Cultural Exchange: American TV in Sweden

Cultural exchange is a big thing in our contemporary political and educational world. But it's awfully unbalanced a lot of the time. When I studied in Sweden, I had the opportunity to survey some Swedish students about their views on the effects of American popular media on Sweden.

As there is surprisingly little written on the topic of cultural exchange between the United States and Sweden, which is in itself a reason to suspect the balance of this so-called cultural exchange, I surveyed the Swedish students on American media products such as books, magazines, movies, and TV shows, but every response received spoke only of TV shows having the most obvious impact on Swedish life.

The Swedish students have had lots to say about this cultural exchange, but first I shall discuss a book written by Norman Daniel, a British scholar. The book, The Cultural Barrier, explores the problems of cultural exchange and the effects it has had on cultures all over the world, East and West. Written in 1975, it is slightly out-dated now, but it is very likely that the same concepts still apply. Of course, this was written before such global events as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the advent of the European Union, Tiananmen Square, and 9/11, but it was written in a time after the two World Wars, when the entire world was trying to work together to build a new world together.

That task undoubtedly entailed crossing cultural barriers, which might very well be the namesake of the book itself. The very first chapter of the book is called "Conditions of Cultural Exchange," perfect to serve as a basis for whether or not there is true cultural exchange between the United States and Sweden. In this chapter, Daniel discusses which products, tangible or intangible, can be transferred from one culture to another without cultural exchange. For example, techniques involving the composition of electronic devices can be transferred between cultures without the recipient people borrowing from the culture of the originator culture. Some products, however, like movies, are "culture bound," as Daniel calls it, meaning that these products cannot cross the line between cultures without cultural borrowing occurring.

Later on in the chapter, he gives a concrete example of potential cultural exchange and all the problems that come along with it. The example he gives is that of a student studying abroad and being faced with the difficult task of adapting to the new culture while maintaining the old. Often times, an imbalance occurs, usually in the form of the student comparing the cultures too much, being too critical or unaccepting. Sometimes, it happens that the student assimilates so much to the new culture that the old is replaced by the new. In any of these cases, the cultural exchange is flawed. As Daniel puts it, "The best communication will always be achieved on a basis of perfect reciprocity." By "communication," he means the kind of communication that is inherently charged with the duty of cultural exchange, and the word "perfect" deserves specific attention. Daniel expects that to be successful cultural exchange must occur with immaculate results, with neither country acting, whether consciously or subconsciously, as a cultural imperialist.

Admittedly, he concedes that perfect reciprocity is nearly impossibly difficult, commenting that "in the meantime, while equal exchange, which is the same as true exchange, is often not feasible, we are forced to think and speak instead in terms of two-way traffic. Two-way traffic is the nearest we come to exchange." These are some of his last words in the introductory chapter. By "in the meantime," I gather that he means in the meantime of our attempt to find a way to achieve perfect reciprocity in cultural exchange, which is obviously not going to happen any time soon. Under Daniel's definition, we can settle for cultural exchange as two-way cultural traffic, however imbalanced it may be.

Now, we discuss whether the cultural traffic between the United States and Sweden is one-way or two-way. After the two World Wars, the world became a much smaller place. Humans discovered that their activities were capable of destroying all life on earth. Countries banded together and international organizations were formed all for the purpose of maintaining life and peace. Organizations like the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, and ASEAN are all examples of different nation-states pulling together in an effort to better relations among themselves and for higher security and prosperity. In the process of this effort, what Daniel calls "culture bound" products must be exchanged somewhere along the line.

Since the Cold War, which might still be going on according to some opinions but that is of little consequence to the central topic here, there have been two major globalizing centers. One is Russia, and the other is the United States. Because at the time no other state was powerful enough to wield such cultural imperialism, these two became the world's globalizing centers. Many Swedes have told me that Sweden is often times criticized for being the 51st state of the United States, with American music playing in bars and stores, American films being shown at all major movie theaters, and American TV shows being some of the most popular among the young Swedish crowd. On Wikipedia, in the article of "Americanization," there is a sentence that reads, "In Sweden, there is a humourous expression stating that it is the most Americanized country in the world, and the USA is number two." These are general points that serve to show that there is at least major one-way traffic from the United States to Sweden.

Specific points come in the form of the TV shows mentioned earlier, listed by the surveyed Swedish students. A long yet incomplete list of American TV shows said to be popular and even influential among Swedish people includes "The Simpsons," "Family Guy," "Desperate Housewives," "Law & Order," "CSI," "Friends," "Seinfeld," "Sex in the City," "Full House," "7th Heaven," and "The Cosby Show." These TV shows can be grouped by the particular effect or relationship they have on or with the Swedish population: "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" introduce Swedes to American humor; "Desperate Housewives" is a show about women with values that are not at all similar to those of traditional Swedish women, yet it fascinates Swedes, who love to watch the show; "Law & Order" and "CSI" paint a picture of law culture that exists in the United States, not Sweden, but many Swedes think otherwise; "Friends," "Seinfeld," and "Sex in the City" glamorize the New York city life and thereby encourages Swedish youth to stick to the cities; and finally "Full House," "7th Heaven," and "The Cosby Show" have moral lessons at the end of each episode, an aspect that Swedish TV shows lack.

A further note on some of these TV shows: "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" are two of the most popular TV shows in the United States as well. Considering that Americans tend to specialize in slap-stick and even culturally sophisticated humor whereas Swedish humor is usually quite dry, it is surprising that "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" are as popular as they are in Sweden. Swedish versions of "Law & Order" and "CSI" would be utterly boring, for the drama that can happen in American courts simply do not exist in Swedish law culture. If Swedish versions were to be made, which is highly unlikely considering the economic indications, the shows could not contain scenes within courtrooms. "Friends," "Seinfeld," and "Sex in the City" see their characters having the time of their lives in New York City. This is partly why most students in Lund, the little Swedish town where I studied, think Lund is boring because it is not a big city. Most people prefer Malmo, the third largest city in Sweden, twenty minutes away from Lund by train, but even then there is a saying in Malmo that people who live in Malmo party in Copenhagen, the most cosmopolitan city in all of Scandinavia.

It is evident that American TV shows have made their way into Swedish society, but it remains to be seen whether or not Swedish media has even made a dent on the American lifestyle. As an American student, when I think of Swedish exports to America, I do not think of any movie or TV show, for America produces so many movies and TV shows that it is difficult for foreign films to get mainstream spotlight time. I think of IKEA when I think of Sweden; however, I know for a fact that many Americans do not even know that IKEA originates from Sweden. Many of them only know it as a cheap place to purchase furniture. On another note, another of my English professors, who got his Ph.D at Harvard University and has been to Sweden before, taught a course in popular American fiction. Included in the course was actually a Swedish novel about the detective Martin Beck called The Locked Room. However, he pointed out that the average American rarely thinks of Sweden whereas Swedes are constantly conscious of America because it is much more crucial for Swedes to know about America than it is for Americans to know about Sweden.

So far, this cultural exchange has looked horribly one-way, but recently there have been Swedish directors cooperating with Hollywood. However, even in this context, is the cultural traffic two-way? Sweden is crowded with American TV shows because it is much cheaper to buy the non-exclusive rights to those shows than to produce them with their own actors, for the Swedish population of nine million is not able to sustain massive cinematic projects the way the American population of three hundred million can. When Swedish directors wish to go big, they must turn to Hollywood. In this case, is the result an American film or a Swedish film? By production rights, it is without a doubt an American film, but what about on cultural grounds? I say that this at least resembles two-way cultural traffic more than American TV shows being all over Swedish television sets does. Lastly, it seems that I must concede that cultural exchange happens on the terms of the globalizer, especially when the recipient culture is so receptive. In the case of the United States and Sweden, the globalizer is the United States.