The role of this work is to show how the power relations brought by the globalization, influence the (re) construction of a cultural identity emphasized by the homogenization of the nations. It will be used some contemporary authors that deal with the cultural aspects that are shared in order to be placed inside of a homogeneous and idealized culture. The focus, supported also by the cultural studies, is the accurate scenario of the countries’ cultural elements that were developed through the history and changed into sings of the globalized world.The globalization brought changes in the cultural relations that exist among countries. Thus, these relations have been denominating through the cultural power that also exist in this kind of “discourse”. Nowadays what specifies what a country is, it’s how it deals with the so called superiority of the first world countries, those that control and keep their “partners” underneath the cultural power games like they were puppets of the post colonial system.

That’s what we’re all living, a new type of cultural colonialism, played by multifaceted cultural identities that relation themselves with their new metropolis.It has been already mentioned that we’re dealing with a certain kind of “discourse”, and how it works is the focus of our attention. The Cultural Studies are used as the background of how a critical (theory) point of view of the contemporary world “works” in the changes brought by the globalization. For the sake of the modernity and progress, the top layer of the society dictates the rules of how belonging and being part of this group: you partially lose and change what you are, and become what they want you to be. According to Stuart Hall “There are at least two different ways of thinking about 'cultural identity'.The first position defines 'cultural identity' in terms of one, shared culture, a sort of collective 'one true self' […]”and the “second position recognises that, as well as the many points of similarity, there are also critical points of deep and significant difference which constitute 'what we really are'; or rather - since history has intervened - 'what we have become' […]” (HALL, 2004, p.

223-225). The new version of the imperialism in the beginning of the twenty-first century has an important role in the cultural transformation of the current societies.Also, a new version of “cultural revolution” has increased. The notion of culture has been modified through the years, and this re-evaluation of what culture really means in the modern time brings changes in the concept of having an identity that can tell who you are in your social/cultural life. The cultural studies are oriented by the hypothesis that among cultures there are power and domination relations that must be questioned.

Such relations generate processes of cultural hybridization that leads to the construction of multiple identities.The first Stuart Hall’s position above is seen on how the culture has assumed an equal importance in the matters of the structure and organization of this post-modern identity. Having an identity is a way of belonging to some specific group. This sense of being part of a place that can be your own, with people sharing the same language, the same way of life, and sharing the “same” culture is part of the constructing of what is called “cultural identity”. You are what you wear, what you eat in the morning; how you brush your teeth and how you say “goodbye” tells a lot about what kind of cultural person you are in any society.These elements are all part of what Stuart Hall (2004) nominates as “cultural representation” that produces ideas and put everybody inside of an “utopian society” that are always led by countries that control the mass culture and shape them according to the “globalized standards”.

A post-modern society constitutes “the process of cultural homogenization”, fruit of the industrial, media and linguistic development, that showed the cultural barriers between the sub and developed countries. The linguistic discourse is one of the most important elements of this “stark line”.It tries to put every single nation, irrespective of race, religion and ethnicity beneath of the same parameter, resulting the process of a “cultural unification” that is only possible through different ways of cultural domination. Not even the McDonald’s homogenization has a deep influence in the structure of a country as the language power in the globalization reality. The English language has its role in this subject, for reasons that we all may know. But this linguistic use together with the increase of transnational corporations and media companies help the “westernization” of the world.

The Imperialism is one of the remnants or an example of cultural “westernization”: through the military and linguistic power, the British Empire dominated regions of Asia, especially India, where revolutions took over the country in order to set the native population free of the British subordination. Not so far from this English reality, according to Guillermo Giucci (2003), in Brazil, this “westernization” process was orientated by another “-ation”, the ‘Christianization” of the native man (Indian) in the sense of spiritual conversion and imposition of the Portuguese language.The same happened to some African countries, such as Nigeria. In “Things Fall Apart”, published in 1958, Chinua Achebe, tries to make a critical revision of the cultural traditions of the African people before this “Westernization”, that is, before the coming of the European settlers. Achebe also proposes a new way of treating the history of Nigeria and the others African countries. He gives emphasis in the fact that there was an African culture before the European colonization.

However, the curious fact is that “Things Fall Apart” was one of the first novels published entirely in English language in Africa.It’s observed that in spite of theses authors show that the particularities of every nation, the linguistic, and why not, the cultural subordination is an accurate reality in their history as post-modern colonies. The “-ation” processes such as: colonization, westernization and homogenization, are brought by John Tomlinson as part of a “cultural imperialism”, where, “[…] globalization produces ‘identity’ where none existed – where before there were perhaps more particular, more inchoate, less socially policed belongings. (2003, p. 273); Tomlinson kept saying that “[…] the United States – saw a sort of standardized version of their cultures exported worldwide, it was the ‘weaker’ cultures of the developing world that have been most threatened […]” (2003, p. 270).

And he ended telling us a negative point of view of these “cultural identity changes”: “[…] Cultural identity is at risk everywhere with the depredations of globalization […] the story that implicates globalization in the destruction of cultural identity […]” (2003, p. 270).It will be risky too, if we don’t read all this John Tomlinson’s essay named “Globalization and Cultural Identity”, in order to give his point of view about the subject, the author offers us a different and contradictory concept of how the globalization changes the cultural identities, and his opinion has relation with the Stuart Hall’s second way of how thinking “cultural identity”: the differences that make what a culture really is. In Tomlinson’s opinion, there are reasons to consider that the globalization proliferates rather than destroys identities.In addition to it, according to Stuart hall (1994) the globalization brings other tendencies that prevent the notion of “homogenization” of the world, because the global culture needs the “differences” to prosper: even if it’s only there to convert them into another cultural product.

So, the globalization produces new “global significations” and new ‘identifications” rather than a global and homogeneous culture. The “spangles”, the loanwords, even the Bossa Nova can be simple examples of the result of this cultural mix.Therefore, if culture regulates, in fact, our social practices, so, those who need or wish to influence what happens in the world or the way how the things are done, will need also to have the “culture” on their hands, to mold it and control it somehow and in a certain degree. The cultural identity is moved and involved by issues of power, that’s why it was said that the culture most of times, works inside the power games.

It’s been fought to the homogenization of the countries, but are they all the same? No, because no country is like any other.It’s different people, languages and different customs. If you think about “cultural identity” you have to consider that modern nations are, all, cultural hybrids, in other words, they are marked by their particular aspects, and no matter how strong and unfair is the imposition and subordination brought by the modern times, nations will carry the differences that make all of them unique. A society is built by the whish of others. An identity is shared for giving way to another.

That’s globalization and how it deals with the transformations of our everyday world.