The Specular Economy, Celebrities and us

We are computer literate and socially dumb, we don’t know how to communicate but boy can we connect, we are narcissistic and we don’t care; we are the “me-generation”…YOLO.

 

When Christopher Lasch dubbed the 1970’s as the ‘Me-Generation’ in his book the ‘The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations’ (1979), I seriously doubt he could have predicted the shit-storm that is new and social media. Had Lasch known the power, ease and accessibility of social media in the 21^st century, there is no doubting he would have dubbed the present as the most self-indulged and narcissistic generation to have existed (mind you, it's not all bad).
In the 21^st century, where just about everyone has a Facebook page or a twitter account (including my grandma) the process of being self-aware and forming online identities  is now part of everyday life, and we are part of, what David Marshall (2010) calls, the “specular economy”, where collectively we are becoming more conscious of how we present ourselves and how others perceive us. Yet, while being self-aware and creating identities is nothing new, “Where the specular economy differs is in its new reconstruction of how the self is reconstituted through the screens of engagement and interactivity…” (Marshall 2010). Thanks to mobile phones, tablets, computers and more importantly the internet we are constantly able to tweak and change our projected identities via online platforms, to display the person we are, the person we want to be, or even somebody completely different.

 

Identity formation is supposed to be a “process in which individuals are self-aware” (David Buckingham, 2008) an opportunity for people to experiment and explore themselves to discover who their “one true self” or “true” identity really is, social media has made this extremely easy. However, while we are certainly experimenting with how we present ourselves, are we really discovering and presenting our “true” selves? In fact is there even such thing as a one true self?  People are constantly told “be yourself”, “don’t change for anybody” and “be comfortable in your own skin”, and I regretfully inform you that most of these terms, in today’s tech savvy society, are completely obsolete, in fact even without technology these sayings are a complete crock. “We like to think of ourselves as being constituted by one ‘true’ self – the ‘real me’. This idea is, with some reflection, fairly simplistic, as each person’s self is multifaceted and constantly changing. The poststructuralist conception of identity involves rejecting the notion of singular, ‘true’ self and acknowledging that there are multiple selves” (Chalkley, 2012). And if we’re being honest, what fun would having one identity be anyway? Just ask Clark Kent.

Being self-aware and creating identities is something that “we manage [with] our non-virtual identities every day”, when we get dressed for work, university or a party what we are essentially doing is creating a suitable persona for the event at hand, it’s something we have done since the dawn of civilisation. What we now do, in the specular economy, is a whole new level of self-awareness and identity forming, in that where we once had multiple non-mediated or offline persona’s, we now have multiple online and mediated identities as well as our offline identities to create, maintain and present in multiple public spheres. Online identities can be in the form of Facebook profiles, twitter accounts and even blogger accounts like this one.  We are now able to constantly update “who we are” on a minute-to-minute basis as opposed to an hourly or even daily basis. Thanks to social media the managing, altering and creating of personal identities has been exponentially exacerbated.

I myself am an avid twitter user, and I have two different twitter accounts, one for socialising and one for professional purposes; essentially, what I have done is created two separate identities for myself. While some aspects of myself overlap on both accounts, some traits of what I like to think of as my true identity have also been excluded on either account, for either social or professional reasons, therefore depicting me in two different ways, creating two different identities. According to Leary and  Allen (2011) “people's outcomes in life depend greatly on the impressions that other people form of them, so they are understandably attuned to how others perceive them and often try to convey impressions of themselves that will lead to desired outcomes”, with this in mind I have created a mask of the self for public consumption in an attempt to gain employment and give myself every opportunity to succeed, so does this make me narcissistic or just self-conscious?

 

 

Who would you employ?  On the left my “professional” account and on the right my social account

“Identities are formed both from within and from the outside, in a complex interplay of mutual recognition and understanding of self and others” (FORNÄS, J,& XINARIS, C. 2013), this “mutual recognition” of self and others means that creating multiple personas is not only about narcissistically who you want to be, but it can also be to benefit who is seeing your profile. Take for example, again, my twitter accounts, I have one aimed at potential employers which I use to create a professionally perceived image of myself and the other aimed at my group of friends, which is designed for a laugh, in order to entertain others. You can see my creation and portrayal of different identities are not purely narcissistic, only slightly. My recognition of how others see me means I am able to manipulate each account in order to please the viewer, not just myself.

The presentation of the self is not the only thing that has been intensified by the specular economy, because the foundations of the specular economy “are derived from the much longer tradition of celebrity culture …whose repercussions relate to an emerging comfortability with a society of surveillance” (Marshall 2010), due the ever growing ease in which we are able to capture and share images, celebrity culture has been amplified to the point where "celebrity" is now a form of "news". The specular economy has produced a surplus of images which has been exemplified by the paparazzi constantly making the boundaries between private, public and intimate more malleable and blending in with each other from one sphere to another. Every new image of a celebrity or gossip column about a celebrity is to reveal something new about them, the up-skirts, the down-tops, the ugly faces and the rude gestures captured by the paparazzi reflect the celebrities how we look at ourselves in a mirror, in an intimately uninhibited way. And according to David Marshall(2010) we not only see ourselves in a similar uninhibited way, but we also present ourselves not dissimilar to how celebrities are represented. Whether it is through representing ourselves in a similar way to a paparazzi photo, our favourite movies or a modelling shoot, this is all part of the egotistical implications of the specular economy.

 

 

 

Spot the difference: on the left Eric Bana in ‘Chopper’ and on the right one of my celebrity influenced profile pictures.

However, with paparazzi pictures the celebrity in question (whoever it may be) is not in complete control of how their public persona is being captured and shared. However it is not completely out of the celebrities control, as before they even leave the house what they choose to wear influences how they are photographed and, in turn, perceived in a public forum when immortalized in photograph. Even despite this, paparazzi do constantly and continuously invade privacy in order to gain a good (bad?) photo of a celebrity.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have celebrities who deliberately create or change their persona's in order to gain new publicity or cause controversy. Take for example Miley Cyrus and her recent performance at the MTV video music awards (I know what you’re thinking, but unfortunately her example is too good to ignore). The performance portrayed Miley in a completely new way, it was a complete change of persona, one in which she deliberately chose for herself. The twerking, the skimpy outfit, the sexual dancing and the trademark ‘tongue out’ pose is all a creation of a persona Miley Cyrus has invented for herself, her ideal self if you will. Cyrus’ new persona breaks away entirely from her previous persona that mainstream society has associated with her, the cute and innocent Hannah Montana; she deliberately built a new persona in order to escape her old one. Unlike an unintentional nip slip that the paparazzi snapped that changed your persona, Miley reversed the roles and intentionally exposed herself to change the way she is perceived.

 

Hannah Montana: Nawww ,so cute!

Miley Cyrus: ewww, not so cute. Bring back Hannah

Moreover, the concept of the celebrity has been used to create a “celebrity economy”, where movies and products are advertised and sold through the use of “stars”, commonly termed “celebrity endorsement”. One tactic that is used by advertising companies, which can be directly linked to the narcissistic aspect of the specular economy, is the depiction of the ideal self. An advertising company will target a specific demographic in order to present them with a version of their ideal self by using a popular celebrity to portray this. For example, a picture of Brad Pitt next to a bottle of cologne will entice people to buy that cologne because he is seen by the opposite sex, and the world over, as a sexy, handsome, smart and seemingly perfect man who attracts seemingly perfect women, therefore making the consumer believe that this cologne will help them more accurately reflect Brad Pitt's identity through their own and will, in turn, help the consumer attract more women and be more like Brad.

 

 

I would buy that: Seemingly perfect bloke, Brad Pitt, advertises Chanel no.5 cologne

 “Conducting “face-work” online may be argued to be more conscious and intentional than in the non-virtual world... Social media users have greater opportunity to deliberately consider and sensor what information they provide on their Facebook page than in non-virtual everyday conversations” (Chalkley, 2012) and what is interesting about online identities and the specular economy is that while they do play a role in creating a perceived image of yourself, more often than not, this perceived image is a completely different self to the non-mediated identity/ies you’ve created. However portraying multiple identities is not a real concern, after all everyone does it (including my grandma), what the real worry is in this day and age, is being able to manage all of your online and offline identities and knowing who to be in what situations and who you truly are when you’re alone, because only you can know that.

In terms of celebrity culture, the grave concern is that, thanks to our overuse and addiction to social media and the internet, representational media cannot be caged, where once it could have been. Celebrities and images of celebrities are "always accessible well beyond the interventions of now weakened intermediaries of paparazzi and gossip columnists" (Marshall 2010). The intensification of celebrity culture and the desire to capture and share images of celebrities at their most private has not only “produced a new industry yes, but also pointed to the leaky nature of identity in celebrity culture“ (Marshall, 2013).

So that split second this morning when your bikini briefly slipped from the safety of the cliff of your upper breast and revealed a little bit of nipple, is now tomorrow's front page news. The image of your nipple will be archived on the World Wide Web forever and you will henceforth be known, remembered, immortalized and identified as “that girl that got her boob out”... a leaky nature indeed.

Where once the difficulties of how to present ourselves only extended as far as deciding what shirt to wear for the day, now "the specular economy has produced a new regime of personal presentation that we are only beginning to see its profound implications" (Marshall 2010). As technology evolves and new social media websites emerge, our presentation of the self will become more diverse and extensive, potentially to the point where being “you” might just become too hard to manage.

 

 

 

References.

 Buckingham, D (2008), "Introducing identity." , Youth, identity, and digital media pp1-24.

Chalkley, 2012, Communication, New Media and Everyday Life, Oxford university press, Victoria, Australia

 FORNÄS, J, & XINARIS, C 2013, 'MEDIATED IDENTITY FORMATION', Javnost-The Public, 20, 2, pp. 11-25

Lasch, C, 1979, ‘The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations’,

Leary, M, & Allen, A 2011, 'Self-Presentational Persona: Simultaneous Management of Multiple Impressions', Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 101, 5, pp. 1033-1049

Marshall D, 2010, the Specular Economy, Society, Vol.47, no.6, pp. 498-502

Marshall, D, 2013, Persona studies: Mapping the proliferation of the public self, Journalism, pp. 1-18

 

 

What is Hollywoodisation?

“Today we are seeing a partial erosion of the boundaries that once separated Hollywood from local Asian film industries, and a consequent intertwining of industries on both sides of the Pacific” (klein, 2004). Asian films are beginning to use special effects big budgets and big stars and Hollywood films are starting to embrace anime, kung-fu, and impressive stunts, “Hollywood is becoming Asianized in diverse ways, while Asian film industries are in turn becoming Hollywoodized.”(klein, 2004).

We are beginning to see not only the different styles of filmmaking erode and intertwine with each other we are also seeing the celebrities blend between both Hollywood and Asian film industry, people are becoming global celebrities as opposed to Hollywood or Asian celebrities. Just as Jackie Chan has broken into Hollywood films actors such as Daniel Craig are beginning to star in Asian films, such as ‘howls moving castle’.  The film industries are displaying a perfect example of globalisation, in full swing, and the “asian film industries are not so much resisting globalization as learning how to turn some of the transformations it has unleashed to their own advantage”.

In recent years we have seen multiple asian styled filmed receive box-office success as well as critical acclaim in Hollywood, with films such as Crouching Tiger Hidden dragon, Kung-fu hustle, fist of fury and shaolin soccer just to name a few.

Why have these films, of all the other asian films, had success in Hollywood? The answer is quite simple, and it has a lot to do with globalisation.
globalisation is all about combining cultures and therefore broadening cultures, and this is essentially why these convergences of different styles of films has had success, as they combine multiple demographics thus expanding their viewership.

I am a self-aware, self-indulgent, tech-savvy slave of the “specular economy”, but who am I?

Identity formation is supposed to be a “process in which individuals are self-aware” (David Buckingham, 2008) an opportunity for people to experiment and explore themselves to discover who their one true self or true identity is. With social networking playing a major role in the new generations lives, it appears we are approaching something David Marshall (2010) calls  the “specular economy”, where collectively we are becoming more conscious of how we present ourselves and how others perceive us…”. While being self-aware and creating identities is nothing new, “Where the specular economy differs is in its new reconstruction of how the self is reconstituted through the screens of engagement and interactivity…” (Marshall 2010)

I myself am a twitter user, and I have two different twitter accounts, one for socialising and one for professional purposes; Essentially I have created two separate identities for myself, and while aspects of my true self are presented on each account, some traits of my true identity have also been excluded on either account for either social or professional reasons, therefore depicting two different identities.

 “Identities are formed both from within and from the outside, in a complex interplay of mutual recognition and understanding of self and others” (FORNÄS, J, & XINARIS, C. 2013) and I have taken this in to account when creating my professional and social personas through Twitter.

who would you employ?

What is interesting about online identities and specular economy is that while they do play a role in creating a perceived image of oneself it is not ones true self being displayed. As being self-aware and creating a persona online means you have chosen what aspects of you to display immediately making your online persona not you, but your ideal self, which is not true to life. So is creating online identities and personas all in vain or can they really change who you are and how you are perceived in a real life context?

Buckingham, D (2008). "Introducing identity." Youth, identity, and digital media pp1-24.

 

FORNÄS, J, & XINARIS, C 2013, 'MEDIATED IDENTITY FORMATION', Javnost-The Public, 20, 2, pp. 11-25

Marshall D, 2010, the Specular Economy, Society, Vol.47, no.6,pp498-502

 

 



Reading in to Gaming

According to Stuart Hall (1973) there are 3 types of reading strategies used to interpret texts, dominant-hegemonic reading or preferred reading, the negotiated reading and the oppositional reading. Depending on which method you choose in which to interpret a certain text plays a major role in how you see the world.

Hall (1973) defines each of the readings as follows;

Preferred reading- “the dominant of preferred reading has the whole social order embedded in it…” it is basically the natural reading of a text, something we don’t have to think about and is just accepted by our social order and past experiences.

Negotiated reading- Acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic or preferred definitions yet at the same time changes the rules and allows for logic, reason and personal opinion to put the text in to context and change the reading, not merely accepting the preferred and dominant reading.

Oppositional reading- “viewer perfectly understands both literal and the connotative inflection given but chooses to decode the message in a globally contrary way. [The viewer] detotalizes the message in a preferred code in order to retotalize the message within some alternative framework or reference.” Basically ignores all preferred and negotiated readings and chooses reader chooses how they want to receive the message.

One of recent history’s most controversial video games is Rockstar games ‘Grand theft Auto’ (GTA), which deals with drugs, sex and violence in a more participatory manor than any game before it. So when discussing different ways to read texts there seems to be no more fitting example than the racial stereotyping that occurs throughout the game.

Within GTA there are many representations of gangs and, unequivocally, all the different gangs are segregated by race, there are Hispanics, African Americans and Irish, just to name a few. Each representation of race in GTA is shown adhering to the white bred American society's stereotypical view of that particular race. The Hispanics drive low rider cars, have tattoos and wear bandanas; the African Americans wear baggy clothing, carry around guns and swear a lot; and the Irish drink, swear, talk a lot and have red hair. Using the three reading strategies these representations could be read either as true to life, partially true to life or as totally wrong.

 While none of these readings would be incorrect, it is pretty clear to see that to merely accept these representations would be morally and socially wrong, if you have any culture about you at all.  After reading Halls article and discussing the reading strategies I am now asking myself “is GTA racist?” And one would have to say yes, GTA is horribly racist. The stereotypical representation of race in GTA is a hindrance to the progression of the human race and is quite disturbing.

Blogging: democratic fuel or fire?

The internet is often described as a democratising force, however Kawamoto (2003) argues that “In a world of electronic information systems, communication becomes commodified and privatized; rules and regulations are driven by an increasingly powerful private sector; technologies can be used for surveillance and control; and democracy and diversity suffer…” despite technologies ability to give everyone a voice and platform in which to speak their mind. 

“Technology is often viewed as a key driver of change in the electoral debate” (Olorf and Moe, 2011) and twitter is a widely used source of technology when it comes to political discussions. Due to Twitter’s short and sharp micro-blog style it allows for everybody to participate and understand, despite their political knowledge or lack there-of.

According to Olorf and Moe (2011) blogging for political purposes does, purely in quantitative terms, contribute to the broadening of public debate, therefore having a democratising effect, however due to evidence being anecdotal at best, cannot be proven to have any effect on outcome of an election.

In 2010 twitter was examined in respect to an election in Sweden, over all a total of 99,832 tweets were analysed and while the study could not say whether twitter had any effect of the outcome of the election “a relationship between twitter and mainstream media” (Olorf and Moe, 2011) was uncovered…so is twitter and blogging a democratising force or merely re-enforcing the status quo?

One would hope that in a democratic country such as our own that Kawamoto is wrong, and I for one believe he is. The internet is a place where people can have their voice heard, make a difference no matter how big or small, a blog may just sway one vote or it could change the world (Julian Assange anyone?). No matter how small a difference, there is no denying the internet is a place where differences can be made and people have the power. to make them.

Innovators or thieves?

As a music lover  it seems like such a cop out, and to be honest pretty lazy, to merely sample someone else’s music and claim it as your own, that’s like taking a photo of the ‘Mona Lisa’ and claiming you as the artist because you added a filter…not exactly breaking new ground.  DJ’s and Mash up artists (the term artist is used very loosely here) should not be considered innovators at all, I even find it hard to believe they are considered musicians when their musical talents derive from the ability to play a song in conjunction with another, neither of which they created.

The sampling and mash up methods were developed in the 70’s where DJ’s would take popular songs and merely extend the most popular part of the song, and according to French intellectual Jacques Attali the listener became the operator (cited in McLeod, K. 2007) where“….anyone could compose music, regardless of whether they fit the traditional category of “musicians” or not. In the composition stage, the distinction between the worker and consumer, the musician and listener, was blurred…musicians no longer had the last word in their music” (McLeod, K. 2007) which seems completely unfair, the original meaning and message behind a piece of music is able to be completely altered in order to reach a new market and sell more copies.

In the  late 80’s digital sampling became a popular method for hip-hop artists and this method managed to change hip-hop music forever, it was for these brief few years that these "mash-up artists" could be considered innovators. however this did not last very long because in the early 90's when “copyright lawyers and major labels realized a whole new revenue stream could be opened up with a copyright-clearance bureaucracy"(McLeod, K. 2007) and hip-hop music would once again be completely changed.

“The minimum threshold one must attain in order to secure a copyright is to produce “an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.”  In the realm of music, this would apply to any tune, lyric, or rhythmic pattern that has been either recorded electronically or written down.” (Varner, K, & Varner, E 2012) so it would seem that any song considered a “mash-up” would fall under this threshold, and because copyright law is put in place to benefit the original author, it would make sense that every snippet of a song used should have to pay royalties to the original creator, otherwise it should, and most likely would be, considered an infringement of the law.

These mash-up “musicians” and "artists" should be considered thieves, to an extent, they are blatantly living off other peoples talents, and they should most certainly be made to pay. The time of mash-ups and remixes has passed and it is now out dated, obsolete and detrimental to the development of new artists and music. 

Franzen, Benjamin 2010, ‘Copyright Criminals’ Independent Lense, PBS, Ford Foundation, University of Iowa

McLeod, K. 2007 Freedom of Expression®, the Book, Doubleday:  New York

Varner, K, & Varner, E 2012, 'ARTISTS "UNDER PRESSURE": COPYRIGHT ISSUES IN POPULAR MUSIC', Mustang Journal Of Law & Legal Studies, 3, pp. 31-41

EDWARD SNOWDEN; HERO, CRIMINAL, PATRIOT OR TERRORIST?

In light of recent events I have emailed the oxford dictionary in order to make a few changes to their next edition.

It reads:

“Dear Mr Oxford,

                           In light of recent world news I believe it to be appropriate to make a few changes to some definitions. I have attached some recommended updates below.

Hero:     1) a person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.

               2) Edward Snowden

Patriot: 1) a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.  

              2) Edward Snowden

Scumbag: 1) a contemptible or objectionable person.

                  2) Richard Murdoch

Hope you will consider this and it will be of some assistance.

                          Regards,

                                    Mitch op’t Hoog

P.S love your work”

While my humorous letter might be a slight exaggeration, there is no denying it has some merit. Edward Snowden is a true hero, yet thanks to government running and manipulating the media you may be lead to believe that Edward Snowden is a criminal and a terrorist, who has plans to communicate with Russia and china in an attempt to ‘take down’ the United States. This could not be further from truth, Edward Snowden is not a terrorist and he is not a criminal by any stretch of the imagination, Edward Snowden is a patriotic (ex) U.S citizen and a Hero in every sense of the word, and a modest one at that.

 “I don't see myself as a hero because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.” (Snowden, 2013)

Now while Snowden claims his actions are in “self-interest” he is merely being modest and polite, as not only has he put his own life at risk, his actions (whether he has intended them to or not) have the ability to change the world and the direction in which the world is developing. Freedom of speech, thought and to privacy are things that have taken a long time to establish in western society and for the U.S government to invade privacy and violate these rights is a step in the wrong direction towards the unionisation of the world .

By blowing the whistle on the U.S government Snowden has put society back on track and done one the most patriotic and heroic acts ever witnessed. To label Snowden as a criminal or a terrorist for his act of ‘whistleblowing’ is plain and simple blaming the victim, which in any culture or society does not make sense. The only guilty party in the Snowden government situation is the government, their morals and ethics are very questionable...Snowden's most certainly are not.

Whether you believe Snowden is a Hero or a crook, there is no denying that his reason's behind whistle blowing are for the greater good of society. While he may be seen as a villain for turning on his own government, it was the government who first turned on him and the rest of the American populace. Snowden's courage and bravery are not traits of a terrorist or a criminal, but a man who would put his life on the line for a better world; a patriotic hero.

Beat The Problems out of Society

When I first heard the strained voice of Bob Dylan meaningfully informing me that “the Times they ar a Changin'”, my whole world was sent into a spin. I was 13 years old at the time and the only previous album I had owned was a poor excuse for music by Averil Lavigne (how embarrassing), so naturally when I first heard Dylan my mind was blown! You could hear he wanted to send a message to the world and to change the way people thought, he was singing for a cause. I delved deeper into the genius that is bob Dylan and discovered a whole generation of people using their talents in order to send a message and change ways of the world, people like Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs and Joan Baez were all using their talents in order to create change and they were using their personas in order to create awareness, it was not only the first time I had been made aware of problems that occurred outside my own little world and my own culture, but it was also the first time I had seen that one person can in fact make a difference and bring about change for a better world.

Dylan, Baez and Ginsberg became major players in the anti-war movements  and pro-equality movements of the late 60's, they had managed to influence a whole generation of people into taking a stand and enforcing change for the better in the world. Although Dylan and his beat friends were relevant well before my time, it still made me aware that there were some serious problems in America and all over the world, and to my disdain they had helped me discover that these problems were still present more than 40 years after Dylan first sang out that the times they were a changing. While race inequality and war are still major problems in the world, The way Dylan used song to enforce change and create awareness and Ginsberg used poetry to protest changed the way of protesting and music for years to come.

 

Today you can see Dylan and the beat generations influences being extended further than just poetry and folk music and being carried over  in to musical movements such as hip-hop . Today you can hear in hip-hop songs the use lyrics and rhymes being used to create awareness and enforce change for a better America and essentially a better world, targeting a younger generation and focusing on relevant inequality issues of race, Gender and Sex.

Music has a special ability to make people connect despite cultures, countries, gender or even beliefs, it has the ability to create awareness and connect the world. Not only can music change opinions, emotions and even lives, but music can to change the world!

Religion and its role in society

As a Baptised atheist with beliefs which go against the religion to which I was baptised I find it hard to understand why, firstly my agnostic mother and my atheist father would have their three children baptised, and secondly why religion of any belief is ever present in politics and seen as a dominant ideology in many countries’?

When prompted as to my baptism and why it occurred my mother clarified that “it was just a family thing more so than a religious thing.  I was baptized, my mother was baptized and so on and so forth”,  I feel used, my body was offered to be engulfed in water to pledge my “obedience” and “allegiance” to Jesus Christ, a fictitious character, without me having any say in it…just to please my grandma.

In Australia we have the right to religious freedom allowing Australian citizens to practice a religion of their choosing however they also have to accept that “although they are free to practice their religion, they must accept the nation’s legal or traditional preference for another faith” (Trofin, L, & Tomescu, M 2012) begging the question, why is religion present in politics’ at all if we have a right to choose against that? And this is not only an issue in Australia but multiple democratic nations around the globe; it would seem that Religion is an opposing force against social and cultural globalisation, and for that matter, peace.

It is easy to see how in the bronze ages that religion was necessary, to set needed ground rules so to speak (i.e. the Ten Commandments) however those rules have been established and now the use and necessity of religion is hard to see in any realm of living.

For as long as there are conflicting religions, cultures and beliefs around the world is social and cultural globalisation even possible?

No. Religion is becoming less about preaching equality and peace but proving that their individual religion is the best, it is driving communities, countries and the world apart and “The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world actually could come to an end” (Bill Maher, 2008).

Maher B 2008, Religulous, Documentary, distributed by Lions Gate Entertainment, USA

Trofin, L, & Tomescu, M 2012, 'SOLIDARITY AND SOCIETY IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION', Contemporary Readings In Law & Social Justice, 3, 2, pp. 236-241