Should "we" defend culture?

[Capitalist Octopus]

I'm having thoughts about culture lately, and trying to formulate them.
How do you feel about cultures and the need to protect them?
If you're familiar with Quebec politics, think of the claims always made here that French needs to be protected etc etc.

Or, think of shark fin soup bans. Some people defend it by claiming it's part of the culture of those doing it, so a group of white citizens banning it is racist (I don't agree with this but).

I think a clear statement I've heard on the matter is that culture isn't a sentient being, so if said culture puts sentient beings into harm, it does not deserve to be defended.

Any thoughts?

[Hermes]

This is probably a really stupid answer, so apologies.

But since culture is always changing, what exactly is the point of attempting to defend it?

Which isn't to say that we should consciously attempt to 'destroy' all culture and replace it with some mono-culture, but recognizing that it will change of itself.

[Ocean Seal]

We shouldn't get all sentimental about it, but when its convenient (ie: preventing chauvinism and the destruction of the environment) I don't see why not.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I've read somewhere that we should allow people to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm another human-being or coincides with his/her needs/wishes.

I personaly am a big fan of cultural differences and would like to keep them in tact.
But (always a but) whenever a culture is changed or disappears because of it having no people holding it up, or just by 'natural' selection, so be it. Let it disappear.
Live and let die.

If in the year 2250 (example) almost everyone is atheist and the last person who isn't is muslim (or whatever other religion), why try to keep up that culture (or religion for this example) if noone is interrested? Just keep it in the history books. Don't dress up and do roleplay for the simple fact that you "don't want this bit of culture to dissapear".

Also, when two cultures merge, a new one is formed. It's the age of technology! I think we will end the world with a homo-supremis, a ultimate human. All races are blended into one, all cultures too. Only difference we'll have (if i am to belive millions of years of evolution) is the male/female thing.

Should cultures be merged into one supreme? Please not!
Are we going to stop it? I think not.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What do you mean by culture? creative arts and food, or sexism and ethnic cleansing?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

First of all, I think radicals need to rethink culture.

Culture, is the sum of the social relationships in a society. Naturally, it will be a reflection of the material conditions that exist in this society. This is called base and superstructure, the material base and the superstructure have a dialectical relationship. While the base creates the hegemonic ideology within a society (What is referred to as "common sense"), this ideology can become a physical force of it's self insofar as it is acted upon, as Mao said in his seminal work on dialectical materialism On Contradiction that while the material determines the mental, the mental is a material force of it's own. Racism, which resulted out of the material conditions in early settler colonialism (American slavery, ect) countuines it's existence because as a hegemonic ideology it becomes a force on it's own, and in the case of contemporary capitalism, a market.

Capitalism, uses hegemonic ideology for it's own profit. In every sphere of life there is a sitcom "poking fun" at oppressed minorities, a song perpetuating sexism,a comedian mocking transsexuals. Capitalism has created an entire industry to feed off of reactionary ideology in the feudal and colonial era, and having an interest in maintaining it's profits, perpetuates this ideology as much as possible. In this way capitalism expresses it's self in every social relationship. It infects every nook and cranny of our civilization and every one who inhabits it.

Capitalism is not just a mode of production, it is a hegomonic ideology that shapes the very way we think and molds every relationship. In this manner, I am a capitalist just like everyone else in this world is a capitalist. Capitalism isn't a political ideology, it is a way of life that we all engage in. Changing the mode of production will do little to end capitalism, what is needed is a revolution to radically define how humans interact with their kin.

So to answer your question, no culture doesn't need to be "preserved". It needs to be overthrown.

[Lee Van Cleef]

This thread is a perfect example of why leftists must also be students of anthropology.

Culture is more than religion, or food, or opera, or "dressing up." Culture is language, laws, kinship systems, and just about everything else that is socially constructed. Culture even has an effect on how a particular economic system may manifest itself within a community.

Culture is fundamental to our existence as human beings. It is the lens through which we see our world. It is what makes us who we are. Every child that is born is enculturated into certain norms, beliefs, and language. Indeed, our own culture also limits our ability to see and understand beyond the familiar.


But since culture is always changing, what exactly is the point of attempting to defend it?This is a good question, but it's important to remember that cultural change is not equivalent to cultural extinction. One of the best examples of this are the !Kung people of southern Africa. 60 years ago they were still hunter-gatherers, roaming the desert and hunting with spears.

These people have fought hard to retain their own cultural identity in the face of growing national hegemonic forces. They have asserted their autonomy by settling down as small-plot farmers in small communities with their own schools. Life has changed dramatically for these people over recent decades, but they are now much more free than when they were almost starved into extinction by western NGOs who attempted to force them back into their "true way of life" during the 1980s and had their lands marked as a wildlife preserve where farming and firearms were banned.

Defending culture has nothing to do with forcing people to "dress up" in traditional costume or "roleplay" some ancient traditions. It is about respecting the autonomy of communities, especially those of disenfranchised minorities who exist within the confines of a hegemonic nation-state. These groups inhabit what some have dubbed the "fourth world" - which includes the indigenous peoples of North America and Australia, among others. The Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico are a perfect example of revolutionaries fighting for their own right to live free of Mexican hegemony.

Naturally, unique cultures exist at the helm of nation-states as well. Forcing, say, Vietnam or Yemen, to adopt a program of intense westernization is no different from attempts to erase the Lakota or Cherokee in the name capitalist "modernization."

I think it's a massive error to lump all of culture in as part of the "superstructure." The entire base/superstructure analogy is a gross oversimplification of Marxism, and this completely ignores the fact that culture can have a substantial impact on the specifics of the mode of production itself, even if it can still be lumped in with capitalism or socialism on the most fundamental level.

The biggest challenge of the internationalist program is how to build a truly multicultural society. The "monoculture" myth is nothing more than a bigger, badder version of modern nation-state hegemony that oppresses minority cultures. As leftists, it is vital for us to understand that if we want to unite the workers of the world, we must be able to understand, communicate, and respect one another first.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think it's a massive error to lump all of culture in as part of the "superstructure." The entire base/superstructure analogy is a gross oversimplification of Marxism, and this completely ignores the fact that culture can have a substantial impact on the specifics of the mode of production itself, even if it can still be lumped in with capitalism or socialism on the most fundamental level.

No offense but I feel like you misunderstood my position, I postulated a dialectical relationship between the base and the superstructure where the two co-determine eachother, I never promoted a mechanical view of base and superstructure that is common amoungst the Orthodoxy.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I don't think that culture should be or even can be defended from modernity and social change. The perceived connection of 'culturalist' social movements to the past is usually imaginary at any rate. And inasmuch as it plays into the hands of reactionary social movements in the global South (political Islam, the religious resurgence in Africa, Hindu nationalism), it becomes a banner under which fascist movements such as the Tea Party and the racist parties in Europe organise too.

But this does not invalidate the right of subjugated peoples and nations to restore their dignity and fight for the right to defend their language and heritage like everybody else. A right long since taken away from them by imperialism and racism. This is something the Tuareg rebels have long fought for and demanded in Northern Mali and I think we should respect that.

[Lobotomy]

While I don't strongly disagree with the general consensus of this thread, I think it is worth pointing out that most of us on this forum are westerners, and the western ruling class has a way of imposing western culture in non-western places, so we are biased because we are not the ones who are having our culture threatened. just thought I'd put that out there so that people recognize their bias.