Cultural Imperialism Theory Analysis

Cultural Imperialism Theory Analysis What is the ‘cultural imperialism’ thesis and how valid is it today? Discuss with reference to relevant theory and examples. The best way to understand what cultural imperialism is, is by analysing its difference from the traditional modes of imperialism. This theory has been developed through a long line of historical events, especially ones that developed around the relationship of the west with the rest of the world and led to our contemporary society and whether or not this society is a big global culture due to cultural imperialism. In this essay I intend to explain the difference between imperialism and cultural imperialism, present the multiple forms it can be discussed and understood based upon and go through some historical events, important to define its concept. The second part of the essay will be more focused on the global perception of western media within non-western countries and several globalization and cultural globalization developments, in order to understand whether or not cultural imperialism is valid in our modern society, as far as these globalization developments are concerned. Imperialism, as a concept we have come across through history, is the policy of expansion of control or authority exercised in foreign entities as a means of obtaining and/or maintaining an empire (Hopper,2007, Ritzer,2011). This term is usually used to describe the political domination of one, usually stronger, nation to other countries, whether that domination is practised with direct territorial conquest or indirect methods of political and economic controlling. This political or traditional imperialism though is quite different from cultural imperialism, although the lines of distinction are usually blurred (Harvey,2003). Even though imperialism is usually used in conversations about politics or wars, cultural imperialism thesis describes the process within which a dominant culture penetrates the modern world system and how its dominating stratum, values and attitudes are spread to foreign cultures, creating unequal relationships between them, favouring the more developed and pow erful one (Hopper,2007, Schiller,1976). In other words, it is the concept within which certain dominant cultures, mainly western ones, threaten to overcome other more vulnerable ones (Tomlinson,1993). This term therefore is usually associated with globalization processes and deterritorialization, where culture seems to not necessarily be related only to geographical and social territories (Ritzer,2011). The fact that some cultures appear to be subordinate to others, within the concept of cultural imperialism is a natural social phenomenon which occurs at a later stage of a long historical chain of colonialism (Hopper,2007), that allowed western cultures to force their beliefs and values on areas, such as Africa or Asia, that were not traditionally inhabited by populations same as the metropolitan authority that conquered them. Since at some point in history West Europe controlled most of the world, they had easily penetrated societies for centuries, introducing the western civilisation to them and undermining their local heritages. All those undermined localities and cultures resulted to a modern world system, where West Europe does not rule most of the world anymore but has left its fundamental characteristics there, only to be re-enforced by the contemporary Trojan horse ‘for penetrating foreign cultures’, the media. After the Second World War and the end of the tradi tional European colonization, the two superpowers that emerged, the USA and the USSR, realised early enough their benefits from cultural imperialism and, more specifically, media imperialism to promote their authority along with their ideals. Media imperialism is the theory which suggests that smaller nations are in risk of losing their traditional cultural identities due to western mass media dominance (Ritzer, 2011). The USA’s use of cultural imperialism and the mass media then, empowered their position as the most powerful and, consequently influential, country in the world, enabling them to lead the way in terms of food or drink ( McDonalds, KFC, Coca Cola) or film and entertainment industry (Hollywood cinema). The promotion of American culture therefore has become another layer of cultural imperialism and the mere exposure of western media to other nations has created a sense of American superiority in the world, resulting to individual and traditional cultural identitie s to risk being forsaken forever (Hopper, 2007). Debates on media imperialism as a sub-category of cultural imperialism appeared first during the 1970’s when unequal media flows and absolute control over them by dominant nations increased over developing countries. By the time new and more powerful media appeared, during the 1980’s-1990’s, it became much more difficult for smaller nations to resist them and for local media outlets to survive (Boyd-Barret, 1998). This new form of imperialism did not only affect developing countries’ media but also the shaping of their local cultures, receiving also a lot of criticism over the years, since according to Ritzer, ‘it undermines the existence of alternate global media from developing countries, as well as their influence of the local and regional media’ (2011). Also, it considers the audience to be passive and ready to accept and interpret the same medium exactly the same way as everyone else in the world. This is problematic since audiences aroun d the world have many, big or small, differences between them which cause them to interpret things their own way. For example, The Simpsons is a very popular show throughout the world, translated in several languages and shown in many countries. However it contains various references of drugs, sex and drinking which make it difficult for the show to be shown as it is in every country, since references like that may cause offence in certain places, like Pakistan for example. That is why it is edited to be suitable for its target audience, which proves that audiences can interpret the same medium in lots of different ways. Another reason why media imperialism is criticised, is the fact that most media flows from developed countries to developing ones are controlled entirely by one company or owner, who decides what gets to be shown or gets censored. Those media therefore, could be very biased and untrustworthy and since they create a type of cultural dependency between the developed a nd developing countries, being biased means that the smaller nations would be completely controlled and exploited. Moreover, capitalism came to re-enforce media imperialism and the contemporary, capitalist driven system it creates as ‘the primary driving force behind cultural globalization’ (Ritzer, 2011). Despite the debates and arguments against media imperialism though, the existence of new global media which subsequently allowed several cultural characteristics to flow easily all over the world, creating a more global culture, is a fact. Culture, as in the shared sense of habits, traditions and beliefs of a country, society or a group of people (Cambridge Learner’s Dictionaries) is usually associated and defined within specific geographical barriers. For example, there is Cypriot culture in Cyprus, French culture in France and so on. The possibility though, that cultural and media imperialism create for a globalized culture to exist is mostly based on the deterritorialization theory. Based on this concept, the growing presence of social forms of control and involvement goes beyond the limits of a specific territory (Giddens, 1990). Deterritorialization therefore, is the transformation that occurs on local cultures from the impact the media and communications have on them, ca using them to no longer be as defined with local geography as they once were (Tomlinson, 2007). Deterritorialization then has become a general cultural condition, re-enforcing the idea that more and more cultures throughout the world are the same. Examples of instantaneous global communications, such as television or the internet, support the formation of a globalized culture, along with the English language considered to be the world’s global and information language. Another example of how traditional cultures can easily be derived from globalization and deterritorialization concepts, is how the residents of Fiji, particularly women, changed their traditional preferences of robust, full figure bodies and started dieting for the first time, resulting in health problems like anorexia or bulimia, after being introduced to television and western media in 1995 (BBC News). This influence of the USA or other western countries on smaller nations, as far cuisine, technology, busines s practises, political techniques, entertainment, fashion or food are concerned is known as Americanization or Westernization and is one of the effects of cultural imperialism (Hopper, 2007). Another theory is the cultural hybridization theory, which emphasizes on how the world seems to have become a smaller place and also on the interaction between the global and the local that has created new types of unique hybrid cultures that are neither global or local (Hopper,2007, Ritzer, 2011). In other words, it describes the ways in which different cultures create new forms and connections with each other, developing new types of cultures from the blending of their individual characteristics. A specific term about cultural hybridization came out of Roland Robertson’s (2011) work on the interaction of the global and the local and how the first, instead of eliminating the second, combines itself with it resulting to new forms of localities, based on the global. This term is glocalization and an example of it could be how internationally known companies slightly alter some of their products based on their locations and audiences. More specifically, Pringles’s flavour s in the USA range between original, salt or vinegar while in Asia you can find flavours such as seaweed or peppered beef. Due to phenomena like this and according to Ritzer (2011) ‘globalization leads to increasing sameness throughout the world’, resulting in cultural convergence, with the McDonaldization theory as a main example of it. McDonaldization theory was first introduced by George Ritzer in 1993 and uses the principles of the fast-food restaurant company as its model, to prove how some specific principles ‘are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society, as well as the rest of the world’ (Rtizer, 2011). With five principles, McDonaldization theory shows how the world can become more globalized, exactly the same way the fast-food restaurant became globally known and successful, with restaurants built in almost every country in the globe. The five dimensions, according to Ritzer, are efficiency, as in the way of finding the best possible method for accomplishing a task, calculability, which means emphasizing on the quantity rather than the quality of products, so that customers get more amounts of product in less period of time; predictability, as in the stereotypical way in which employees and customers are expected to behave in everywhere in the world and control, as in the con trolling or even replacement of employees by technology. The fifth dimension, is the so-called irrationality of rationality, which refers to when something that is normally considered to be rational is in fact exactly the opposite and sometimes can also be described as dehumanization, for the employees and/or the customers. These principles have Mcdonaldized many aspects of contemporary society, emphasizing the convergence even more. The modern trend of ‘speed-dating’ for example, is a McDonaldized way of the traditionally time-consuming process of meeting new people, since in this case potential partners gather up for short face-to-face meetings with each other. Also, the use of the Internet as the standard tool for the process of getting and exchanging information, making libraries more and more obsolescence is another example. Based on the aforementioned aspects of globalization and global culture in relation to cultural imperialism, there appears to be a general view that one cannot adequately grasp the relevance of globalized culture through the cultural imperialism thesis alone. That is because it oversimplifies the process of information flow, which is normally complex and unpredictable, by suggesting there is only a one-way flow of imperialism, from stronger nations to less powerful ones. Such a suggestion could not possibly be absolutely valid, especially nowadays, when more non-western countries, such as India, have started to grow into powerful, out-sourcing exporters, e.g. Bollywood movies (Hopper, 2007). It also overlooks the importance of the international relations between developed and developing countries, since the influence of the western media on non-western societies is somehow bound to them. Where those relations are not as good, then it is obviously unlikely that the influence of the me dia will affect the local population. This, in addition, is proven by the national media systems and protectionism applied by some European countries, like Canada and France as a form of rejection and protest against the American domination in the European film market. This form of resistance to Americanization is overlooked by the cultural imperialism thesis, as well as Stuart Hall’s (1973) encoding and decoding theory, which suggests that there are various different ways in which audiences can decode the same media text. To conclude, it is understandable that cultural imperialism is a very vague concept which can be understood in specific forms regarding specific contexts of imperialism, media and globalization processes. It establishes connections between developed and developing countries for print media, television, radio, film or consumer goods, creating a new form of imperialism in its core, the media imperialism, which allows western media and therefore culture to easily spread the information they want to convey the world and continue being a superpower. That makes cultural imperialism an expansion of cultural values re-enforcing a dominating ‘global’ culture through products or commodities diffused with cultural values that are strengthened by media imperialism. The media are after all a very important part of people’s daily lives. The cultural imperialism thesis though has created several debates and arguments over the years, about whether or not it is the right thesis to describe and evaluate our contemporary culture, as far as globalization processes are concerned. Due to all the critiques about how it overlooks important aspects of society, information flow and media theories in general, it is mostly considered to be a negative way of understanding media globalization and global culture and therefore it is not as valid as it seems to be in our contemporary society. Bibliography CAMBRIDGE Learners Dictionary 2007 Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences Of Modernity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1990. Hall, Stuart. Encoding and Decoding In The Television Discourse. Birmingham [England]: Centre for Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham, 1973. Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Hopper, Paul. Understanding Cultural Globalization. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2007. Lenin, Vladimir IlÊÂ ¹ich. Imperialism, The Highest Stage Of Capitalism. New York: International Publishers, 1982. News.bbc.co.uk,. BBC News | Health | TV Brings Eating Disorders To Fiji. N.p., 1999. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. Robertson, Roland. Globalization. London: Sage, 1992. Schiller, Herbert. Communication and Cultural Domination. New York: International Arts and Sciences Press, 1973. Oliver Boyd-Barret, Media and imperialism reformulated In Thussu, Daya Kishan(ed.) Electronic Empires: Global Media and Local Resistance. London: Arnold, 1998. Tomlinson, John. Cultural Imperialism. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. Tomlinson, John. Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX: Continuum, 1991. Tomlinson, John. Internationalism, Globalization And Cultural Imperialism In K. Thompson(Ed.) Media And Cultural Regulation. London: Open University/Sage, 1997. Tomlinson, John. The Culture Of Speed. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2007.

Discuss in detail Shakespeare’s presentation of women in Much Ado About Nothing

The role of women in the 1600's was to be submissive, passive, to obey men and to be seen rather than heard; as is depicted in the female characters in many of Shakespeare's plays such as Juliet in Romeo and Juliet and Queen Gertrude in Hamlet. However, the characters in Shakespeare's plays are predominantly male, they include very few female characters and Much Ado About Nothing is no exception. Each of the female characters in this play represents a different role of a 16th century woman. The reason for the relatively small number of female character's in Shakespeare's plays is for both practicality, as all female roles in Shakespeare's plays were performed by men, but can also be seen as a reference to women's relatively insignificant status in society. A woman's virginity and chastity were what her reputation was solely based on. Her status was gained by marriage and women in this time were raised to believe they were inferior to men, this status is reflected in the character of Hero. Shakespeare seems to portray the conventional role of a Shakespearean woman through Hero. Her silent and submissive nature is what shows her weakness to being controlled by other characters. This is predominantly men; however, Beatrice also speaks over Hero, challenging the male chauvinistic stereotype by placing characteristics commonly associated with males, in a female character. This is most noticeable in act 2 scene1, where Leonato, Beatrice, Hero and Antonio are discussing the topic of Hero's future. Shakespeare uses Hero's lack of a response to anything the other character's are saying in deciding her fate to emphasise society's expectancies of Hero, and girls like Hero, in Shakespearean times. Shakespeare uses the character Beatrice to represent a less conventional 16th century woman, independent and outspoken. By contrasting the roles of Beatrice and Hero against each other in this way Shakespeare more effectively presents the differences between these two characters. Shakespeare also mirrors the role of Beatrice in Margaret. Beatrice unlike Hero does not have a prestigious reputation to maintain. Other characters refer to Beatrice, often by name, in comparison to Hero as ‘niece', ‘daughter', and ‘cousin'. The way in which Beatrice talks to the male characters is unusual for her time, she is outspoken and does not hold back on voicing her opinions. In the 16th century women could be punished by law for having such mannerisms as this. Beatrice is particularly bitter towards Benedick, to whom she is rude, ignorant and seems to take great delight in mocking at every available opportunity. In this respect Shakespeare challenges the male chauvinism of the time by matching Beatrice and Benedick, who both, at times, appear both as witty and stubborn as one another, despite Beatrice being a woman and therefore, supposedly (in accordance to society's hierarchy at the time) an inferior match to Benedick. Beatrice's stubborn nature is introduced from the very beginning of the play, in Act 1 Scene 1 where Beatrice makes no attempt to be subtle with her feelings towards Benedick. She promises â€Å"to eat all of his killing† calling him weak and challenging the praise he is receiving from the messenger who is saying â€Å"he hath done good service, lady, in these wars. † It can be interpreted, however, that Beatrice is perhaps trying too hard to convince the other characters of how much she dislikes Benedick, suggesting her stubborn and cruel nature is all just an act, Shakespeare uses Beatrice's intense bitterness towards Benedick to provide the audience with sufficient evidence to suspect that something has happened between these two characters in the past to leave Beatrice with these thoughts. Shakespeare mirrors Beatrice in the character of Margaret. He seems to portray Margaret as a less powerful and dirtier minded Beatrice. She, like Beatrice, is outspoken and often seen as rude. However as Margaret is just a servant, Shakespeare uses this character for the lines that Beatrice could not get away with saying. The audience can more easily accept this rude and often suggestive (particularly when talking to male characters) humour. The suggestive aspect can be seen in act 5 scene 2. In which Margaret flirts with Benedick by saying â€Å"will you write me a sonnet in praise of my beauty? Shakespeare tries to make it known to the audience that Margaret is aware of her lowly status, by writing lines for her that are jokes at her own expense, such as in act 5 scene 2 â€Å"why shall I always keep below the stairs? â€Å", this can be interpreted however, as either Margaret's acceptance of her role, or as a crude joke used to flirt with Benedick. Margaret's comedy contrasts t he intelligent wit Shakespeare writes for Beatrice. The character of Margaret's purpose is to provide a different kind of humour in the play, perhaps as a relief from the witty and sarcastic banter between the other characters. Margaret talks back to Beatrice without any hesitation, as is seen in act 3 scene 4, where she mocks Beatrice in saying â€Å"a maid and stuffed†, this reinforces Margaret's ill mannered nature, being used as a source of entertainment for the audience. This kind of talk would not be acceptable from the other characters, but Shakespeare builds up the character of Margaret to represent a more ill mannered and crude aspect of the play. Shakespeare does this both through Margaret's main purpose – as an accomplice in the shaming of Hero – and the way in which she acts around the other characters, who are predominantly richer and more powerful than her. Margaret's main purpose is to contribute to the shaming of Hero, which causes great controversy and outrage. It's possible that Shakespeare involves Margaret in this event as a way of informing the audience that Margaret is of a far lower status than the other character's and introduces the idea that it is acceptable for her to do many things that for the other characters it is not. The prime example being that even suspicion alone that Hero could be involved in such affairs causes outrage, and yet when it is discovered that it was in fact Margaret, not much more is said about the incident. In Act 2 scene 1 Beatrice compares marriage to a â€Å"scotch jig† giving a very bleak outlook on the subject by saying â€Å"for, hear me, Hero: wooing, wedding, and repenting, is a scotch jig†. By referring to the aftermath of the wedding as ‘†repenting† Beatrice makes her opinions on marriage very clear. The expectancy of women of this time was to get married and have children, and so by portraying such a passionate disdain towards the subject through Beatrice, Shakespeare challenges the stereotypical role of a woman. It is this attitude that likens Beatrice more so than Hero, to a modern day audience, the opinion that women's sole purpose is not to marry and reproduce. Beatrice also makes a joke when Leonato says to her â€Å"well, niece, I hope to see you one day fitted with a husband† by responding with â€Å"Adam's son are my brethren; and, truly, I hold it a sin to match in my kindred† this joke can be taken either at face value, as something Shakespeare has built up to be ‘typical Beatrice', or seen as a way of avoiding what Leonato was really trying to say to her, as a way of covering her real feelings in case there is a lapse in her tough outer exterior. And yet when in Act 3 scene 1 when Hero, Margaret and Ursula try to gull Beatrice she seems, to a certain extent, to believe them. Shakespeare's sudden portrayal of slight naivety in Beatrice can be interpreted as a way of showing the audience Beatrice has a more compassionate side, and that really she wants to believe this is true such as when she says â€Å"and, Benedick, love on; I will requite thee†. Another moment in which Beatrice shows compassion is when Benedick proposes his love to her, and her immediate reaction is to tell him to kill Claudio for what he has done to her cousin, Hero. She uses Benedick's love for her cruelly as a way of forcing him to kill Claudio against his will when she says â€Å"you kill me to deny it. Farewell†. In some respects, the character of Beatrice is there to show an independent and opinionated woman, representative in some aspects as an early feminist and as a way of challenging the conventional role of a Shakespearean woman. However in the final scene even Beatrice the independent, witty and intelligent heroine succumbs to the persuasive ways of men, love and society. The character of Hero can be interpreted in one of two ways. Critics say that Hero is ‘conventional, not at all deep, but ladylike and deserving of sympathy' this could be to uphold the reputation expected of her due to her father and as a result of this, her high social status which can be seen in act 2 scene 1. But Hero can also be interpreted as an intelligent young woman that simply knows the right, and similarly the wrong, times to speak; as can be seen in act 3 scene 4, a scene with only female characters in which Hero speaks of her own free will for herself. In Act 2 scene 1, Leonato makes it clear that it is his decision whom Hero marries; and not Hero's. Yet Hero says nothing throughout. This is what can make the character of Hero so hard to relate to for a modern day audience, as this kind of behaviour is not as common or typical in a modern day girl of Hero's age as it was in Shakespearean times. Although Hero's lines in the play are often merely functional and slightly lacking, it is this; her lack of speech, that most effectively represents her character and role in society. The only time the audience is shown Hero's wittier and more relaxed side is when she is surrounded by only female company. Beatrice in Act 2 scene 1however, does not hold back with her opinions, when Antonio says â€Å"well, niece, I trust you will be ruled by your father† Beatrice speaks for Hero by saying â€Å"yes, faith; it is my cousin's duty to make curtsy and say ‘Father, as it please you'† This can be seen as Beatrice either mocking Hero, or taking pity on her. But at the same time rather aptly sums up Hero's purpose. Hero has functional lines in the play and only really speaks when given permission, such as in act 2 scene 2 when she says â€Å"I will do any modest office, my lord† modest being the crucial word in this line. The first time we hear Hero speak for herself is at the masked ball. However, it can be interpreted that Shakespeare uses this opportunity for Hero to hide behind a mask to grant her the freedom to speak for herself, and in normal circumstances this would not be the case. In act 3 scene 1, we see a very different side to Hero than Shakespeare has previously portrayed. In this scene there are no men and so Hero is free to say as she ‘pleases', this freedom is furthered by Ursula and Margaret, both servants, both females, and both, therefore, below Hero in terms of social status, being the only other characters in the scene. In this scene Hero is given more lines than she has throughout the rest of the entire play. The scene opens with Hero giving Margaret an order â€Å"run thee to the parlor; there shalt thou find my cousin Beatrice†¦ whisper her ear and tell her, I and Ursula walk in the orchard and our whole discourse is all of her† up until this point this kind of assertiveness and power is completely unexpected of Hero to the audience. Hero then goes on to give Ursula clear and precise orders of what she must do â€Å"when Beatrice doth come† however, in act 3 scene 4, where the characters present are again all female, Hero is not as outspoken and forward. However one of the characters present is Beatrice, this suggest that's Beatrice overpowers Hero, and although Hero is technically more powerful and important than Beatrice, as she is Leonato's daughter, her lines are still functional and infrequent such as â€Å"these gloves the count sent me; they are an excellent perfume†. Hero is mirrored – in a similar way to how Beatrice is mirrored in Margaret – in Ursula. Out of Margaret and Ursula, Margaret is – as it is between Beatrice and Hero – the more loud and opinionated one, as opposed to Ursula who is more quiet and reserved, and like Hero is given functional lines â€Å"madam, withdraw: the prince, the count, Signior Benedick, Don John, and all the gallants of the town, are come to fetch you to church†. In act 3 scene 4, Margaret is the dominant speaker, mocking Beatrice and talking back to Hero â€Å"troth, I think your other rabato were better. . Hero's response to this â€Å"no pray thee, good Meg, I'll wear this† is uncharacteristically sure of herself, showing that she didn't really care about Margaret's opinion, and chooses to ignore it. This suggests that Hero is perhaps not a pushover as she is made out to be, but rather knows her place and what is expected of her, and so, when she is around certain com pany (i. e men) she is more reserved, so as not to get herself into trouble, giving reason to suspect Hero is perhaps smarter than a modern day audience would give her credit for. The other character's, in particular Claudio and Leonato's, expectancy of Hero is really emphasised when Margaret and Borachio set her up to be shamed. As even suspicion of Hero doing such causes great controversy and trouble, and is near enough the sole cause of the rest of the problems in the play from then onwards. Whereas, when it is found out that it was in fact Margaret, the act is completely overlooked. This reinforces the importance of social status within the play. Shakespeare both challenges and supports male chauvinism at times by exploring the social boundaries of women. This is done through the characters of Beatrice and Margaret, with their outspoken nature and Beatrice's seemingly unconventional outlook on life, but he does not cross these boundaries. As is seen in Act 4 scene 1 in which Shakespeare reflects and reinforces the separate roles 16th century society has created for males and females when Beatrice proclaims â€Å"O that I were a man! With Beatrice being the main character to challenge the conventional role of a woman, she – of all characters – being the one to say this, shows that there are still restraints put in place by society on things seen as acceptable for women to do. Beatrice repeats this line several times, interrupting Benedick with more of her self pitying rant every time he tries to defend his reasons for objecting to killing Claudio. This can be seen as giving Beatrice, an heir of ‘damsel in distress' a conventional and necessary role in romantic comedy, which contrasts with her character's less conventional role as a woman in the society she is in. Also in this scene, Shakespeare uses dramatic irony, when Claudio says â€Å"you seem to me as Dian on her orb† saying that Hero seems innocent, and pure, but he continues to say â€Å"but you are more intemperate in your blood† saying that he has realised Hero is not as she first appears and sees her more as someone who sleeps around. The audience, of course, knows this is not true. But the use of the dramatic irony here portrays the two sides of a woman, and shows how much Leonato's reputation lies on Hero's actions and status. Hero is a character that at first glance seems insignificant in the sense that she is rarely given opinions or a chance to speak. However the role that she plays is vital to romantic comedy as the young, innocent, female. This necessity of female characters to the plot and genre of the play despite their portrayal as being inferior to men is what is ironic in Much Ado About Nothing.

Me negaron la visa, ¿cuándo puedo volver a solicitarla

Si le negaron una solicitud de visa no inmigrante para EE.UU., como la de turista, estudiante, intercambio, etc puede volver a solicitarla cuando haya cambiado la circunstancia que provocà ³ su negacià ³n, aunque algunos consulados  exigen que, ademà ¡s, pasen al menos seis meses entre la negacià ³n y nueva peticià ³n. Si nada ha cambiado, la nueva solicitud volverà ¡ a ser rechazada. Si se desea tener à ©xito en su tramitacià ³n y evitar pagar la cuota  una y otra vez sin à ©xito  se debe empezar por saber cuà ¡l es la causa del problema. Es decir,  saber la razà ³n por la que la visa no fue aprobada. Esto aplica tanto en los casos en los que se solicita la visa por primera vez como cuando se pide porque la que se ha tenido ha sido revocada o cancelada. A partir de ahà ­ se sabrà ¡ si se puede volver a aplicar con posibilidades reales de obtener la aprobacià ³n. Causas de negacià ³n visa no inmigrante para EE.UU. Hay dos grandes categorà ­as por las que se niega o cancela la visa: por ser inelegible o por ser inadmisible. Ser inelegible quiere decir que no se cumplen los requisitos de la visa que se solicita. Ser inadmisible quiere decir que no se cumplen los requerimientos establecidos en las leyes migratorios para poder ingresar a Estados Unidos. Para obtener una visa de turista, conservarla e ingresar a EE.UU. hay que cumplir al mismo tiempo los requisitos que convierte a un extranjero en elegible y en admisible. Tanto el oficial consular como el oficial migratorio en un paso migratorio de los Estados Unidos puede decidir que no se cumplen y denegar la visa o cancelarla. Negacià ³n de la visa por ser inelegible y quà © hacer Cuando un oficial consular niega una solicitud de visa no inmigrante, la causa mà ¡s comà ºn es por ser inelegible.  Si es asà ­, en el papel que entrega el oficial consular despuà ©s de la entrevista rechazando la aprobacià ³n de la visa aparecerà ¡ el nà ºmero: 214(b). Las  causas que convierten a una persona extranjera en inelegible  son muy variadas. Es importante conocer la razà ³n exacta y corregirla. Porque si las circunstancias no han cambiado,  el consulado negarà ¡ de nuevo la peticià ³n y  se perderà ¡ el dinero  abonado en concepto de arancel, que nunca se puede recuperar. Por ejemplo, si la razà ³n es que no se han probado suficientemente lazos econà ³micos y/o familiares en el lugar de residencia se tiene que producir un cambio para que la nueva peticià ³n de visa tenga posibilidad de prosperar. Cabe destacar que esta es la causa mà ¡s frecuente por la que no se aprueban las visas de turista y las de estudiante y que afecta especialmente a las personas jà ³venes, sin familia propia, y que no tienes sueldo fijo o que no tienen patrimonio o hipoteca, etc. Otra causa de negacià ³n de la visa relativamente comà ºn es la de tener pendiente una aplicacià ³n de la tarjeta de residencia. En estos casos la solicitud de una visa de turista o de estudiante, por ejemplo, se aprueba en casos excepcionales. No se puede pedir un perdà ³n, tambià ©n conocido como permiso o como waiver si la causa de que se rechazase la peticià ³n de la visa es por ser inelegible. Simplemente, hay que cumplir con ese requisito. Ademà ¡s, muy aconsejable no hacer comentarios incorrectos durante la entrevista en el consulado, por ejemplo, enfadarse con malas palabras cuando se informa que la visa ha sido negada,  ya que puede ir a la documentacià ³n sobre el solicitante de visa y perjudicarle cuando mà ¡s tarde la vuelve a solicitar. Negacià ³n de la visa no inmigrante por inadmisibilidad Ademà ¡s de las causas de negacià ³n de una visa no inmigrante por ser inelegible, tambià ©n puede ser denegada o cancelada por una causas de inadmisibilidad, destacando, entre ellas: Estancia ilegal previa ya podrà ­a aplicar el castigo de los 3 y de los 10 aà ±os.Deportacià ³n Expulsià ³n inmediata.Fraude al utilizar un pasaporte, tarjeta de residencia o visa falsos.Condena por drogas u otros delitos, incluyendo violencia domà ©stica Esta es una lista de 22 causas de inadmisibilidad. Cada causa lleva  aparejada un castigo. Es decir, segà ºn la razà ³n por la que la visa fue negada no se aprobarà ¡ una peticià ³n hasta que pase cierto tiempo previamente determinado o, en casos extremos, nunca.   Si bien no todo està ¡ perdido y en supuestos concretos se podrà ¡ solicitar un perdà ³n, tambià ©n conocido como waiver. Tendrà ¡ que indicarlo asà ­ el oficial consular que decide la negacià ³n de la visa. Ademà ¡s, estos casos de solicitud de perdones no son fà ¡ciles y siempre es conveniente asesorarse previamente con un abogado migratorio reputado y con experiencia, tanto para pedir el perdà ³n, si existe esa posibilidad, como para pedir la visa en primer lugar cuando se sabe que puede surgir un problema por una causa de inadmisibilidad. De esta manera serà ­a posible presentarse preparado para la entrevista y saber quà © puede preguntar el oficial consular y quà © se debe responder. Quà © hacer cuando se tiene un castigo En casos como presencia ilegal previa en Estados Unidos por mà ¡s de seis meses, expulsià ³n inmediata o deportacià ³n existe un castigo que impide regresar mientras no ha pasado el tiempo impuesto. Como se ha mencionado en el apartado anterior, en ocasiones muy concretas es posible solicitar un perdà ³n para obtener una visa no inmigrante. Esta solicitud de perdà ³n debe ser sugerida por el oficial consular cuando deniega la solicitud de la visa. Si se obtiene, se puede solicitar de nuevo la visa y obtenerla, aunque nada està ¡ garantizado. La otra opcià ³n es dejar pasar el tiempo de castigo y despuà ©s solicitar la visa. En este supuesto tambià ©n hay un problema grave y es que si bien ya yo aplica el castigo el oficial consular puede denegar la visa por otra causa: inelegible. Y es que frecuentemente el oficial encargado de examinar una solicitud de visa se inclina a no aprobarla en los casos en los que anteriormente se ha estado en Estados Unidos y ha habido algà ºn tipo de problemas. Por ejemplo, en el caso de una persona que estuvo ilegalmente previamente en el paà ­s existe la sospecha de que puede volver a hacerlo. En estos casos la visa serà ¡ negada. Cabe destacar que es suficiente con la sospecha. En otras palabras, el cumplimento del tiempo de castigo no garantiza la obtencià ³n de la visa. En estos casos el solicitante debe demostrar lazos extraordinariamente fuertes de carà ¡cter econà ³mico, laboral y familiar a su paà ­s para disipar cualquier duda que pueda surgir sobre sus intenciones en Estados Unidos, en caso de conseguir la visa. Quà © hacer cuando se desconoce causa negacià ³n de visa Es importante saber la razà ³n por la que la solicitud fue rechazada por el consulado.Si se desconoce el motivo, siempre se puede pedir un  rà ©cord de inmigracià ³n. En ocasiones, serà ¡ necesario solicitarlo a mà ¡s de una agencia ya que el historial de una persona  puede estar depositado en diferentes departamentos. Puntos clave: volver a solicitar visa despuà ©s de rechazo de solicitud Para tener à ©xito en la solicitud de una visa no inmigrante, como la de turista o estudiante, despuà ©s de que la primera peticià ³n hubiera sido rechazada es necesario que se haya producido un cambio en las circunstancias del solicitante. Si todo sigue igual, la nueva peticià ³n serà ¡ de nuevo rechazada. Algunos consulados, ademà ¡s, imponen una espera de 6 meses entre el rechazo de la solicitud y la nueva peticià ³n.Las visas no inmigrantes pueden ser rechazadas porque el solicitante es inelegible o inadmisible.La causa mà ¡s comà ºn para no ser elegible es no demostrar lazos econà ³micos, sociales y familiares fuertes en el paà ­s de residencia.Las causas de inadmisibilidad pueden llevar aparejado un castigo. Mientras no se cumple, la visa no serà ¡ aprobada, excepto que se pueda obtener un perdà ³n, tambià ©n conocido como waiver o permiso.Incluso despuà ©s de haber cumplido el tiempo de castigo puede ser difà ­cil obtener la visa, aunque no imposible. La razà ³n se debe no ya a causa de inadmisibilidad sino a una de elegibilidad.Si se desconoce la causa por la que una visa es rechazada, e posible pedir una copia el rà ©cord migratorio. Este artà ­culo no es asesorà ­a legal. Sà ³lo tiene valor informativo.