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology,92, 1170-1182.

BORGATTI, S., EVERETT, M., & FREEMAN, L. (1999). UCINET 5.0: Network Analysis Software. Columbia, SC: Analytic Technologies.

BOYD-BARRETT,O. (1977). Media Imperialism: Toward an International Framework for the Analysis of Media Systems (pp.116-135) In J. Curran, M. Gurevitch, & J. Woollacott (eds.). Mass Communication and Society.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

CHOI, J. H. & DANOWSKI, J. (2002). Cultural communities on the net - Global village or global metropolis?: A network analysis of Usenet newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,7:3. Available: http://www.a scusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue3/choi.html.

FREEMAN,L. C. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks,1, 215-239.

GUBACK,T. (1987). The evolution of motion picture business in the 1980s. Journal of Communication, 37, 2, 60-77.

HAN,C. (1998). The structure and implications of the international film flow from 1976 to 1993. Master thesis. Buffalo: State University of New York.

HENDERSON, E. A. & TUCKER, R. (2001). Clear and present strangers: The clash of civilizations and international conflict. International Studies Quarterly, 45, 2, 317- 338.

HERMAN, E.S. & MCCHESNEY, R.W. (1997). The global media: The new missionaries of corporate capitalism.

HOLTON,R. (2000). Globalization's cultural consequences. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,570, 140-152.

HUNTINGTON, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

HYUN, K. J. (2001). Sociocultural change and traditional values: Confucian values among Koreans and Korean Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 203-229.

INGLEHART, R. & CARBALLO, M. (1997). Does Latin America exist? (And is there a Confucian culture?): A global analysis of cross-cultural differences. Political Science & Politics, 30, 1, 34-47.

INGLEHART, R. & BAKER, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review; 65, 1, 19-51.

INGLEHART, R. & BAKER, W. E. (2001). Modernization's challenge to traditional values: Who's afraid of Ronald McDonald? The Futurist, 35, 2, 16-21.

KRACKHARDT,D. (1987). QAP Partialling as a Test for Spuriousness. Social Networks, 9, 171-86.

MATTELART,A. (1979). Multinational corporations and the control of culture.Brighton: Harvester Press.

MOWLANA, H. M. (1996). Global communication in transition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

OLSON, S.R. (1999). Hollywood planet: Global media and the competitive advantage of narrative transparency.New Jersey: LEA.

PARK,H. (1998). A Gramscian approach to interpreting international communication. Journal of Communication,48, 4, 79-99.

ROKEACH,M. (1972). Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

ROGERS, E.M., & KINCAID, D.L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.

STRAUBHAAR, J. D. (1997). Distinguishing the global, regional and national levels of world television. In Sreberny-Mohammadi, A., Winseck, D., McKenna, J and Boyd- Barret (pp. 284-298) Media in global context: A reader.New York: Arnold.

Variety (1995, 1998, 2000). Variety International Film Guide. London : Andre Deutsch.

VARIS,T. (1985). International Flow of Television Programmes.Paris: UNESCO.

VOGEL,H. L. (1998). Entertainment industry economics : a guide for financial analysis. 4th ed. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

WATERS,M. (1995). Globalization.London: Routledge.

WELLMAN, B. (1988). Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach (pp.19-61). New York: Cambridge University Press.

WOELFEL, J., & FINK, E. L. (1980). The measurement of communication processes: Galileo theory and method.New York: Academic.

YOUNG,F. W. (1987). Multidimensional scaling : history, theory, and applications.Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Copyright Sociological Research Online, 2003