Originally posted by
[email protected] 18, 2006 05:42 am
If you're a materialist, then you recognize that material circumstances dictate all human behavior. I'm not saying it's a simple equation--in fact, it's probably far too complex to really dissect without knowing the exact circumstances at any given point in human history--but I am saying that it dictates culture and politics.
Culture didn't appear out of thin air, no matter how much any of us would have liked it to do so. Different cultures arose differently precisely because the material circumstances that dictated their behaviors were different. Incans didn't have hundreds of corn dishes because they just loved corn soooooo much; they had so many dishes because it was the material world in which they found themselves. The same goes for any aspect of culture: it might not be as obvious in some respects, especially if the material circumstances that bore one aspect of a given culture have changed. We don't spontaneously make up our culture.
And yes, a culture and its political institutions can indeed affect the material circumstances; if I didn't know that already, I wouldn't call myself a communist. It's exactly what we're all betting on.
I agree. With many aspects of society, material circumstances are indeed the influential and dictating forces. At the very least, people reflect their surroundings in their culture.
Culture is an integration of many weaving factors; you can't change one without changing the whole. In fact, I don't think *we* can change them at all, at least by our own will. The change of culture is a natural process, and one that is nigh impossible to dictate by decree or force. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge about world history should know this by now.
I'm not so sure. Japanese culture is still Japanese culture without people impaling themselves in the stomach with swords; widows don't immolate themselves anymore, but Indian culture is quite intact; the fact that girls don't have their feet mutilated doesn't mean Chinese culture is changed. Those examples were all instances where people (often within the culture) changed (some of) the unacceptable aspects of the culture. As another example, activists have replaced FGM with a symbolic ritual (which does nothing to the girl). Making a culture better through eradication of inexplicable aspects is a natural process.
Define "ignorant to them." Ignorant to what? Wife beatings? Genital mutilation? Slavery, by wages or otherwise? Belief in tooth fairies? Shooting your neighbors? Clubbing visitors on the head?
I'm quite aware of the reactionary practices of many cultures, and I'm quite aware of progressive aspects of many different cultures as well. The problem, however, is that the term "multiculturalism" implies a b lanket acceptance of cultural practices, however abhorrent those practices may be. Our goal should not be to accept existing cultures; our goal should be to integrate the good or neutral aspects into a culture that is acceptable.
If one does not understand something, one can scarcely change it. Therefore, it is important for people to understand why something is in order to make it different. Why is it that this people clubs visitors? If we know the answer, we can do something about it; if we don't, we'll end up clubbing them over the head.
"Multiculturalism" is a very blanket term. However, this simply means we need to be careful about the application of the idea. I don't disagree with your definition, but I think the goal is to accept cultures while doing away with the reactionary aspects of them (IMO, the culture stays the same, while the reactionary aspects are ended).
I will not accept the machismo of many latin american cultures, even though I've no problem with anyone that comes from a hispanic culture. If they shed the reactionary aspects of that given culture, then culture really doesn't matter to me. But for the most part, at this given point in human history, a great many people should be able to transcend the reactionary elements into which they are born, and if they don't I refuse to accept them in the name of multiculturalism.
Yes, I very much agree. The one thing here is that it's hard to hold people who have very little education and very little money and resources accountable. Of course they are at fault for perpetuating these ills, but as you said, material circumstances do impact this. At any rate, machismo (along with racism) must be ended, which will only improve Latin American culture.
Nor did I claim it cheapened any culture (nor was I really talking about taco bell, but that's another matter). Yes, sometimes it is superficial; but would you call a derivation of marxism by an African tribe "superficial?" Of course you wouldn't, and it's no different with food. The food from one culture is prepared under the guise of another culture, and it really creates an entirely different product altogether.
Can people eat something without their culture taking it on? It can be culturally adapted, as with potatos and Ireland, but this is not always the case.
If by "multiculturalism" you mean that I should accept the cooking practices of chileans, then sure, I agree full-heartedly. I see no reason why those practices shouldn't be accepted. But if you mean I should accept the political authoritarianism that has plagued Russia's people for a thousand years and is deeply entrenched in their culture, then no: I will not accept that part of their culture. Peter the great was just as much a bastard as Stalin, and I'm not going to encourage that trend.
The first example cited is a cultural aspect which is not reactionary. The second is reactionary, and so that is one major difference. Also, one can accept Russian culture while objecting to the authoritarian mindset. More importantly, someone can be a part of Russian culture while being anti-authoritarian, and since such a position does not isolate them from the culture, the culture is not inherently authoritarian. In the same way, an American who doesn't like hotdogs and baseball isn't automatically separated from "American culture".
Yes, you will; and if you look at the history of that area over the past few hundreds of years, you'll see that the local culture is slowly displaced and taken over by an emergent trans-culture. I never once said that cultures do not exist today--it's foolish to suggest as such. I'm saying that over the course of history, local cultures have been replaced with more encompassing cultures--a blend of many different cultures--and as globalization continues, so too will the displacement of local cultures by a single global culture. I have by no means said that this has already happened, merely that it's been in the process for a very long time. I'm unsure as to why people find this a difficult concept?
While there is an emergence of trans-cultures, the fact of the matter is that regional differences remain. Furthermore, divergent development of culture also occurs. I think these instances are just as important. For example, Persian culture has never merged with Indian culture, but the two regions have always been exchanging cultural aspects (at least Persia and Northern India). Simply look at all the different strains of Islam, they adapted a big part of Arabian "culture", but they all developed different forms of it. I do think this indicates that there will be no one "global culture", but the exchange of many different cultures and new influences.
Do you realize how many languages were spoken in Europe before the Roman Empire? Do you realize that most languages in Europe are now of two varieties, latin-based or germanic (or a blending of the two--!)?
What about before that? Most were Celtic, Germanic (with some Greek and Latin in the south) or a mix of the two. However, this doesn't mean that there wasn't diversity in language. Likewise, that most languages fall under two/three catagories doesn't mean they aren't diverse. If you doubt this, look at India or China, where even though they have been politically unified, a great amount of linguistic diversity exists and will continue to exist (a common tongue does not negate diversity).
Separate cultures (and languages) thrive in isolation, and this is exactly what happened after the fall (or rather the shift in location) of Rome. However, throughout all of history, separate cultures have never thrived in an interconnected world. Wherever cultures run into one another, you have intermixing until they become one general culture. Sometimes, there's resistance by the ruling class of one culture against the other culture--in fact, you'll see this in the United States today--but as they would say in Star Trek (which if you know the quote, you should realize how hegemonic our cultures have become): resistance is futile.
Europe has opened up to their cultures as well as others, and yet Europe is still very diverse in many ways. That's not to say they haven't influenced one another, but there isn't an all-encompasing "European culture" (far from it), even with the EU and the like. In an age of globalization, it isn't always guaranteed or easy to hold onto culture, but it is beyond important.
I find it very odd that people don't like the idea of a global culture, or want to fight against it. Until the world over has roughly the same values, mores and standards, we will always fight against one another instead of live in harmony. It's the only way any form of global solidarity can ever emerge.
A.) Diverse peoples can, have and will live in harmony.
B.) Diversity does not hinder solidarity.
C.) Sterilization is worse than infrequent conflict (IMO).
D.) In diversity, there is strength (populations evolve through diversity).
Capitalism is doing exactly what it should be doing, from a marxist standpoint. We can whine about it all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a normal and mostly inevitable process. It happened long before capitalism, and will continue within the confines of capitalism and beyond until we all have the same standard values. I'm saying here that capitalism simply accelerates the process, just like it accelerates the progress of technological evolution. A constant revolution in the means of production becomes a constant revolution in the material circumstances becomes a constant revolution in culture and so on.
I don't agree. Communism should not be homogenous (culturally). Diversity is an advantage, not something to do away with eagerly. Justice is cherished in every culture, we don't need common values to have this. Plus, I don't think I need to go over the theme (or every individual story) of standing up against oppression and for justice that exists in practically every culture, so common values are there already.
That's my opinion.
And once again, I've not said that the entirety of a culture should be discarded or accepted. I've been saying that multiculturalism often conflicts with even mildly progressive ideas, and as such is not a very good policy for judgment. If there are good aspects of a culture, then sure: accept them. But don't accept the culture as a whole--whether it be your own culture or one foreign to you--because cultures as a whole today are not progressive.
Accept what's good, reject what's bad--and whaddyaknow, when enough people do this, suddenly a decent culture emerges worldwide.
I agree with you (for the most part), although I think that when you do this, you get more diversity as more cultures are accepted. That, however, is ultimately a minor point.