For when we talk about the spreading power and influence of globalization, aren't we really referring to the spreading economic and military might of the US?

The epistemological separation of colony from metropolis, the systemic occultation of the colonial labour on which imperial prosperity is based, results in a situation in which... the truth of metropolitan existence is not visible in the metropolis itself.

And this fear that US models are replacing everything else now spills over from the sphere of culture into our two remaining categories: for this process is clearly, at one level, the result of economic domination – of local cultural industries closed down by American rivals.

The United States has made a massive effort since the end of the Second World War to secure the dominance of its films in foreign markets – an achievement generally pushed home politically, by writing clauses into various treaties and aid packages.

But what would happen if one no longer believed in the existence of normal language, of ordinary speech, of the linguistic norm?

We’re all idealists, all materialists; and the final judgment or label is simply a matter of ideology, or, if you prefer, of political commitment.

Always historicize!

In most of the European countries – France stands out in its resistance to this particular form of American cultural imperialism – the national film industries were forced onto the defensive after the war by such binding agreements.

Often, these downplay the power of cultural imperialism – in that sense, playing the game of US interests – by reassuring us that the global success of American mass culture is not as bad as all that.

It is now easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.