Culture, War, the Internet, and Globalization, are we making history? am I naive?

Great Debates
1

Okay, I haven’t slept in two days (the French put the last week of the semester AFTER Christmas vacation, which sort of denegrates the idea of the “vacation”).

I’ve got a pretty complex question that I think is crutial to just about every big “thing” (war, business, religion, etc.) going on in the world right now, and I think some people might find my conclusions absurd or angering. So I want to say from the get go, if something offends your idea of tradition/patriotism/culture/etc., I apologize. Also, if something just seems plain offensive in general, please give me the benefit of the doubt and explain why it’s offensive.

I don’t mean to offend anyone.

In the last three years, I’ve come to believe that **different “cultures” are just like different color/brand cell-phones. That’s to say that they may have all sorts of little bells and whistles, but in the end their end is the same: to communicate. ** Though they seem different and varied, under the surface they’re basically the same and exally effective (and in some areas equally ineffective).

This comes from studying Western Civilization, African politics, Asian history, world religions, some middle eastern history, etc.; along with my personally readings on globalization, economics, world “cultures,” international developement; my personal travels all over Eastern and Western Europe (I know, very limited); living in Paris with my Taiwanese girlfriend; constant interaction with friends from every habitable continent and most every large sub-region.

The thing is, like I said, this has all been in the last three years (except for a large part of the religious studies part, I went to religious schools as a kid), but the more I travel/study/interact, I see similarity, not difference, in everything. When I read philosophical texts, I’m often reminded of other texts from completely different time-periods. For instance, when I studied deconstructionism and postmodernism --Derrida, Said, Benjamin, etc–I didn’t find the writings much different from those of the Enlightenment–Locke, Hume, Kant, etc.–whom I often found very similar to Epicureus, Socrates, etc.

I think Leo Strauss tried to say something like this, and people said he was crazy. Maybe, I am too.

Anyway, the way I look at it, “cultures” in themselves are langauge (they are also built on different languages…it’s easier to explain in French because there is the difference in “langue” and “langage”), because they are meant to communicate certain ideals, precepts, beliefs, etc. All communication is langauge, or vice versa. If they are langauge, then they can be interpreted (not translated), which means that eventually every “culture” can have some sort of understanding of every other “culture.”

I use quotes on “culture” because I believe less and less that there are specific “cultures” (I know that might seem crazy), moreso that there is an idea of Culture. Take it back to the langauge idea, and the French terms. In French (I hope this is right, because I just wrote a paper using these terms) the word “langue” (tongue) is a specific language, like english or chinese, whereas “langage” is basically the concept of language, all communication. Okay, using the same comparison, what is normally called a culture (French culture, Indian culture, world “cultures”) is a langue, which is part of Culture, the langage. From here, I will use culture, small “c”, for the former, and Culture for the latter, the “langage.”

**If culture can be compared to language, then there is an idea of nearly universal similarity and difference. **By this, I mean that, all different langues exist in langage, which is to say that I can interpret ideas from chinese to english (assuming I know the structures of the two langues). So, in the same sense, could I not interpret cultures in their universal relation to Culture, assuming I was familiar with their structures as well? (This is where it gets a little sticky, because I don’t know how better to explain that)

Just like among* langues *, there are certain ideas that don’t exist in cultures, but they can be explained in terms of things that ideas that do exist in that culture, then they can be adopted by the second culture. Just like, for instance, in language, the word “Admiral” was taken from Arabic and the word “Schadenfreude” comes from German. Both, I suppose, were brought into english because there was no word for those ideas before. Could this same phenomenon happen among cultures? Does it already happen? (I would say yes, but I can’t think of an example right off the top of my head)

Okay, I think that’s all for cultures, but this is all leading up to the big one Globalization.

For quite some time (ok, only about two years, but I’m only 23, so that’s a long time), I thought that globalization was a horrible (group of) thing(s: offshoring, corruption, propping up dictators, sweatshops, etc. etc. etc.) But in the last, say, seven months, I’ve started to see it as something amazing and good for everyone in it’s end (no I didn’t talk to anyone in the government).

Bear with me, I explained this to a friend of mine from South Korea last week while talking about the recent riots there, and she told me flat out that I was naive. After explaining myself, she agreed with me (for the most part).

I’ve read a lot about international economics: Stiglitz, A. Sen, A. Smith, Keynes, Hayek, Sachs, Bhagwati, and so on, and I think that many people focus too much on what is corrupt in globalization (not those writers, but those we see protesting on tv). There is a difference in there being a flaw in the process and there being a flaw in globalization itself, right? **Actually, I think the porblem is that many people think * we are already * completely globalized. **I think that’s where the problem lies. If we look at it as something that is, and has been for the last severl hundred years, been a work in progress, then I think that changes to a large extent the debate.

(Keep in mind, this is another area that I think people might take me wrong…or, maybe I should keep that in mind)

I don’t think there should be any question whether globalization is a good or a bad thing. ** In the end (if we make it there…I’ll get to that later), we will see that globalization is a liberator, an equilizer (yes, I dare even say “flattener”), an enlightener, and a peacemaker. **That is, once we are globalized. I think that, much to the surprise of most Americans, globalization will equalize countries, thus there no longer being any one hyper- or super-power, but rather regional powers (though that’s hard to conceive since place doesn’t have much to do with anything anymore). We can already look at the obvious, China and India, but also others, I believe, like Singapore (which is number 1 in technology in the world right now, I believe, or it was last year…the US dropped four spots the last time I looked).

The idea of liberation and enlightenment brings me to the internet. I have come to view the internet as what the printing press was for the 18th century (though, yes, invented much earlier). The internet (perhaps we can include satellite television as well) provides contrapuntal views on every issue (at least for English speakers). We are instantly privy to all points of view when something happens. Information is constantly flowing, like the pamphleteers of the 18th century, but to an exponentially larger degree. Dictatorial countries have horrible times trying to control their populations when they have access to the internet (China, for instance, though they’ve done a good job, have not been able to completely block out the outside world). One could look at Iran and Syria as well. I was watching a documentary recently about Syria, and they showed a rooftop view of the city, every single house had a satellite dish, being television in from around the world. Also, there have been several articles published on Iran’s youth having secret parties and whatnot, articles saying the youth “love Western culture.”

Is this different from the singing rebellions in Estonia when the Estonians were able to get finnish TV and saw the outside world and wanted it?

That is the liberator aspect.

The enlightening part has been referenced, I believe (hope) we could see a revitilation of enlightenment ideas, but on a world scale, due to the way information can travel.

The last idea was the peacemaker. **Correct me if I’m wrong, but Keynes and Smith both said that globalization would end (large-scale) wars. ** Then, not long after, everyone said, “Fuck that. Not one, but TWO WORLD WARS!” Now, there’s the present “mess o’ potamia” dibacle. Globalization doesn’t seem to have even curbed wars, rather it seems to have amplified them. But, I want to go back to earlier, when I said that I don’t think we’re truly globalized. Is that relevant?

Also, one could look at the extreme economic costs this war has caused not just for the US.

Where do I go from here?

Oh, well, the whole point of this is that I’m really hopeful about the way things are going (that sounds horrible in light of the things going on, take your pick), but keep in mind, I mean the things that have been mentioned (sharing of information, etc.)

**I want to reiterate that I don’t have some sunny, unrealistic picture of globalization, I’ve just started to see it in a sense that the good could outweigh (eventually, lower seriously) the negative. **I’m fully aware that globalization has it’s horrible aspects (e.g. 9/11 commision report, chapter 11, rough quote, “In a sense, [the terrorists] were more globalized than we were”). I still think that working for transparency in IMF/World Bank, Fair Trade in place of Free trade, ending malaria, advocating democracy (at home and abroad, and not trying to install it) etc. are the things that people like me who believe in the good of globalization can do.

There is one BIG question too, is whether it’s already too late, as far as pollution is concerned. I don’t want to get in a war over water…

I had no idea that I would write this long, and there were other things I wanted to mention. Alas, my eyes are falling shut and I don’t remember the other things. I hope some people take the time to read all of this.

2

Communication is simply the act of transmitting information that influences the behavior of another organism. We wouldn’t argue that a rattlesnake has a culture but clearly its rattle has altered my behavior. Manners of communication vary from culture to culture but the purpose of culture isn’t specifically communication.

The function of culture can be said to be that of cohesion. A common culture means that we’re all on the same page when it comes to language, how to handle resources, mating, and what rules we need to follow.

It is crazy. I look at the universe and live my life in a way that is fundamentally different from certain Polynesian Islanders who take part in the Kula Ring. Likewise, both those Polynesians and I live our lives and view the world through fundamentally different eyes then reindeer herders in Norway or Bushman in Africa.

Granted, cultures do change unless they’re dead, so as with language (which is just part of a culture and not the result of culture) we can import bits of their culture and incorporate them into our own. Just looking at the diets of Americans we can find influences from Asia, Europe, Indigenous people, Africa, etc. and this was before the so called age of “globalization.”

Marc

3

I don’t believe I agree with any of that.

All cultures are not the same. This seems so self-evident that I hardly know how to go about refuting it apart form pointing out that it is self evident.

Perhaps a better way of going about it would be for you to tell us why you believe that the indigenous culture of Tonga and the indigenous culture of Northern Australia and the indigenous culture of Saxon England are all fundamentally the same. It’s hard to think of any fundamental points shared by just those three cultures. They have no common economics or religion or morality or legal code or code of familial relationships. Those things aren’t “bells and whistles”, those are some of the most fundamental tenets of culture, yet you claim they are all the same. Can you present us with some objective evidence or reasons as to why you think they are the same?

Nor do the vast majority of cultures have any ‘end’, in the sense that you use the word to mean ‘objective to be completed’. Can you name the ‘end’ towards which US culture in the last 100 years has been working, with some sort of objective evidence or reasoning to support the claim? I know that you think it has been working towards an goal of communication, but communication with whom? And how has it been working towards that goal? Why do you say that culture is working towards communication rather than working towards reproduction or the exploitation of resources or any of the plethora of other factors universal to human culture? It seems like you have randomly selected one of the universal process in human culture and declared without reason that this is the goal of all human culture.

As for what you see in reading texts, there are inevitable commonalities in all things produced on this planet. That does not validate a conclusion that all things are very similar. Of course every text will remind you of every other text, that’s because all texts are produced by humans. Human brains haven’t changed at all in the last 40, 00 years or so, so it’s hardly surprising that the basic pattern of everything written in the last 5000 years will already have been thought of before to some extent.

If you look for similiarities of course you will see similarities. I can find similarities between a post-grad calculus textbook and the process of DNA replication in bacteria. That doesn’t mean that those two means information distribution serve the same purpose or represent the same culture. You need more than similarities between texts written by the same species before you can conclude that culture has no major influence on those texts. What you need to give your thesis any meaning is to designate some objective standards by which other shave judged them to be different and see whether such standards are significantly different between culture. And of course in many cases they are.

All communication is not language. Trees communicate with insects about the pollination readiness of their flowers using simple chemical compounds. That is not language. Or if it is, and your claim is correct that any language that can be interpreted is evidence of shared culture, then organisms belonging to different kingdoms share a culture. This seems so obviously nonsense that it hardly bears comment. A tree has neither culture nor language despite an indisputable ability to communicate.
You then begin to cloud the issue by trying to separate “Culture” and ‘culture”. This comes dangerously close to equivocation, and I think may be large part of the reason why your thesis falls flat. As you yourself pointed out English already has a perfectly valid word “tongue” to refer to a specific language. It also has words like ‘dialect” and “idiom”. I really suggest you use thew word idiom for your small “C” culture from here on in.

You then claim that what is normally called a culture is no more than an idiom, which is part of Culture, the culture. This once again seems self-evidently untrue. Perhaps you could explain for example how civil wars could ever start if simply sharing an idiom is sufficient for two groups to be considered the exact same culture. You will be hard pressed to suggest that cultural differences leading to full-blown war are simply bells and whistles. Consider the Russian revolution for example. By your argument the culture of the aristocracy of Moscow and the Bolsehvik peasants of the Ukraine were identical because they share the same idiom.

Of course you can interpret all cultures WRT language if you choose to do so. You can also interpret all art in WRT “Gilligans Island” if you wish. You can also interpret all science WRT “The Bible”. That doesn’t mean that such interpretations are valid, relevant or provide any useful information. To show how silly this is I will return to the example of a tree communicating with a wasp, something that you have claimed is language. According to you culture can be validly compared to language because you can interpret ideas from chemical signal to English. So according to your reasoning you could validly interpret the idiom of a tree in some supposed universal relation to culture.

Unfortunately you have tied yourself in knots by utilising playing fast and loose with the definitions of words like ‘language” and “communication” and “culture”. If all communication is language then trees have language. If being able to interpret communication and render it into English is evidence of a universal culture then trees and humans are just as much apart of universal culture as any two human tribes.

And if either of those assertions are not true your entire thesis falls flat. If communication occurs sans language then the universality of communication in human culture is irrelevant. And if being able to interpret from tree chemicals to English isn’t sign of a universal tree-human culture then an ability to interpret from Chinese to English isn’t sign of a universal human culture.

You then further confuse yourself by proclaiming that “among langues, there are certain ideas that don’t exist in cultures”. Yet just two paragraphs earlier you have proclaimed that ‘langue” and ‘culture” are the same thing. If langue and culture are the same thing then how can an idea exist in one that doesn’t exist in the other?

You then go on to present a lot of speculation on globalisation without much evidence. What you say could be true, but it’s so vague that it’s hard to be sure.

Your claim that the internet makes us privy to all points of view is quite obviously nonsense. Something like 80% of the world’s population doesn’t have any access at al to a computer. None whatsoever. That alone is enough to prove that the claim is nonsense.

Yes, it’s very relevant. At the time of WWI Europe the world wasn’t in any sense globalised. That was the very cause of the war and the reason why it lasted so long. There was some trade within Europe but in no ways were the European, much less the American and colonial, economies a single inseparable unit. Globalisation was somewhat closer leading up to WWII, but still in no way complete. Most notably Russia was pretty much economically isolated form the rest of the world while the German economy had been plundered for much of the preceeding 20 years rather than being an integrated part of the world economy.

4

First of all, you’re correct that my wording is often vague. That comes from my not being able to put what I’m thinking into words (which may prove some fault in my argument to begin with).

Anyway thanks for your input, but, to be honest, your perception of what I meant by some words wasn’t what I intended to convey. That’s not your fault, and, more so, it’s good for me because it helps me figure out exactly how to explain this concept.

Now, that is not to say you’re ever going to agree with me, and it’s possible (very possble) that I’m an idiot.

My point is not to equate cultures in the sense that one person from florida observing a “town meeting” with the Sames in the northern Sweden would say, “Hey, this is just like home.”

My point is more that, if one looks at the structures (the heirarchies, the interactions, the laws), one would most likely find that they’re very similar (in their desired purpose, in the perceived result, etc.) to the ones in the floridian idiom (note, I don’t use American culture, because even if you convince me I’m completely wrong, how are you going to explain to me what American culture is?). No, that doesn’t mean the Same have a “shoot first” law as in Florida. That’s as though I said the idea “I love you” exists in Chinese, and you responding “No, the word “love” doesn’t even exist in English!” Is it not?

There are particularities among cultures, that are due to environments. So, I would dare say that one looking at an indigenous island culture in South East Asia and an inland culture in the Carribean, they would be remarkably the same. The same for mountainous regions, ect.

You mention morality and religion, which is an interesting point. What is so different about their moralities is what I would ask. What I’ve found is that all morality stems from a sense of the laws of nature (yes, even in religion, something they even teach in catholic schools). They are meant to maintain a sense of order. Look at the ten commandments. What idiom says it’s alright to kill, to steal, etc? What other monotheistic religion says you can have more gods than Me?

There’s one stipulation here, you could say, “Well, the Mongols did a whole lot of killing, stealing, etc,” and maybe that’s a point.

Going on, when I look at religions that formed independent of one another, I see still similarities in teachings. For instance, if you take away the specific events that formed Buddhism and Christianity and just look at the teachings and the “morality.” What exactly is so different? Add Taoism, what’s so different?

One could say that I’m ignoring tribal idioms and their religions. No, I think if someone compared tribal religions in the same way (paying attention as well to environment) they would find the same thing.

I mean, look at teachings like, “And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter: This, monks, is called right speech.” That could be straight out of the Bible. This is straight out of the Bible, “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.”

Sure, I know it’s only one example.

Again, what is so different about general morality throughout the world? I just don’t get that. Who is supposed to steal? who is allowed to kill at will? Any permitted killing, from my understanding, in most religions is strictly confined to certain situations.

Furthermore, I would go on to say, what is the unified moral code WITHIN an idiom? So often in the context of talking about comparing idioms people often forget the difference WITHIN their idioms. This is actually one of the big points I’m trying to make. I’m not denying “difference,” I’m saying it’s not cultural. There are people that I’ve known whom I don’t understand at all, yet my girlfriend and I lived for two decades on opposite sides of the planet, in idioms that are “completely different,” but somehow we met and realized we had come to almost the exact same conclusion of about life, human nature, religion, etc.

So what is the united moral code that is particular to one idiom and not to another?

It’s funny, here in France, I’m constantly told, “Oh, well the French find that really rude.” Then, I ask another French person, and they say, “No, I’ve never heard of that being a problem.”

Cultures most certainly have an end, by that I means a purpose. It’s hard to think of it that way, because it’s not like somebody creates a culture. Cultures are molded over generations, but they form for reasons and have purposes. The purpose of culture is to explain the unexplainable (religion), to make daily life function in the most orderly fashion possible (morals), etc. I’m not saying cultures reach those ends, but that’s why cultures are always evolving, isn’t it?

Again, I would ask if you can tell me exactly what American culture is at all. When I was in langauge school in France, the teacher would often explain what “the French” do, then she would ask the chinese students, the russian, the korean, etc. to explain if they do something like that in their country. Then she would get to me, and I would say, “Of course we do that, we also do what the Chinese/russian/korean/etc. do.” Who’s culture then is America?

OK. But, I should have added Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Buddha, etc. in that part as well, because I feel the same about religious texts.

What do people call “difference” among idioms? Most often the difference is ostensible: they believe in (a) different god(s), they speak a different langauge, they, they don’t use toilet paper, they eat funny foods. I hope I’m not putting it too simply. What are the huge differences between idioms?

To the one’s I listed, I’d say: Do they worship a different God(s)? Is they’re langauge really different? Doesn’t everyone need to clean up after poo poo/caca/bienbien?

Perhaps I should clarify, communication as all that is “inter-human.”

I’ll get back to your culture/Culture thing below.

The revolution example is more class-related, is it not? Do you think that poor people have a different culture, or that poor people and rich people anywhere tend to have simlar characteristics that often at odds?

I’m not sure how to address that. As I said, I meant for this to be a strictly human subject. I (perhaps too boldly) infered that all communication is language, thinking it was pretty clear that we’re talking about people.

Again, don’t know what to say. That’s not to say you don’t have a point. I just have to think about it more.

It should have been, “Among langues, there are certain ideas that don’t have a label in other langues.” Like I said, I was tired, and, yes, my terminology was tripping me up. “Exist” was certainly not the word I was looking for either, however, with the examples I think you can see that. I think that is a relevant point that one thinks about things differently when there is a word given for a certain idea. The idea of Schadenfreude existed before we got the label from the German. If I meant that the idea didn’t exist in English, I wouldn’t have been able to explain it but in German.

This was really a question about globalization. I was hoping some anti-globalizers would step up and debate that aspect with me.

As far as evidence goes, I wouldn’t know where to start. I gave a list of authors I’ve read. If you’d like, I could make a more detailed list.

I could say that my “pro-globalization” revelation was this past summer, when I got the impression that the African continent was finally starting to get lots of attention (Live 8, Bono’s call for debt relief, Bill Gate’s Malaria campaign, Fair Trade, etc.). I also started to believe that it was getting harder for governments to take advantage of their people or others (more Americans questioning the war in Iraq, the Chinese having to succumb to protesters, etc.)

That’s all I can think of for the time being. If there’s a specific part that you would like me to give evidence for, it would be easier that way (I kind of thought that’s the way this would be, I thought people would say, "Hey, where do you get off saying something like that??)

The claim is by no means nonsense. I’m well aware that there’s a whole continent that for the most part has not ever even heard a dial-tone (70% of the world’s people have never heard a dialtone), much less seen a computer.

The only reason you could say it was nonsense is the fact that I said, “*All *points of view.” That’s a hyperbole, I appologize. Google used to say it has something like 8 billion pages (I think). You have to assume that about 7 billion of those pages are porn, then out of the last billion, how many of them are news/education/culture/art related? Probably much less than those that are commerce related. And much less than there are people in the world, so, ok, not ever point of view. Only there would you have a point.

That said, name me a region of the world that doesn’t have an english language news service with an internet link. Name me what region to which you cannot find multiple pages with up to date information which you can access instantly.

The point was in regard to the past. People are more connected than ever. If you want to find obscure Chinese traditions or ancient indian texts translated into english, you can find them.

Studying development of journalism in 18th century shows that the biggest catalyst for everything that happened was a result of one invention that facilitated the quick spread of information among a larger group of people. Now, the group who are “privy” to this information is exponentially larger, and the information is more copious.

Not to mention how many more people are literate these days than any other time in history.

The claim is not at all nonsense.

As far as Africa is concerned, I think that if people like Jeffrey Sachs are successful, Africa will leap-frog old technology to be connected within a couple of decades (if that) to the internet, which will bring a whole new richness to the international dialogue.

…

Now, all of that said, I have a confession. In writing this, I’ve come to think that maybe I was wrong in saying that cultures aren’t different. The reason I wrote this is because I hear people talk about people from different cultures not being able to “work” together. I got frustrated, because it seems as though people are transfering what is a difference in culture to be a difference in humanity, as though “we are from different cultures, therefore we are different” (“different” there, usually meaning “opposite”).

Also, in another sense, people who are anti-globalization (globalization was the main reason I wrote this post) for the reason that it “destroys” cultures are, I believe, missing the point too. Which is the other reason I started thinking about this. I’m not saying their claims are unfounded or stupid, just that I think more and more cultures are changing (being destroyed, as some people put it) as are the people with those cultures, yet people seem to want to deny that and be both traditional and modern at the same time. In the end, the “new” culture isn’t that new. Often, with technology, it seems like we’re doing the same things we’ve always done, just faster, on a larger scale, or more precisely.

I see the good aspects of globalization as being those that will fix all that technology has not yet fixed: wars, poverty, corruption, etc.

Perhaps, there are different cultures. I’m trying to figure out better how to word what I’m thinking. This is a complex issue.

5

Yes and No.

On the one hand, the dispersion of necessary communication has made it nearly impossible for any nation to shut its borders to information while remaining viable in the world. From Kuwaitis faxing out Iraqi atrocities or military positions to the sieve-like efforts to contain news of Abu Ghraib, it will be increasingly difficult for nations to hide their (large scale) actions in the way that the Nazis hid the actual happenings at the death camps.

On the other hand, the internet and even its information predecessor, cable TV, have actually created the ability for people to acquire and share information with such a narrowly delimited group as to never learn about or face contrary opinions. Look how many people actually believed in the “War on Christmas” because their limited news sources trumpeted them. Look how many people on this board believed that Bush would be swept from office, based on self-reinforcing commentary. With the internet, we have increasing numbers of tiny ghettoes of opinion in which people can shelter themselves from the conflict of opposing information.

The internet creates the opportunity to either gather more information than any previous generation could imagine or to selectively limit all one’s information to the narrowest and most comfortable self-reinforcing opinions. It does not guarantee a better-informed populace.

6

Gitfiddle you are still running into problems because of your excessively loose definitions. If I might make a suggestion then perhaps you should write down the definitions for some of the more important words that you are using. Then, when you make a statement using those words you can refer back to it to see if the statement is true. As it stands many of your statements are either obviously untrue, or based on definitions that shift from one sentence to the next. As a result the entire thesis fails to form any coherent whole.

Some examples:

The problem here is that you are assuming that there is such a thing as a Floridian idiom. Of course no such idiom exists, Florida is a geographic unit, not a linguistic one. While most people in Florida speak American English there are sizable populations of Spanish speakers who may or may not be bilingual, as well as speakers of various other languages and dialects. Nonetheless all these people utilise the same laws, they form part of the same hierarchy and so forth.

I suspect that in this case you have confused yourself with your earlier attempt to conflate language and culture. The problem is that you have now resorted to circularity. Florida has a culture, and therefore for your thesis to have any credibility Florida must also have a language. But that is simply untrue. As such your entire theses falls at this very first hurdle.

I agree with this. Environment certainly helps shape culture, as do many other things like method of food acquisition, population size, and history.

The problem with this is that it is that once we accept it we are obliged to reject every statement that you have made. If geography, history, and so forth shape culture and produce cultural differences then we can’t possibly say that culture and idiom are the same, since people speaking the same language may be found in France, Mauritius and Zaire and yet the cultures are totally different because of differences in history and geography.

Pretty much everything. Consider something as basic as the attitude towards murder. Norman’s believed that the nobility could kill or torture peasants and even that the strong amongst nobility could torture and kill anyone if they had the military strength to do so. Such behaviour was perfectly moral. Northern Australians believed that all men were equal and bound by exactly the same laws and that murder was punishable by death or at least extreme corporal punishment.

I specifically picked those three cultures because they have no commonality n any score, moral or otherwise. To say that they are common cultures beyond being groups of social mammals has no basis in objective reality.

Any idiom. English idiom for example says it’s alright to kill and to steal. You just used the English idiom to do so.

Once again you have confused yourself with your conflation of culture and language. I really do suggest that you write down your definitions to avoid this sort of problem.

I suspect that you meant to ask what culture says it’s alright to kill or to steal.

Well the most obvious answer to the first one is US culture. Killing in self defence is perfectly legal in the US. And numerous cultures say it is alright to steal. The Saxons for example saw nothing wrong with stealing from anyone with whom your were t war, and didn’t even really consider that peasants could own personally property so any theft from them by the nobility was acceptable.

I think perhaps you need to get some more insights into the diveristy of human cultures before taking this any fiurther.

Damn straight it’s one example. In the Bhagavad Gita for example lying in order to make a sale is considered not just right speech but actually obligatory, while scientologists believe in destroying anyone who criticises the faith through deliberate falsehoods if that is required. I don’t think you appreciate the diversity of human cultural views on what constitutes ‘right speech’ under various religious systems. As I said earlier, you have gone out looking for similarities, which of course exists, and concluded that because some similarities exist then all cultures are the same. That’s simply not true.

Unfortunately this is just argument from assertion. If you can’t tell me what US culture has been working towards for the past 500 years then you can not claim that the culture has a purpose. Simply saying that you are unable to define US culture doesn’t solve the problem. There certainly is a US culture. You inability ot even define what it is simply highlights how nonsensical it is to talk about it having a purpose. It doesn’t address the question of what the putative purpose is.

Seriously, this is like you making a claim that all dogs have the same taste in movies. When I ask you to define what Fido’s favourite movies are you reply that you can’t even find evidence that Fido likes movies at all. That doesn’t support your original claim. It totally demolishes it. In exactly the same way your inability even define what American culture is demolishes your claim that it has a purpose.

That’s just nonsense. Not everyone who utilises French idiom believe in the same Gods or eats the same foods. Similarly there are people who utilise just about every idiom on Earth who believe in the Roman Catholic God. Europe Idiom simply does not map onto culture the way you claim it does. Such a statement is so obviously nonsense that the only way to refute is simply to point out thatit;s nonsense. It’s so hard to imagine anyone believing that all Spanish speakers eat the same food and have the same religion or that it doesn’t really require any more effort.

The problem with that is that it makes your entire thesis circular. All humans communicate via language. By defining communication as inter human then you are simply using language as a synonym for communication. As such your thesis simply becomes that all humans share the common feature of humanity. It’s not profound, it’s not insightful. It’s banal and circular.

You are making the case. You need to tell us. I have already stated that if two groups are so opposed to one another’s values and actions that they engage in organised warfare to decide which values and actions will dominate then they are by definition culturally different. It’s now up to you to define culture and demonstrate to use that this is not the case.

That’s simply not true. Schadenfruede had a label in English before we adopted the German compound word. It’s just that the label consisted of several word instead of just two. Schadenfreude is a more efficient way of expressing the concept but the concept is perfectly able to be expressed in English. Look up schadenfreude in a dictionary and you will see the concept labelled using English words.

You are obviously too young to remember the 80s. We’ve been here before.

The criminal slums of Rio? The exile/concentration camps of opposition ‘supporter’ in Zimbabwe? The drug cartel controlled regions of Colombia?

And those are just a handful of the people who have no internet voice. You do realise that the worker’s suburbs of Tongling ostensibly having an English language news service with an internet link is not the same as the workers of Tongling being able to present their viewpoint on the internet don’t you? Any claim that the internet gives everyone a voice is imply nonsense. Most people have no voice at all, and those who live in despotic regimes have so little impact and th4e penalties for being caught are so harsh that there voice is essentially silenced on anything but the most critical and life-threatening issues. By no standard can we claim that all points of view are represented on the internet. Most POV are never presented and never will be.

I have no idea what invention you even refer to. The movable type press was invented over 700 years before the 18the century, and even Gutenberg’s press predated it by 300 years. More over printing wasn’t a catalyst in 18th century change, it was a part of the process and as much affected as anything else.

Since you have presented no evidence at all for your contention I think that is a safe conclusion.

Culture defines acceptable behaviour. If we accept that cultures are different then is we are from different cultures then we are different. That can’t be open to debate.

Well we’ve seen a lot of evidence and examples of how cultures are different and no evidence that they are the same. I don’t think there’s any perhaps in there. If cultures are not different then it would not even be possible to say there are cultures.

I suspect it’s a very simple issue that you have made complex by needlessly changing definitions. I see it amongst students all the time. Redefining words adds to the potential for confusion and misunderstanding. It should only be done as a last resort for a developed idea. Too many people do it as a first step in developing an idea. Bad move.

Stick to normal definitions. Make sure you are certain you understand what you mean. When you come up with an idea try to find an example that contradicts it then try to understand why the contradiction. Things will appear a lot simpler.

7

Okay, Blake, I concede, you have some very good points that. Though, I still feel for a large part you’re misreading my point, but, again, that’s my fault.

I’m going to think about this some more.

I said that there were instances…reread what I said. “Any permitted killing, from my understanding, in most religions is strictly confined to certain situations.” Sure, the US isn’t a religion, but, it’s the same idea.

I just don’t see your logic. I’m sorry. Maybe it’s above my head.

I’d be interested in you telling me what American cultures is. Inform me.

Telling me a statement is so nonsensical that you can only say it’s nonsense as an argument doesn’t really refute me.

All I can say right now is that it seems to me that a lot of conflicts where cultural conflict is an issue, it’s because people create the cultural conflict. The example I would use is racism in the US. Sure there are cultural differences, but there is no reason blacks and whites can’t live together. But the “difference” in the conflict is constantly brought up. The term “black on black” crime has always confounded me. Why is it “black on black” crime. It’s crime among two people. Why is it worse when one person of one race agresses another of another race – “white on black,” vice versa, or any other mix? Why is just not Americans not getting along. I honestly believe that one of the main reasons there are cultural conflicts is because we are constantly defining ourselves as different. There’s always an “us” and a “them,” which, perhaps, was my point all along.

Sure, there’s cultural differences (I’m starting to see how stupid that was to deny), but the point I think I was trying to make is that those differences become arbitrary when people start to see how similar they are to other idioms and also when people look at history and ask themselves “why” the traditions and customs in their cultures formed.

“Why” I think is the most important question in all of this. There is a certain set of elements that are relavent to all humans (birth, death, sense, feeling, etc.), and it seems to me that cultures form as a response to the question “Why.”

That’s exactly what I was saying! There was no one-word label. There was no WORD, there were WORDS. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

Your right. That’s what I think about a lot. That’s one of the main reasons I’ve been thinking about this. Maybe I’m being to optomistic.

I either I think or I want to think that the mistakes of the eighties are being fixed. Or, at least, the tools are being put in place.

I fully admit that I could be being overly optomistic. But keep in mind that I’m not saying things are getting better, just that they might be. There’s so many elements, to me, that seem to point to a greater possibility and mobility for all people in the world.

I’m not talking about the 90’s idea of “lifting all boats.” I’m talking about people having the tools and the hope to lift themselves, along with the people in other countries who see that it is in everyone’s best interest for them to do it.

Terrorism has showed that failed states aren’t good for the developed world. Shell Oil’s expenditures in Nigeria have showed that it’s not good for business to work in corrupt countries. As a result, there are a lot of people working to improve education, health, and connection in some of the most backwards places in the world. The understanding of Africa’s plight, I would dare say, is far more visible today than it was at Live Aid.

I hope it is.

Funny thing is, I know about those places BECAUSE of the internet. Check out Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. And those are just a few. The Internet is littered with sites devoted to exposing troubled areas and corruption.

Those people may not have a voice, but the people devoted to making these situations better have a voice. They are working to give those people a voice. Just as I think you believe that I’m exaggerating their improvement, you’re exaggerating their utter lack of voice.

700 years? Are you talking about in Asia?

Gutenburgs press was equally important to what? What was equally important to the spread of information?

I didn’t say it was a immediate. Obviously, the time for this technology to spread took time, but as printing presses were set up in different countries there was (and has been since) a significant and fairly rapid (as far as history goes) change in those societies.

You admitted earlier that there are universal similarities within humanity. Why is there no debate over our difference?

It seems often that because you find things to be nonsensical, you close the debate.

I’m not saying that no one’s different. I’m saying, in a sense, we’re all equally different and equally the same. Culture has little to do with it.

I think so too.

I appreciate you being hard on me. I spend so much time rolling over these things in my head that they sometimes become pretty unrealistic without other points of view.

I believe very much in proving yourself by disproving your antithesis, and you’ve put me to the test.

Thanks…

One last thing, you mention that I wasn’t around in the 80s, but I think that perhaps there is a generation gap issue. My generation has grown up, from the get-go, more connected than any other culture. By “my generation,” I mean everywhere.

And, no, that doesn’t mean everyone is/was connected, but far more than any other time in history. Again, my girlfriend grew up in Taiwan listening to the Eagles and her Dad is a huge NBA fan. Sure, that’s “American” culture being spread, but that’s just the only examples I know.

It’s a shame we in the States don’t get more outside cultures (foreign movies, foreign music on the radio, etc.)

I find that young people from China, Nigeria, Brazil, etc. in general seem to have a pretty open view to people from other countries. People my age don’t seem to think that we’re really that different.

That, yes, is completely from personal experience, but I know for a fact that there are people from all over the world coming to somewhat the same conclusion. If everyone who goes abroad comes home and says, “They’re actually not that different,” that makes a change, because I think most of the “difference” in the world comes from thinking it exists.

I’m not saying your old, I don’t know anything about you. I’m just saying that I think my generation views the world as a lot less different than the generations before.

8

There is some very flowery writing on both sides here, but I get the impression that gitfiddle is talking at a more fundamental level regarding the way society and law is structured. I think there are probably many fundamental similarities, the issue is that they are so fundamental they are taken for granted and simply not seen.

Most societies appear to have a structure of leaders and followers, trade of goods or services and mechanisms to prevent anarchy (laws, written or otherwise, that prevent people from just going around killing their neighbors). The very example mentioned, Tonga, has a monarchy that appears similar in structure to any old western European monarchy.

I don’t know enough about enough world cultures to categorically claim they are all alike (indeed, it seems obvious that there are significant differences). But it is certainly not self evident that there is no shared intent in the fundamental structure of different cultures. People all over do have similar needs (we need to eat, we need to pass information, we need to teach our kids, we obtain safety by surounding ourselves by peers that have similar interests).