Making Sense on Our Own Terms - Deconstructing Creative Homogenization: How Cultural Colonialism Seeps into the Collective Unconscious

Making Sense on Our Own Terms -

Deconstructing Creative Homogenization:

How Cultural Colonialism Seeps into the Collective Unconscious

In a globalized context, cultural production is showing an increasingly pronounced tendency toward homogenization. Its deeper cause can be traced to a new, largely covert logic of “cultural colonialism.” This form of cultural colonialism does not rely on traditional political or economic force. Instead, it operates through discourses such as a “progress-only view of history” (which imagines history as a single linear march from backward to advanced) and “cultural Darwinism” (which treats cultures as if they are species in competition, where some are more “evolved” than others). Through these discourses, specific cultural standards in language, aesthetics, and values are implanted into the “collective unconscious,” and in this way local knowledges are systematically dissolved, aesthetic judgment is domesticated, and value systems are flattened.

This text starts from three visible symptoms of this process:

the erasure of “dialects” (in a broad, metaphorical sense),

aesthetic domestication,

and the homogenization of value systems.

From there, it unpacks the power mechanisms at work behind them and proposes that an aesthetic hegemony marked by “body classes” and “knowledge centralization” is the structural root of homogenization. The possible way out is approached from the dimension of what I call “ontological epistemology” that is, a way of knowing grounded in being. This asks creators to situate the “self” within specific historical and cultural contexts, to establish their own coordinates of subjectivity, and, from there, to articulate universal human concerns in a singular, embodied way. In doing so, they may reclaim creative autonomy and resist the encroachment of cultural colonialism.

Under the sweeping tide of globalization, cultural exchange and fusion have become more frequent than ever before. Yet at the same time, a deep creative crisis is emerging: an increasingly severe collapse into “sameness” within the tension between the global and the local. This homogenization is not the natural outcome of cultural evolution. It is a covert operation of power, a contemporary product of what I am calling cultural colonialism.

Unlike classical colonialism, which was characterized by territorial occupation and economic plunder, cultural colonialism works primarily by sending out information, values, and aesthetic paradigms in a one way flow, and then having that logic internalized as the “collective unconscious” of the targeted group. Individuals come to unconsciously recognize, imitate, and reproduce the rules of the dominant culture. The ultimate result is a withering of cultural diversity and a loss of originality in creative work.

From the vantage point of cultural-political critique, this text attempts to systematically unfold this process. It analyzes how cultural colonialism erodes the foundations of creativity along three dimensions the erasure of “dialects,” aesthetic domestication, and the flattening of value systems and reveals the hegemonic structures of “body classes” and “knowledge centralization” that function behind them. The key to moving beyond homogenization lies in creators establishing a form of creative autonomy grounded in ontological epistemology, that is, in the concreteness of history and culture, and thereby recovering a non substitutable coordinate of expression for themselves.

Deconstructing Creative Homogenization:

Three Infiltration Logics of Cultural Colonialism

The workings of cultural colonialism are subtle yet profound. It transforms creative ecosystems through three interrelated pathways.

1. The Erasure of “Dialect”:

Disassembling Local Knowledge Systems and Losing the Roots of Creation

Here, “dialect” is used as a metaphor. It refers broadly to all forms of language, artistic forms, technical systems, and narrative traditions that are rooted in specific regions and communities that is, the cultural carriers of “local knowledge.” Their erasure is the most visible symptom of cultural colonialism.

Within a “progress only” historical narrative which simplifies cultural development into a linear progression from “traditional/backward” to “modern/advanced” dialects are constructed as inefficient, closed, and non universal tools of communication or as mere cultural remnants. They are then systematically excluded and replaced in the name of “standardization,” “normalization,” or “internationalization.”

Each dialect carries a distinct cognitive framework and world of meaning. In linguistic dialects, vocabulary, grammar, and proverbs condense specific groups’ understandings of nature and society. Artistic “dialects” such as regional opera, ethnic dance, or folk visual arts encode the historical memory, belief systems, and emotional logics of a community. For example, the rhythms and movement patterns of the Miao “Fanpai Wooden Drum Dance” are intimately connected to migratory epics and mountain life. These dialects are the most original “gene pool” of creation, providing irreplaceable material, inspiration, and anchors of meaning for creators. Once dialects are marginalized, creative work loses its roots in concrete lived experience and cultural memory, and collapses into a floating, decontextualized collage of signs.

Case example:

If we take the recent three rounds of shortlisted and award winning works in the “Lotus Award” for Chinese ethnic and folk dance as a sample, we can see a clear hierarchy of “artistic dialects.” Large scale “national dances” such as Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur, Dai, Korean, and Han yangge already absorbed into national level professional conservatory systems of standardized training and evaluation occupy more than 85 percent of the awards. By contrast, other minority dances have very low rates of selection, and even when they appear they tend to play a secondary, decorative role.

Through preset judging criteria and the aesthetic preferences of the jury, mainstream competitions tacitly establish the “large national dance” paradigm as the dominant dialect. Other ethnic and folk dances are pushed to the margins. In order to gain recognition, choreographers are implicitly forced to abandon many unique dialect based creative possibilities and turn instead to imitating mainstream paradigms. This drives the field of ethnic and folk dance from diverse expression toward homogenized copying. Similar phenomena can be found in literature, where dialect writing is marginalized, and in film, where local dialect films struggle with distribution. We rarely see dialect works or dialect creators entering central cultural platforms.

2. Aesthetic Domestication:

Constructing a Single Global Standard and Suspending Creative Subjectivity

Aesthetic judgment is not something that exists a priori, independent of history. It is built by cultural history. Cultural colonialism works by controlling global systems of artistic evaluation such as major film festivals, art biennials, and fashion media, alongside educational institutions and market channels. Through them, it continuously exports an aesthetic standard grounded in Western modernist aesthetics minimalism, abstraction, narratives of individual heroism and packages this standard as the supreme model of what is “universal” and “contemporary.”

This process constitutes what I call the “aesthetic domestication” of creators. It follows a three step logic: standard export, channel monopoly, and self censorship. In order to gain international recognition, academic prestige, or market success, creators consciously or unconsciously internalize this external standard as their own aesthetic scale and adjust their creative direction accordingly.

For example, a film director might deliberately stage “Oriental spectacle” in hopes of winning international prizes. A dance choreographer, in the pursuit of an “international visual language,” might hollow out the narrative dimension of local dance forms and mechanically apply abstract vocabularies from Euro American contemporary dance. The insidiousness of this domestication lies in its reliance on the “temptation of opportunity” rather than explicit coercion. Creators are gradually convinced to voluntarily renounce their own aesthetic judgment and see external standards as the only path to “success.” The result is the loss of creative subjectivity and the convergence of global aesthetic landscapes.

Case example:

Research on Chinese dance choreographers shows that judging mechanisms exert a strong reverse shaping effect. Judges at domestic prestige competitions mostly come from professional conservatory systems, and their aesthetic preferences such as an emphasis on technical difficulty, formal neatness, and visual purity directly influence the direction of creative work, fueling a wave of replication of “award winning formulas.”

So called “high level imitation” often replaces truly original transformation. Many younger choreographers borrow heavily from Western choreographers’ techniques, but remain at the level of formal transplantation and movement copying. They rarely achieve meaningful dialogue with the spirit of their own cultures. Their works display a striking split: a Western shell with an empty core.

At the same time, a utilitarian orientation leads to thematic convergence. In order to please juries and the market, creators tend to avoid “risky” topics that involve cultural self questioning or complex individual subjectivities. Instead they cluster around safe themes such as “love of country,” “cultural inheritance,” and so on, often expressed through highly formulaic devices. Individual, singular thinking is drowned out.

3. The Flattening of Value Systems:

A Collapse of Creative Dimensions and the Disappearance of Cultural Diversity

The most profound harm of cultural colonialism lies on the level of values. Using the progress only view of history and cultural Darwinism, it promotes value systems rooted in a specific civilization such as radical individualism, consumerism, and efficiency as the “ultimate model” and “universal truth” of human development.

When “development equals economic growth,” “success equals wealth accumulation,” and “progress equals Westernization” become mainstream, or even the only, criteria of judgment in a society, those values that are hard to quantify or do not directly serve instrumental goals such as mutual aid in communities, reverence for tradition, spiritual pursuits, and the poetics of leisure are systematically devalued and pushed to the margins.

The homogenization of values directly leads to what we might call a “collapse of dimensions” in creativity.

Creative work is no longer a space for exploring and responding to the richness, contradictions, and possibilities of the world. Instead, it gets compressed into a single dimension of usefulness. Themes cluster around success stories and consumption narratives. Evaluation standards are reduced to metrics like views, box office, and sales figures. Creative motivation is dominated by the pursuit of fame and profit.

When all cultural practices are forced to race on the same narrow value track, differentiated thinking, critical perspectives, and non utilitarian aesthetic explorations lose their room to survive. The diversity of the cultural ecosystem and its flexibility in facing a complex reality are eroded.

Case example:

If we look at the living conditions of “marginal creators” such as documentary filmmakers who record the lives of war veterans, artisans who insist on traditional crafts, poets who explore the spiritual world, independent theater makers, or freelance choreographers and dancers we can clearly see how this mechanism of exclusion works.

They face a threefold predicament.

First, material pressure. Because their work does not fit the market’s expectations of high financial returns, it is very hard for them to obtain support from capital or mainstream platforms.

Second, devaluation of spiritual meaning. The significance of their practice is constantly questioned. Phrases like “What is this good for?” and “Can this make money?” become routine responses.

Third, blocked channels of circulation. Their works are systematically kept out of mainstream media, commercial exhibitions, and distribution networks.

This is not just a random economic phenomenon. It is the necessary result of value monopolization in cultural colonialism. By negating non utilitarian value dimensions embedded in local cultures, the system exercises ultimate control over the directions of cultural creation.

A rural documentary director put it starkly: “We are not afraid of being poor. We are afraid of memory being forgotten. But right now, no one cares about these things.”

Structural Roots of Homogenization:

Body Classes, Knowledge Centralization, and Cycles of Reproduction

Creative homogenization is not just a surface phenomenon. It is the cultural political outcome of a structural process, maintained by a stable mechanism of reproduction.

1. The Solidification of “Body Classes”:

Inscribing Aesthetic Hegemony onto Body and Mind

In the arts, especially in the performing arts, an implicit “body class” system has already taken shape. Bodies that were incorporated early into national systems of arts education and subjected to “scientific,” “standardized” training such as bodies shaped through ballet, Chinese classical dance, or canonized forms of ethnic and folk dance are seen as “high level,” “professional,” and “modern” carriers of aesthetic value.

By contrast, bodies that carry local knowledge and have not undergone heavy disciplining such as some folk artists’ bodies, so called “raw” performers, or free dancers are labeled “rough,” “primitive,” or “in need of correction.”

This hierarchy based on bodily form and modes of movement is repeatedly reinforced through education, competitions, and media. Over time, it becomes part of the collective unconscious of the field and of society at large. If creators want to enter the “mainstream” arena, they often must first transform their own bodies, submitting to mainstream “body aesthetics.” At the root level, this kills off diversity in embodied expression.

2. The Formation of “Knowledge Centralization”:

Monopolizing Cultural Capital and Discursive Power

Internally, cultural colonialism appears as a centralized structure of knowledge power. National level arts academies, authoritative competitions, mainstream media, and core critics form what we might call a system of “knowledge centralization.” They hold the authority to confer cultural “legitimacy.” They define what counts as good art, what counts as the correct method of creation, and what topics are worth attention.

This system tends to recognize and promote knowledge and cultural products that fit its pre set standards, are easy to manage, and are convenient for stable reproduction. Local and marginal knowledge systems, precisely because of their uncertainty and uniqueness, are often shut out of this centralized structure. They struggle to obtain channels for circulation, recognition, or resources.

The result is a structural contradiction in the field of creative work. Unique, heterogeneous creation does not fit the management logic or the demand for predictable reproduction. It can hardly survive within the system. It must either be reshaped to fit or be relegated to the periphery.

3. Complications of Internal and External Circuits

The pressure of cultural colonialism comes from both outside and inside. Externally, cultural penetration oriented toward resource capture and market domination seeks to absorb global cultural markets into its own value and aesthetic logic. Internally, the knowledge centralization system suppresses marginal voices.

The combination of these two pressures intensifies internal competition over cultural resources and further pushes creators to move toward central standards. This produces a vicious cycle that accelerates homogenization. Homogenization is not only a matter of works looking alike. It is also a shared conspiracy and circular reinforcement in knowledge and aesthetics among judges, creative cohorts, and educational systems.

Breaking the Deadlock:

Returning to Ontological Epistemology and Rebuilding Creative Autonomy

Resisting cultural colonialism and creative homogenization is not a matter of simplistic cultural conservatism or populist “returns to tradition.” At its core, it is about rebuilding the creative subject’s autonomy. Here, “ontological epistemology” is proposed as the philosophical basis for that rebuilding.

1. The Meaning of “Ontological Epistemology”:

Locating the Self Within History

By “ontological epistemology” I mean a way of knowing that insists that all acts of knowing and creating must start from the creator’s concrete, historical, and cultural existence. It demands that creators first answer the question “Who am I?” In other words: In what historical currents, geographical spaces, cultural traditions, and lived experiences am I situated? Where are the roots of my pain, joy, confusion, and hope?

This means understanding the “self” not as an abstract, isolated individual but as the sum of all its historical and social relations. From this understanding, concern for broader human conditions can emerge. Because this universal concern arises from concrete and genuine lived experience, it is necessarily unique and irreplaceable. In this way, it clearly distinguishes itself from the pseudo universalism of homogenization, which in reality is just one culture’s particular standards masquerading as universal ones.

2. The Practical Dimensions of Creative Autonomy

Creative autonomy grounded in ontological epistemology can be enacted in several ways:

1. Entering into dialogue with “dialects” and activating the cultural gene pool. Creators consciously excavate, learn, and creatively transform local languages, art forms, and knowledge systems, so that they become sources of living, contemporary expression rather than museum specimens.

2. Reconstructing aesthetic judgment and challenging hegemonic standards. Creators cultivate independent aesthetic reflection. They question the supposed universality of “international standards” or “high level aesthetics” and develop vital scales of value within their own cultural contexts.

3. Embracing value plurality and expanding the dimensions of creation. Creators consciously resist the pull of utilitarian values. They choose to explore and express life experiences, social questions, and spiritual pursuits that have been marginalized but are in fact crucial, thereby restoring the full dimensional richness of cultural creation.

4. Struggling for cultural democracy and breaking knowledge centralization. Creators support diverse and inclusive platforms for creation, circulation, and evaluation. They help move cultural resources toward more balanced distribution and advocate for more inclusive systems of cultural governance.

   
   

Put more plainly, creators need to take a firm stand on the questions “Who am I, and from where do I speak?” Only then can they truly speak on equal footing within a global context, instead of passively replicating things that others have already said a thousand times.

Conclusion

The homogenization of contemporary cultural creation is, in essence, the result of a new form of cultural colonialism that works through the collective unconscious to systematically infiltrate and reshape language, aesthetics, and values. Behind this process lies an aesthetic hegemony of “body classes” and an institutional collusion of “knowledge centralization.” As works converge into sameness, the dilemmas facing creators themselves also become homogenized.

To break through this impasse, creators must shed their unconsciously colonized state. By establishing a self awareness grounded in ontological epistemology anchoring the self within concrete historical and cultural coordinates and, from there, articulating a sincere concern for shared human conditions they can begin to reclaim creative autonomy. This is not merely a matter of individual aesthetic choice. It is a deep cultural political practice.

Ultimately, the most fundamental force against cultural colonialism and for the protection of cultural diversity lies in whether we can respect and reactivate every unique “dialect” on this land, and whether we can host and nourish every form of different expression. A vibrant, future oriented cultural ideal is embodied precisely in this deep commitment to and steadfast defense of plurality and difference.