Is American/Western culture "better" than other world cultures?

[toadspittle]

I was just reading a transcribed excerpt from a podcast; while the podcast episode is primarily about Wal-mart, the excerpt is specifically about the issues an Indian immigrant (and Wal-mart employee) has with integrating into American culture.

Correspondent: Ajaydev Naliur said to you that the most difficult part of integrating into the larger white community was “not being able to socialize with them like we do with the Indian families. The people at work never say, ‘A.J., come to my house for dinner, come to my home.’” Now if Naliur has only a professional relationship with the Americans and he fears bringing Indian food even to the Walmart food day potlucks, then surely there’s a multiculturalism problem here. And I’m curious about why there’s this lack of integration.

Rosen: No, it’s interesting that you choose A.J. I think it was his problem.

… Because he was so timid about everything. About sharing Indian food. … And yet there were other Indian families. Like the Kulkarnis, who were not at all. Who said to me, “Many American friends, we invite them to dinner.”

… But when push came to shove, A.J. said that he was hesitant to embrace American values. Mostly because of his daughters. He has two teenage daughters. And he was very, very afraid that they would become too Americanized. And then he would lose control of them, in terms of boyfriends and in terms of setting up arranged marriages. And it’s definitely in the picture for him. And he wants to keep his girls under his wing.

Now, I generally do not believe that American/Western culture is superior to any other. This is what I tell myself on a day-to-day basis. I love it, but I’m also self-aware enough to know that, having been brought up in it, I’m highly biased. And I can see some very attractive things in other cultures, whether we’re talking about art or religion or food. The traditional foods of many cultures. The craft products, dance, music, theater, and architecture. The slower pace and different concerns of many places in the world (some due to lower technological saturation, some due to cultural norms). The presence of society-wide unifying rituals (like the calls to prayer in Islamic countries).

But then I run into something like A.J.‘s situation, and my immediate reaction is something like, "Too bad for you! Losing control over your daughters’ lives? Waahh! Welcome to the free world, neanderthal! Kids here can marry whomever they want!"

Now, let’s face it: A.J.‘s fears are justified. There’s a good chance he’s going to lose control over his daughters’ love lives, and not be able to arrange their marriages. (Also worth noting that I’ve never heard of Americans who have gone over to India who were worried that their children would wind up “going native” and desiring an arranged marriage, or wanting to be subservient wives, etc.) But the question is, why?

Anthropologists often note that when a technologically/economically/militarily superior society comes into contact with another society, the culture of the “conqueror” often quickly supersedes that of the indigenous group. The acculturation is commonly attributed to both brute force/installation of institutions (schools, local governments, trading posts, etc.) and to the “mystique” that attaches to the conqueror: since this society has just come in and done all these things that we can’t (fly through the air, kick our butts, keep food fresh in metal cans indefinitely, etc.), everything about them is better, including their language, clothing, music, food, social habits, etc.

That makes sense for Westerners making contact with remote Papua New Guinea highlanders. But the gulf in technology, wealth, arms, etc., between the West and a tribe in PNG is far different from that between the USA and India. India is one of the world’s major powers, with a modern democracy, a strong culture (which has embraced technology fully—to wit, the largest film industry in the world), plenty of economic, educational, and military gusto, and about one-sixth of the human beings on the planet.

So, when someone from India, a society in which arranged marriage is still common (and a society that is still shaking itself loose from centuries of a rigid caste system), runs into the sexual/marital liberties of the USA, what specifically is it that attracts A.J.'s daughters to the American way of dating and marrying? Is it the mystique of the superior society (at least, superior enough in their father’s eyes in terms of providing him with a job), and wanting to do everything that Americans do? Or is it that the personal liberties of American/Western societies are almost always going to trump cultures that lack those liberties?

Now, I look at A.J.'s case and tend to think it’s the latter. And, self-aware of my own cultural bias or not, I’m willing to say that I think greater personal liberty is almost always better than more restricted personal liberty. In which case … it would seem that American/Western culture really IS “better” than other cultures in the world.

Caveats: American society wasn’t always like this (and in the case of the gay community, STILL isn’t). And the line between “culturally acceptable” and “legally acceptable” can be a fine one. So, yes, same-sex marriage is still illegal in most states. But arranged marriage, AFAIK, is not technically illegal in the US (if the bride and groom consent to be set up by their families, that is—forced arranged marriage would be different), nor (AFAIK) is arranged marriage legally mandatory in India. (Please correct me if I’m wrong!)

So, what say you: Does American/Western culture win in most cultural clashes because it’s inherently better than other cultures, or does it simply win due to the fact of current technological/economic superiority (which, had history evolved differently, could have belonged to India, China, etc.)?

[billfish678]

It seems to “work” better than most others IMO, so yeah IMO.

That gets to my biggest beef about immigrants, particularly large numbers that are (or at least maybe not) integrating well. By all means bring your colorful songs, food, funky clothing and six armed dieties. All well and good. The more the merrier. Don’t mess with how America “works” cause IMO the main reason you wanna be here and not there is because at some fundamental level back there doesnt work.

If you make here like back there, guess what ? It will be the same crappy place, just in a different location.

[Rune]

@toadspittle

Now, I generally do not believe that American/Western culture is superior to any other. This is what I tell myself on a day-to-day basis.

Why on Earth would you tell yourself such a silly thing? Yes. Of course America/Western culture is superior to others – although not necessarily all others.

I find that a good indicator of how cultures rank in relation to others is how people chose to move. If more people from culture A chose to move to culture B, than vice versa – then culture B is likely superior.

@toadspittle

So, what say you: Does American/Western culture win in most cultural clashes because it’s inherently better than other cultures, or does it simply win due to the fact of current technological/economic superiority (which, had history evolved differently, could have belonged to India, China, etc.)?

American/Western culture win in most cultural clashes because there is just so much more of it and because it is so much more rich and varied and living. What other culture can match the thousand years history, millions of books, songs, paintings, architecture, music, etc. And also because Western culture is often more able to successfully integrate aspects of other cultures.

[John_Mace]

@Rune

American/Western culture win in most cultural clashes because there is just so much more of it and because it is so much more rich and varied and living. What other culture can match the thousand years history, millions of books, songs, paintings, architecture, music, etc.

Quite a few, actually. China and India come to mind immediately, and there are few people living in those countries last time I checked.

[anu-la1979]

I wouldn’t put it as “better”-but if you have that streak of independence in you, you’ll definitely be attracted to it. In traditional societies and cultures the overwhelming public sentiment against people who break the mold or go against social norms is enough to either drive the behaviour/desired lifestyle underground (homosexuality). Also, the threat of punishment. When you come here and you figure out that once your parents’ financial control ends, you’re pretty much free-you get these situations where the older generation thinks the kids are becoming too “Americanized” or whatever. The thing is that it’s likely that the individual was like that to begin with-you just created the conditions for them breaking out by allowing them to grow up in a liberal culture-it has nothing to do with the culture itself-just that the foreign culture creates the conditions for independent-minded individuals pursuing their goals. The only reason parents think their Indian daughters in India aren’t as “fast” or independent is the lack of opportunity, or the overwhelmingly negative consequences.

Besides, I find your original argument kind of strange because the same liberalization (with increased earning power, employment opportunities and breakdown of older values in the cities) is occurring in India, with exactly the same consequences. Dude is gonna have to take his daughters to freaking Manipur if he wants to keep a stranglehold on them. I don’t know if I’m explaining this right-but it has less to do with the automatic superiority of American culture than it does with giving certain types of people the opportunity to be themselves. Now, consider, the type of Indian that up and leaves his home country, culture, family (a big deal) to come to a foreign country. Likey his/her children are going to have that same streak of independence. Then you plonk those kids in a middle of a culture that promotes independence over community decisionmaking…and the inevitable results.

However, there are people here who adhere to old-fashioned values-including arranged marriage etc.

Incidentally, as an American with Indian heritage (I was born overseas, came hee when I was young), I share your attitude of “HAHAHA tough”. It’s the tradeoff for coming here. My parents realised that, at least. The thing is, that while there are very few “arranged marriages” in the group of kids I grew up with-nearly every one is married to an Indian. Men and women both (incl. my sister, who is married to one of those rare 3rd generation Indians). There are exceptions but for the most part, the deviation has been from marrying someone from the same caste/culture. My sister is one of the rare few people I know who is a 2nd generation Indian of “X” state/culture that is married to someone from the same original state/culture. They are different castes, though.

Basically, the whole fear that your daughters are inevitably going to marry the White Devil is sort of overblown.

[toadspittle]

@Rune

I find that a good indicator of how cultures rank in relation to others is how people chose to move. If more people from culture A chose to move to culture B, than vice versa – then culture B is likely superior.

I don’t know about that. I would wager that 90% of immigration throughout recent history (say, the lifespan of the US) has been about money, pure and simple. The Irish didn’t move to the USA because they preferred the English language (!), or American music … they moved because they were starving.

The question would be, does economic opportunity trump everything else? Or perhaps, is it simply impossible to siphon off a society’s superior economic conditions without also being swamped by the rest of its culture? Only the Hasidim and the Amish seem to have been capable of integrating themselves into the financial life of the US without integrating themselves into the rest of the culture. (Though I’d wager their respective ancestors might be appalled at how “modern” their descendants have become, despite careful isolation.)

American/Western culture win in most cultural clashes because there is just so much more of it and because it is so much more rich and varied and living. What other culture can match the thousand years history, millions of books, songs, paintings, architecture, music, etc.

India, China, and Japan have millennia-deep historical, artistic, and religious wealth to match the West’s. But, true, they do lack the raw diversity of the West (which was spawned by the fractured nature of Europe).

And also because Western culture is often more able to successfully integrate aspects of other cultures.

Hmm. Yes, it’s good at integrating art and food, but it doesn’t integrate everything—especially social customs. As in the case I cited (arranged marriage, male-female social conventions), Western culture emphatically does NOT integrate that. Where the West comes into contact with those customs, the West seems inevitably to win. At best, there is a holding defense by the other culture, but you almost never hear of adoption of such customs by those born into Western culture.

[orcenio]

@toadspittle

India, China, and Japan have millennia-deep historical, artistic, and religious wealth to match the West’s. But, true, they do lack the raw diversity of the West (which was spawned by the fractured nature of Europe).

India has any kind of cultural diversity you want: religious/linguistical/ethnic/political/historical/urban/rural/etc… the only place more diverse that I could think of would be Africa…

[toadspittle]

@anu-la1979

you just created the conditions for them breaking out by allowing them to grow up in a liberal culture

This made me chuckle a bit (although I think you’re correct) as I thought about in the context of the interview excerpt: that Bentonville, Arkansas is a “liberal culture.” (Obviously, compared to many parts of the world, it is!)

Besides, I find your original argument kind of strange because the same liberalization (with increased earning power, employment opportunities and breakdown of older values in the cities) is occurring in India, with exactly the same consequences. Dude is gonna have to take his daughters to freaking Manipur if he wants to keep a stranglehold on them. I don’t know if I’m explaining this right-but it has less to do with the automatic superiority of American culture than it does with giving certain types of people the opportunity to be themselves.

Hmm. Good point. So, one could similarly say that a family moving from very traditional, rural India to, say, downtown Beijing, would likely face the same sort of liberalization. In that case, AJ might attribute his woes to the effects of Chinese culture! (even though, again, we wouldn’t think of China as a liberal culture)

Is this all just a case of country mouse vs. city mouse? Imagine that same family moving from rural India to Mumbai—same effects? After all, even though Bentonville is no Metropolis, it’s still got the trappings—diverse culture, economic opportunities, more personal liberty—of an urban life.

[toadspittle]

@orcenio

India has any kind of cultural diversity you want: religious/linguistical/ethnic/political/historical/urban/rural/etc… the only place more diverse that I could think of would be Africa…

OK. So would you argue that diversity within a culture has little impact on whether or not it can “dominate” another culture that it comes into contact with?

And in any case, to get back to the OP, why hasn’t African or Indian culture set the world on fire like Western culture has? Any inherent differences that make one better than the other, or is it just the whole Guns Germs and Steel thing gave the West a headstart on taking over?

[Rune]

@toadspittle

I don’t know about that. I would wager that 90% of immigration throughout recent history (say, the lifespan of the US) has been about money, pure and simple. The Irish didn’t move to the USA because they preferred the English language (!), or American music … they moved because they were starving.

I don’t make that distinction. Any culture that is able to create the conditions for a nation to become economic prosperous and feed its own population is superior to another culture that is unable to create those conditions.

@toadspittle

The question would be, does economic opportunity trump everything else? Or perhaps, is it simply impossible to siphon off a society’s superior economic conditions without also being swamped by the rest of its culture

If by economic opportunity you mean the ability to avoid starvation like with the Irish, then it does triumph everything else. Perhaps some other cultures can match or surpass the economic performance of the West. That remains to be seen, but other most cultures will never be able to come anywhere near without adopting many elements of Western culture.

@toadspittle

Only the Hasidim and the Amish seem to have been capable of integrating themselves into the financial life of the US without integrating themselves into the rest of the culture. (Though I’d wager their respective ancestors might be appalled at how “modern” their descendants have become, despite careful isolation.)

I don’t think Hasidim or Amish would be able to create a viable nation. And in any case as quaint and likeable they are, I don’t think the two produce a cultural powerhouse.

@toadspittle

India, China, and Japan have millennia-deep historical, artistic, and religious wealth to match the West’s. But, true, they do lack the raw diversity of the West (which was spawned by the fractured nature of Europe).

Some other cultures have the same or perhaps even more ancient history, but no other culture (including China, India or Japan) can match the sheer amount of cultural material (books, art, &etc.)

[anu-la1979]

@toadspittle

This made me chuckle a bit (although I think you’re correct) as I thought about in the context of the interview excerpt: that Bentonville, Arkansas is a “liberal culture.” (Obviously, compared to many parts of the world, it is!)

Hmm. Good point. So, one could similarly say that a family moving from very traditional, rural India to, say, downtown Beijing, would likely face the same sort of liberalization. In that case, AJ might attribute his woes to the effects of Chinese culture! (even though, again, we wouldn’t think of China as a liberal culture)

Is this all just a case of country mouse vs. city mouse? Imagine that same family moving from rural India to Mumbai—same effects? After all, even though Bentonville is no Metropolis, it’s still got the trappings—diverse culture, economic opportunities, more personal liberty—of an urban life.

I know why you’re giggling but juxtapose Bentonville, AK against some rural village in India where they may not even have regular electricity or running water (I have no idea if this is his background by the way). Where women never get divorced, where the live in extended family households and do housework all day, where it’s generally assumed that your parents have significant authority over you etc… I’m sure than in Bentonville you can a) get divorced b) there are economic opportunities and c) sufficient opportunity to interact with the opposite sex d) the general populace is not beholden to an older generation at all times (not just your parens, but also your aunts, uncles, grandparents etc.). It may not be San Francisco-but it is a more open environment, yes.

Yeah, moving to Mumbai and Bangalore has pretty much the same effect. In fact, I think the whole oversexed call center culture thing is big in India-that is, young girls and boys who find themselves living far away from their families with ample disposable income and little oversight, also working odd hours.

Let me just put it this way-take those individuals who move to the United States and completely stick by the old ways-would you say that American culture is inferior because it couldn’t win them over?

It’s just my opinion that leaving behind everything you have and everything you know-your whole world-is basically what you are doing when you move to the US. It shouldn’t be surprising that your kids are willing to abandon the old ways. It’s genetic-if you think about it, immigrants are kind of self-selecting for some sort of gumption genes (you yourself are the type to leave for more productive climes).

And like I said, this fear is highly overblown. First because if you are marrying a “Native”-chances are that they are okay with your culture and preserving it (usually they’re more intrigued by your culture than you are). The second reason being that the chances that immigrant children “wholescale” abandon their culture are slim to none. That used to occur a long time ago when the Indian network was more limited and we were more of an ethnic anomaly and made to feel ashamed of our culture/heritage/constantly teased. That was already fading even as I was growing up in the West (though I had to deal with it a lot in northern Quebec). What you find is people negotiating their dual identitites and coming up with some sort of compromise. For instance, I am uncompromising about the fact that I’m American-but I’m also really proud of the fact that I’m Indian. Every immigrant dual-world kid negotiates those boundaries in different ways.

Like I said- I feel like that’s the risk when you come to the US. Don’t like the idea? Stay home.

[Bryan_Ekers]

If I was ever to permanently leave my post-industrial liberal westernized country, it’d be to move to another post-industrial liberal westernized country.

Well, unless I was offered a chance to be king of something.

[orcenio]

@toadspittle

OK. So would you argue that diversity within a culture has little impact on whether or not it can “dominate” another culture that it comes into contact with?

I have few bones to pick…

1. I don’t see how you can realistically say that a shockingly diverse place like say… India lacks “the raw [cultural] diversity of the West (which was spawned by the fractured nature of Europe).”

Man, any conceivable example of culture whether: religious, linguistical, ethnic, political, historical, urban/rural, etc… India is FAR more diverse. Europe’s nothing like that.

2. Your logic is faulty. Lets look at the question in your OP

So, what say you: Does American/Western culture win in most cultural clashes because it’s inherently better than other cultures, or does it simply win due to the fact of current technological/economic superiority (which, had history evolved differently, could have belonged to India, China, etc.)?

“Why does American/Western culture win” :rolleyes: This sounds very silly/ethnocentric to the ears of any educated non-westerner.

Whenever you talk about “America/the west” you praise them at their ability to “integrate/adapt” aspects of other cultures. However, whenever you talk about non-westerners you say that western culture is “dominating” theirs. In reality this proves only that “their culture” is just as good in adapting aspects of foreign (in this case western) culture too.

All cultures are not static, nor are they unable to adapt and change.

And in any case, to get back to the OP, why hasn’t African or Indian culture set the world on fire like Western culture has? Any inherent differences that make one better than the other, or is it just the whole Guns Germs and Steel thing gave the West a headstart on taking over?

3. Your examples are down right silly. Technological advancement/wealth is not the culture of “the west” anymore then poverty was/is the culture of China.

[billfish678]

@orcenio

3. Your examples are down right silly. Technological advancement/wealth is not the culture of “the west” anymore then poverty was/is the culture of China.

Bah

One results from the other and another one results from the other other.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Yes Western culture is superior to cultures that practice stoning, arranged marriages, female circumcisions, human sacrifice, and so on and it wins due to it’s moral superiority.

[bump]

@billfish678

If you make here like back there, guess what ? It will be the same crappy place, just in a different location.

Sort of…

I gather that despite the amazing poverty of many Mexican communities here in the us, especially those with a large proportion of illegal aliens, it’s still a better deal to live here in a sort of little Mexico than back home. And in many of their cases (not all, unfortunately), their children will be pretty integrated into wider American society.

What I don’t get though, is that a lot of the Mexican community stuff in the US seems crappier than in Mexico. I mean, amateurish painted letters and comically bad signs are common here, but in Mexico, the signs are actually painted well, by and large. Same thing with cars; the Mexicans here drive the shittiest beaters, but in Mexico they’re not quite so bad.

[dropzone]

@toadspittle

Is American/Western culture “better” than other world cultures?

FUCK YEAH!

[DanBlather]

@toadspittle

India, China, and Japan have millennia-deep historical, artistic, and religious wealth to match the West’s. But, true, they do lack the raw diversity of the West (which was spawned by the fractured nature of Europe).

China has 55 ethnic minorities within it’s borders. There are dozens of languages spoken and several “alphabets” in use. Just because they all look alike to you doesn’t mean they are not diverse. The differences among European countries does not begin to compare to that within China.

[DanBlather]

@toadspittle

And in any case, to get back to the OP, why hasn’t African or Indian culture set the world on fire like Western culture has? Any inherent differences that make one better than the other, or is it just the whole Guns Germs and Steel thing gave the West a headstart on taking over?

Yeah, look at the Arabs. We have to use their crummy numbering system rather than that convenient Roman system we came up with in Europe.

[Blake]

@toadspittle

Now, let’s face it: A.J.‘s fears are justified. There’s a good chance he’s going to lose control over his daughters’ love lives, and not be able to arrange their marriages. (Also worth noting that I’ve never heard of Americans who have gone over to India who were worried that their children would wind up “going native” and desiring an arranged marriage, or wanting to be subservient wives, etc.) But the question is, why?

Your whole position here seems to hinge on an assumption that anarchy is excellent, but I wonder if you really believe that?

Plenty of Americans who move to “rough” neighbourhoods in the US are worried that their children would wind up “going native” and engaging in criminal activity and using drugs. Hell, plenty of Americans whose children are forced to live in those neighbourhoods for economic reasons are terrified of that. My parents certainly were.

So what is your position here? That anarchy is the ultimate social state? That my parents are Neanderthals because they were afraid they would lose control of their children and that we would adopt the local values and reject theirs?

Would your reaction to my parents have been “Too bad for you! Losing control over your children’s lives? Waahh! Welcome to the free world, neanderthal! Kids here can live however they want!”
And if that isn’t the case then stop and think about why you have this double standard. Unlimited freedom of association is not a good thing for young people. Young people are notorious for making bad choices in terms of their friends and their lovers. Parents don’t want their children associating with those the see as immoral, and they don’t want it because they know damn well that it’s a bad example and a short path to failure.

And whatever you may want to believe, not all people in the US make really good choices when it comes to their reproductivity and sexual relationships. Many minorities in particular have horrendous track records in this field and have become abject failures as a result. So why the hell shouldn’t a minority parent be afraid of this?

In short, allowing young people absolute freedom isn’t a good thing, and all sorts of parents have serious concerns about their kids going native.