Did Lebanon fall apart in the 1970s and 1980s because of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

The Arab-Israeli conflict had a huge impact on Lebanon during the 1970s and 1980s and this is because the countries, which were in conflict, bordered Lebanon on all sides except the Mediterranean Sea. It is a normal thing for countries, which border those, that are involved in conflict to experience some form of repercussions from the civil and external conflicts of their neighbors and in this case, Lebanon was not an exception. Lebanon was so much influenced by the conflicts of its neighbors that it not only had economic consequences, as would normally be the case, but also political ones as well. The Arab-Israeli conflict had a direct hand in the political instability which developed in Lebanon since, as an Arab country, it came to be pulled into the conflict.1 Lebanon, in an attempt to show solidarity with the Palestinians because of Israeli occupation got themselves in the wars, which the Arab states of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria launched against Israel. Despite the fact that the Lebanese army did not do much during this conflict and its success was minimal, it came to become one of the havens for the Palestinian liberation movements. While these groups were provided with a safe haven in Lebanon, their strength within the country grew so much that they started getting involved in the local political affairs. The arrival of these groups as well as the influx of Palestinian refugees increased the sectarian tensions, which were lurking just beneath the surface of the Lebanese society.

One of the most significant events that developed from the Arab-Israeli conflict and came to be a contributing factor in the destabilization of Lebanon is that which led to the Black September in Jordan.2 When the Jewish state was formed in 1948, the remaining Palestinian territories came under the control of Jordan and Egypt, with the former occupying the West Bank for maintaining its own security. Jordan had quite a large number of Palestinian refugees, who formed about half of its population, and when it occupied the West Bank, the Palestinian population doubled to form one third of the total Jordanian population. This country suddenly found itself in a situation where its native population had become a ruling minority. This situation inevitably led to a conflict between the two groups that formed the population of Jordan, especially when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) established itself within the country. Black September is the conflict, which arose between the Jordanian government of King Hussein, and the Palestinians, represented by the PLO, to determine who would control Jordan. This conflict lasted for almost a year and it resulted in the defeat and expulsion of the PLO from Jordan as well as the entrenchment of Hashemite rule in the country. When this happened, the PLO moved its base of operations to Lebanon where, it contributed to the increasing sectarian tensions by bringing with it most of its fighting force. While launching guerilla attacks against Israel, the PLO also got involved in local Lebanese politics and during the civil war, it often sided with the Islamic groups against the Maronite Christian population.3

The PLO’s making Lebanon their base of operations ensured that they got involved in the internal affairs of this country. In essence, this organization formed a state within a state within this country, and this inevitably led to conflict with the host government. The power of the PLO was so great that it came to take over the administration of all the Palestinian refugee camps in the country, hence denying the Lebanese government the right to exercise power over its own territory. The PLO, with its headquarters in the Lebanese capital, continued to build its armed base by recruiting from the refugee camps it controlled. With its newfound confidence and political muscle, this organization used Lebanon as a base of operations in launching attacks against Israel, the latter that often retaliated in kind.4 The conflict between the PLO and Israel did considerable damage to Lebanon as this country and its people had to undergo a lot of suffering and loss in a war, which was not theirs to fight. In addition, this conflict increased the tense sectarian atmosphere in the country with forces such as the PLO and Israel taking sides in the sectarian divisions experienced within the country. These sectarian divisions and the outside support that many of the sects received was one of the main reasons why the violence, which turned into the Lebanese Civil War, took place.

An endeavor by the Abu Nidal Organization, to assassinate the Israeli envoy to the United Kingdom in 1982 led to Israel’s decision to attack Lebanon in the same year.5 The aim of this invasion was to ensure that a government friendly to Israel was put in place and an agreement signed which would guarantee Israel peace for many years to come. The Israeli invasion was targeted at the radical anti-Israeli Muslim groups, which used Lebanon as a base of attack against it. By attacking them and destroying their power, Israel wanted to weaken them enough to ensure that they would not easily regain the ability to attack it. During this conflict, Israel came to a direct confrontation with a part of the Syrian military, which was based in Lebanon at the time. The attack was swift and well planned and in the Palestinian and Syrian groups found themselves surrounded in Beirut. Israel’s plan had been to establish Maronite Christian dominance6 of Lebanon through the person of Bashir Gemayel, who would form a government that was pro-Israel, hence the establishment of peace between Israel and Lebanon. However, with the assassination of this popular Maronite leader, the Israeli position in the conflict was compromised, and bowing to pressure from both home and abroad, it withdrew from Lebanese territory. While its main aim had not been achieved, the Israeli invasion had pushed the PLO, the most popular Palestinian movement, out of Lebanon and it set up base in Tunisia.7 However, the power vacuum that remained was swiftly filled by Hezbollah and its allies, which consolidated its power in the south of Lebanon.

Throughout the Lebanese conflict, the various countries of the Middle East which had their own interest in this country contributed to its falling apart. None of the countries that were involved in this conflict saw any reason for the peaceful solution of the Lebanese sectarian conflict, and instead they all supported their own sectarian factions within the country. For example, Iran and Syria gave their full support to such groups as Hezbollah8 and Alawite militia groups, Libya and Egypt supported the various Sunni militias, and finally, Israel gave its support to the Maronite Christians. All the foreign states involved in this conflict, except Israel, wanted their own factions to take over Lebanon so that it could be used as a base for attacking Israel in a war, which many of them believed, was inevitable. Israel, on the other hand saw the establishment of a friendly government in Lebanon as a way of securing itself to the north and of establishing the peace, which it had long desired in the region. Furthermore, it was one of Israel’s aims to ensure that the Syrian military presence in Lebanon was removed because it posed a major threat to its interests towards the north.9 The loss of life among the native Lebanese population was massive, but this did not bring the conflict to a swift end as one would have expected. Instead, this conflict became even worse, with each of the sectarian factions even more determined to establish its dominance all over the country. The Arab-Israeli conflict, therefore, had a direct hand in the causing of the Lebanese crisis since each of the countries involved attempted to use Lebanon to achieve its own ends.

The support of Israel for the Maronites and other Christian groups in Lebanon can be considered to be one of the reasons why the country fell apart in the 1970s and 1980s. Among the reasons why Israel supported the Maronites was because of the fact that this group of Christians, unlike their fellow citizens, supported the existence of the Jewish state.10 This proved to be an opportunity for Israel whose aim was to put the Maronites in power so that a friendly government could administer its northern neighbor. As a consequence of this, the militant groups, which were associated with the Maronites, were trained in Israel by the Israeli Defense Force. In addition, whenever there were any conflicts which involved the Maronites, Israel tended to provide them not only with logistical support but also brought in advisors to help them make strategies on how best to tackle their Muslim adversaries. The fact that some of the Maronite leaders wanted to remove the PLO and all Palestinian refugees from Lebanon made them a valuable ally for Israel who, in addition to supporting them militarily, also started providing them with political support, which enabled them to gain an edge over their Arab backed opponents. As a direct consequence of the training they received from Israel, the Christian militia groups in the south of Lebanon later came to form the South Lebanese Army.11 The formation of this army contributed a great deal in the development and the duration of the conflict between the various Lebanese sects over control of the country.

Syria came to be directly involved in the affairs of Lebanon in 1976 when, because of the growing power of the various Palestinian groups in the country, it felt that the Christian population had to be protected against them. This meant that the Syrians came into the conflict on the side of the Maronite Christians against the radical Islamist and Palestinian groups, whom they had previously supported.12While this was the case, Syria brought its army into Lebanon for the purpose of keeping peace between the conflicting groups, so that it could be better able to secure its interests in the country as well. The Syrian army caused significant damage to the various armed Palestinian groups in Lebanon but at a meeting of the Arab League, it was forced to call for a cessation of hostilities. While this was the case, the Syrians were given a mandate to form a deterrent force to ensure that all the sides of the Lebanese conflict maintained a ceasefire. Despite their initial support for the Maronites, the Syrians changed sides and supported the various Muslim groups instead. The biggest opportunity for the Syrians came during the Lebanese war of 1982, which drove the PLO out of Lebanon, and Israel was pressured into withdrawing. This created a situation where the Syrians were able to consolidate their power in Lebanon and effectively come to dominate it.13

In conclusion, it can be said that the falling apart of Lebanon was caused, directly and indirectly by the Arab-Israeli conflict which was ragging all around it. Its strategic position along the Mediterranean coast as well as its proximity to Israel made it a natural target for both sides of the conflict. The meddling of the main players in the affairs of Lebanon made it weak internally because of the increasing sectarian conflict, which was brought about through the influence of the Arab-Israeli confrontations. One would go as far as to say that after the wars between the Arab states and Israel, Lebanon became the place where their conflict continued because both of these sides supported different sides of the Lebanese sectarian conflict. In essence, the Arab-Israeli conflict continued in Lebanon by proxy, with the different Lebanese factions representing the interests of their sponsors. This situation kept fueling the civil war within the country and it is possible that had outside force not been involved, then such a war would not have taken place and destroyed the once prosperous Lebanese economy. The continued conflict within the country also led to the growth in the power of militant groups such as Hezbollah, which are still dominant in Lebanon to this day. However, despite the continued conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Lebanon has managed to recover from the wars it experienced in the 1970s and 1980s and has regained the peace, which it once had. It is yet to be seen if the current conflict in Syria will have any effect on the peace that has been regained in Lebanon.

Media Theories

The Marxist theory tends to emphasize the role of mass media in the reproduction of the status quo and it further suggests that a direct link exists between economic ownership and the dissemination of messages that affirm the legitimacy and the value of a class society. These theorists emphasized the ideological effects of media in the interests of a ruling class, in reproducing the essentially exploitative relationships and manipulation, and in legitimizing the dominance of capitalism and the subordination of the working class. According to Bechmann, G (143), the media institution must be considered to be a part of the economic system with close links to the political system. The consequence of this can be seen through the reduction of independent media sources, the concentration of the news on large markets, the avoidance of risks by media houses, and the reduction of investment in less profitable media tasks such as investigative reporting and documentary film making. There is also a neglect of the poorer sectors of the potential audience and the range of news media is often politically unbalanced.

The Frankfurt School is a neo-Marxist thought which rebelled against modern society and media as creators and bearers of contemporary culture and ideology. Their criticism of mass communication media was that they hamper the road to a utopian society which is free from class and domination, and that media also stands in the way of change. Negt, O (61) states that by selectively presenting reality, including aspects of culture, education and entertainment (in which the bourgeois values enjoy priority) the media confirms and supports the dominant capitalist ideologies and thus maintains the status quo at the cost of the working class, which is represented by the masses. This school is therefore concerned about the ideological manipulation and exploitation of the mass media by capitalist considerations.

The media dependency theory, which is also known as the media system dependency theory, has often been explored as an expansion of the gratification approach although here are some slight differences between the two theories, that is, media dependency looks to the viewers goal as the origin of the dependency while the gratification theory emphasizes on the needs of the audience. Both the dependency theory and the gratification theory are, however, in agreement that media use may lead to reliance and according to the media dependency theory, the more reliant a person is on the medium for having his or her requirements satisfied, the more significant the medium will be to that individual. According to Einwiller, S et al (305) the individual’s reliance on a particular medium is influenced by the amount of media sources available to that individual because a person should become more reliant on a particular available media if his access to alternative media is inadequate. The more alternatives there are for a person, the less dependent will he be on only one specific medium.

There are, in my opinion, more similarities than differences between the theories of Marxists and that of the media dependency concerning the media. Both are concerned about the effect of media on the society, especially more about the use of the elite within such a society of the media to further their own ends, namely, the maintenance of their status. Media is used to control the masses so that they do not rise in rebellion against the oppressive upper classes of their society. It is not used for the purpose of social progress, as is claimed by the heads of media corporations, but for the purpose of maintaining the status quo so that the lower classes can continue to render their services to the elite and in the process making the elite richer, while the working classes remain poor. By limiting the content and quality of the media that the masses can access, the elite are able to perpetuate and justify its reasons for dominating the society as well as why they oppress the working classes for their own benefit. A very good example is when one considers those countries that are ruled by autocratic regimes. These countries tend to have only one state television and radio which is normally used to spread the state’s propaganda among the masses and in this way, the regime is able to maintain its grip on power.

Both of these schools of thought agree that the media structure, following the capitalist trend, tends towards monopoly. Media monopoly is a great concern today, because with a monopoly comes great power and it is not a wise thing to leave such power in the hands of a few as there may be a tendency to abuse it. Loveless, M (165) states that the media industries tend not to facilitate free speech and political discussion because they are likely not to be open enough to promote debate on all points of view. Although credible media calls for there to be facts, accuracy and completeness, most of the media houses do not follow this code and instead they only promote that which is most profitable to them and that of the promotion of the elite. In relation to the dependency theory, one would suggest that media monopoly would lead to a dependency because since most of the media available have a single owner, then they all would most likely follow his political, social, and economic ideals. Therefore, the masses will only be dependent on a biased viewpoint on matters from the media and their way of thinking will adjust to suit that perpetuated by the media.

The global integration of media ownership is another issue tackled by these two theories. James, B (37) states that global integration leads to less freedom of choice in what the masses are interested in seeing and instead, they are forced to accept what the media industry wishes them to see. One can argue that the product of an integrated media possesses the ulterior motive of repressing the imagination and rendering the masses socially and politically inactive. This would be in the interests of the capitalist elite because this media product is able to confine the thought of the masses to meaningless things because they are the victims of what is offered to them. The media industry in this instance turns both the media contents and their audiences into something similar to commodities, whose main purpose is to be used to make a profit. According to Hung – Yi (230) the masses, or individuals, are shown contents which have no real meaning to them to such an extent that their dependency comes to be based on nothing but a mirage and not a true reflection of what really goes on in society. The global integration of media ownership also leads to the decrease of any real diversity in the various media and this will result in the growing dependency of the masses on a single media form.

The Marxist theory suggests that public interest in communication is subordinated to private interests by the capitalist media owners because opposition and alternative voices are marginalized in favor of that of the elite. Furthermore, the news about the dominant groups is given more time on air than that of the minority ones and this shows the unconscious attitudes that are predominant in society and it also shows the power of the elite to manipulate the media in their favor. The dependency theory, as exemplified by Bigne Alcaniz (403), corroborates this argument because it shows how people can get dependent on a single medium due to the unavailability of alternatives. Since most world’s media are capitalist owned, the ideas of capitalist dominance come to become prominent in the lives of those audiences dependent on this media, and who eventually take this ideas at face value and continue to perpetuate it within their societies.

In conclusion, I would suggest that both the Marxist theories (of the Frankfurt School) on media and the dependency theory are essential in the study of the world media today because they quite adequately explain how it works. In this paper, we have looked at the various aspects of media within the context of these theories and some aspects of how these media influence the lives of the masses. One would agree with these theories that the media today dominated by the elite and that its purpose is to perpetuate its dominance by using the media to control the masses. It is a well known fact that if the masses recognize all their problems and realize who is the cause of all of these problems (the elite/ bourgeois) then they would rise against them and overthrow their class. In order to contain such an incident from happening, the elite has devised many forms of meaningless yet entertaining forms of media to keep the masses from concentrating on their problems and instead to get lost in a world of fantasy. In this way, the elite not only makes a profit from the audiences of the media they own, but they are also able to use this same media to justify their oppression of the masses or working class by using such outdated social theories as the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ among other elitist ideas.

Rival views on the Cultural Implications of Globalization

Globalization is a force that can be considered to be unstoppable, which is slowly spreading throughout the world and influencing many things that were once thought to be only specific to certain regions. Globalization had not only had a huge impact on the political and economic arena of the world but it has also had far reaching effects on the development of the cultures of many countries all over the world. The globalization of culture is one of the most fundamental aspects of the modern world and for this reason; it has come to receive the attention of many people. While some believe that globalization has had a positive impact on culture, there are others who believe that its effect is negative, since it is eroding long established cultural practices in diverse regions of the world.  The process of globalization, which started out in the economic sphere where liberal economic policies were developed and adopted by many countries has come to weaken the once strong foundations upon which many of the world’s cultures were built. There are many ways through which globalization has come to influence diverse aspects of cultures all over the globe, and these have been both positive and negative.

Globalization has intensified the economic competition among the various developed nations of the world and to increase this competitiveness, they have come to adopt policies which are aimed at influencing other countries to adopt their cultures so that they can be able to find markets for their products. Advertisements promoting the western way of life have come up all over the world, and many youth, who have been educated, have been influenced by them. It has nowadays become a trend for the youth to adopt aspects of the culture of the west, stating that their own cultures are either backward or archaic (Scheer 2003 730). This has become a cause for concern among many people in the world, who fear that the force of globalization is slowly but surely eroding their cultures. They believe that if its influenced is not stopped, then it is most likely that globalization is going to ensure that many cultures are going to come to an end. While this fear is justified, one would state that globalization has also had a positive influence on some cultures, because it has enabled them to spread all over the world where many people have come to adopt and practice them. An example of this is the consumption of Chinese food, whose origin was in China but has come to be adopted by people from other countries.

One of the cultural implications of globalization has been the way families function today in various regions. In many cultures outside the western world, for example, families were often large units, with extended families living close to each other. There was no lack of family contact and one would say that these families were close knit. However, globalization has changed all that since it has brought about the realities of a globalised economy on previously highly social cultures. The new economic reality does not support the concept of large families living together and this has led to a break up of extended families as individuals have moved away to other places for the purpose of earning a living. This has created a situation where there is very little contact between family members since many have been scattered all over the world (Horowitz 2000 107). The culture, which was prevalent in many societies, is that children have an obligation to take care of their parents and to cater for their every need. While this was the case, this concept has come to fall into disuse since the beginning of the spread of the era of globalization. This is because of the fact that many of the young people have become highly individualistic and independent in nature and have chosen to leave their cultural practices behind in favor of the western ways. Despite this being the case elsewhere, it seems that this concept has remained strong among the cultures of the Far East. When one considers the cultures of China, Japan, and Korea, one will find that most of the traditional concepts have remained intact despite the fact that these cultures have also adopted aspects of the westernized, global culture. This can be said to be a positive aspect of globalization, because it has led to the further development of cultures without losing their identity.

Globalization has come to affect those cultures which were previously conservative concerning the rights of women within their societies. It has become a force for the championing of the rights of women, especially in conservative societies in regions such as the Middle East. The conservative view towards women’s right to education and work has come to put in the background as more women are taking the initiative of not only getting themselves educated but also becoming active in the economy by working alongside men, something that was previously unheard of (Harik 1999 677). Even the most conservative governments in the world, such as the one in Saudi Arabia, have relaxed their cultural stance and have come to recognize the fact that women can no longer be denied their rights and these are now taking tentative steps towards the easing of women into public life. One of the results of globalization has been the development of   recruitment agencies, and in the Middle East, they have come to target women because of the loosening of the cultural bounds that denied them employment. The aim of these agencies is to help women to find work and these are said to be having a very high degree of success as more women are getting into the job market. Women are now getting more confident in their ability to assert themselves in society and this trend is most likely to grow as more and more women become active in public life.

While globalization has propagated a unified culture in some regions, in others, it has brought about what can only be termed as cultural relativism. Cultural relativism can be said to be the notion that all faiths, norms, and principles or values are relative to individuals within their own social contexts. The spreading of this idea because of globalization has been of an effect that is a direct opposite to what many people who oppose the globalization believe. Many of the opponents of globalization have said that its main effect is the continued erosion of local cultures, in favor of the more dominant, western one. However, as seen above, globalization has led to the spread of cultural relativism, which is a theory states that all cultures in the world should be treated as equal, whether their influence is great or small. The idea of right or wrong are relative to the culture within which an act is being practiced; this suggests the what is believed to be morally wrong in one society or culture may not be deemed to be so in another (Harris-Short 2003 131). The need to have cultural relativism in the world has come out of a desire to better understand the cultures which are not one’s own and to treat them as having equal value. This is a direct effect of globalization as cultures which previously functioned apart from one another have now been brought together, and in some areas, they exist hand in hand. This means that however much people might feel about other cultures, they have to accept them because not to do so would mean losing the benefits that comes with globalization. The need to accept other people’s cultures as being equal to the one, which one practices, can be extremely difficult and many have, for various reasons, found it hard to internalize the idea or sense of cultural relativism in the globalizing world.

One of the biggest effects of globalization, its opponents may state, is that it has not only brought numerous military conflicts around the world, but it has also ensured that there has been an increase in the incidents of terrorism. Globalization has inevitably led to a clash of cultures, with some, like the Muslim Middle East, believing that globalization is a way of establishing Christian dominance over them. To counter this perceived threat, some people I these countries have chosen to form terrorist groups, in the name of defending Islam as well as its people. There have developed many terrorist groups in the Middle East, the most prominent of which are Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. They state that their main aim in undertaking actions of terror against their governments, the state of Israel, or the interests of the United States is because these are corrupt countries which are the symbol of all that is bad in the world. Because of the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, which were fostered during the European occupation of this region after the First World War, terrorist organizations find it easy to gain some political support from some prominent members of their governments, who sympathize with them (Monshipouri & Motameni 2000 706). It can be said that external forces in the Middle East, such as the American and NATO’s military presence, have helped strengthen these organizations. For example, the power vacuum left from the American led war in the ousting of Saddam Hussein in Iraq ensured that the presence of Al Qaeda was expanded to this country. Thus, in this sense, globalization can be seen to have had a negative impact in some areas of the world, because the current conflicts taking place are as a result of this new order.

Globalization has led to a viewpoint where there is the belief that morality is dependent on the norms of a culture which practice it. It is this society which determines whether the actions of individuals in morally right or wrong. Those who propagate this belief state that there is nothing that can be said to be the absolute truth concerning morality because what is believed to be right in one society may not be considered the same in another culture (Esikot 2012 130). There are often chances where what is considered morally right in one culture may be considered wrong in another, an example being the position of the society on homosexuality. While, in the western world, homosexuality is an accepted norm in society, in other parts of the world, especially in Africa and Middle East, one would find that this practice is looked down upon, and those found in the act tend to be severely punished and at times even ostracized from their societies. However, globalization is slowly introducing the ideas of the west into other cultures in the world, and this can be seen in the aspects of democracy that has become almost universal in the entire world. While democracy has been a significant part of western culture for over two hundred years, in other parts of the world, it is a fairly new concept. Despite this, this idea has come to spread all over the world, with many new states being founded on its basis. It can therefore be said that despite the fact that there are still many beliefs that are not common in all the cultures in the world, globalization is changing all that, and it certain that future generations will most likely have the same cultural beliefs.

In relation to the globalization of the western cultural ideal of democracy, one would give the example of the ongoing Arab Spring, which came into existence as a response to the lack of political freedom in the various countries in which it has occurred. The promotion of this ideal followed the western practice of making non-violent protests, where people took to the streets to demand justice. This was an unprecedented move among the Arabs because such movements had never taken place in their countries before, and this can be attributed to the influence of western culture through globalization. While at first, they were peaceful protests, the vicious crackdown by their governments turned them violent, becoming armed struggles whose aim was to topple the autocratic regimes ruling over these countries. The use of force against unarmed civilians led to the discrediting of the legitimacy of such governments and calls for the stepping down of these leaders were made from many international organizations and governments. Moreover, in cases such as Libya and Syria, the peaceful protests suddenly became fierce armed rebellions against the government which attacked the unarmed civilians (Bajrektarevic 2011 101). It can therefore be said that the globalization of culture has been directly responsible for the changing of the systems of government all over the world, since people in other regions have opted to adopt governmental systems which are similar to those of the west.

Globalization has made the world to be viewed as such a small place, because faster modes of transport have ensured that people can get from place to place within hours where previously, it would take months. People from different cultures all over the world have moved to other countries mainly for economic reasons, and this has led them to encounter new societies and cultures, and in some cases, it has led to culture shock. Culture shock is a growing phenomenon all over the world as globalization continues to spread and many people move from one country to another in an effort to improve the economic circumstances of their lives. Many people experience culture shock when they encounter other cultures that have no similarities with the ones which they were raised within. This unfamiliarity with the new culture makes many of those who encounter it fail to understand the factors which influence conduct of local people so that they are not able determine how they should behave. At times, some of the practices of the new societies are completely in conflict with the ones they understand to be right according to their own culture, and they often find this difficult to adjust to or comprehend. When these people lose all familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse, they have to try to adapt themselves to different lifestyles, living conditions and business practices in a new cultural setting and this often proves to be an extremely difficult process. Under such circumstances, it is not uncommon for feelings of alienation accumulate because of the poor adaptation to a new culture and as a consequence, culture shock occurs, and this is followed by a series of psychological confusion and emotional discomfort (Cross 2008 1060). There are often many responses to culture shock and this depends on the experiences of individuals in their new cultural settings. There are some who adapt so well to the new culture that they decide to completely immerse themselves in it. There is a tendency by such people to reject their own cultures in favor of the new one, feeling that they are better off with the latter. There are others who choose to only adopt certain aspects of the new culture they have encountered and consider to be good. However, these people continue to practice the culture, which they are more familiar with. Another group of immigrants chooses to completely reject the new culture and remain completely loyal to their own culture. These, more often than not, choose to live among themselves in almost complete isolation with the new culture, and only rarely encounter it; the younger generation is often the first to attempt to fit into the new culture.

Among the major consequences of the coming together of many cultures is that it has led to cross cultural marriage. This type of marriage has been brought about because of the globalization of culture, which has not only enabled people from different cultures to meet, but has also enabled the sharing of such cultures. Globalization has made it possible for romance, which leads to cross cultural marriage, to take place, and this normally begins either on the internet, or when the couple meets at a mutual place of work. The most inevitable result of such marriages is the bringing together of two distinct cultures (Fenyo 2001 334). While many people believe that such marriages are a positive aspect of globalization, there are others who believe that it brings about negative results. They state that since the couple comes from different cultures, then it is inevitable that they are, at one time or another, going to clash. They state that cross cultural marriages have created more conflict within marriages that previously, hence weakening the institution. They point out to the high divorce rates among such people as proof that these marriages are not feasible. There are others, however, who disagree, stating that just because people come from different cultures does not mean that they are going to fail. In fact, they state that globalization has enabled the enrichment of other cultures through the promotion of understanding as well as the bringing up of multicultural families.

In conclusion, it can be said that globalization has come to have a profound influence on the cultures of many people in the world, and this influence has been both positive and negative. In certain regions, it can be said to be a blessing to those cultures which it has come to influence, because it has not only enriched these cultures, but it has also ensured that some of their characteristics have been spread all over the world. However, it has also been noted that globalization has led to the erosion and near extinction of some cultures and these have come to be replaced with the dominant western culture, which is the driving force behind globalization. One would even go as far as to suggest that globalization is a force which is inevitably going to destroy other cultures, and if not, it will change these cultures beyond recognition. It is an irresistible force of cultural change which cannot be stopped without the isolation of other cultures from the globalised, western one. This would be an impossible feat, considering the fact that globalization has made the world interdependent, with one state not being able to survive without the support of others. It is therefore, inevitable that globalization will not only continue to influence culture, but it is likely to change or destroy them.