Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

All Cultures Are NOT Equal

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:23 am    Post subject: All Cultures Are NOT Equal Reply with quote

Hmmmm. An opinion piece from conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks:

August 10, 2005
All Cultures Are Not Equal
By DAVID BROOKS
Let's say you are an 18-year-old kid with a really big brain. You're trying to figure out which field of study you should devote your life to, so you can understand the forces that will be shaping history for decades to come.

Go into the field that barely exists: cultural geography. Study why and how people cluster, why certain national traits endure over centuries, why certain cultures embrace technology and economic growth and others resist them.

This is the line of inquiry that is now impolite to pursue. The gospel of multiculturalism preaches that all groups and cultures are equally wonderful. There are a certain number of close-minded thugs, especially on university campuses, who accuse anybody who asks intelligent questions about groups and enduring traits of being racist or sexist. The economists and scientists tend to assume that material factors drive history - resources and brain chemistry - because that's what they can measure and count.

But none of this helps explain a crucial feature of our time: while global economies are converging, cultures are diverging, and the widening cultural differences are leading us into a period of conflict, inequality and segmentation.

Not long ago, people said that globalization and the revolution in communications technology would bring us all together. But the opposite is true. People are taking advantage of freedom and technology to create new groups and cultural zones. Old national identities and behavior patterns are proving surprisingly durable. People are moving into self-segregating communities with people like themselves, and building invisible and sometimes visible barriers to keep strangers out.

If you look just around the United States you find amazing cultural segmentation. We in America have been "globalized" (meaning economically integrated) for centuries, and yet far from converging into some homogeneous culture, we are actually diverging into lifestyle segments. The music, news, magazine and television markets have all segmented, so there are fewer cultural unifiers like Life magazine or Walter Cronkite.

Forty-million Americans move every year, and they generally move in with people like themselves, so as the late James Chapin used to say, every place becomes more like itself. Crunchy places like Boulder attract crunchy types and become crunchier. Conservative places like suburban Georgia attract conservatives and become more so.

Not long ago, many people worked on farms or in factories, so they had similar lifestyles. But now the economy rewards specialization, so workplaces and lifestyles diverge. The military and civilian cultures diverge. In the political world, Democrats and Republicans seem to live on different planets.

Meanwhile, if you look around the world you see how often events are driven by groups that reject the globalized culture. Islamic extremists reject the modern cultures of Europe, and have created a hyperaggressive fantasy version of traditional Islamic purity. In a much different and less violent way, some American Jews have moved to Hebron and become hyper-Zionists.

From Africa to Seattle, religiously orthodox students reject what they see as the amoral mainstream culture, and carve out defiant revival movements. From Rome to Oregon, antiglobalization types create their own subcultures.

The members of these and many other groups didn't inherit their identities. They took advantage of modernity, affluence and freedom to become practitioners of a do-it-yourself tribalism. They are part of a great reshuffling of identities, and the creation of new, often more rigid groupings. They have the zeal of converts.

Meanwhile, transnational dreams like European unification and Arab unity falter, and behavior patterns across nations diverge. For example, fertility rates between countries like the U.S. and Canada are diverging. Work habits between the U.S. and Europe are diverging. Global inequality widens as some nations with certain cultural traits prosper and others with other traits don't.

People like Max Weber, Edward Banfield, Samuel Huntington, Lawrence Harrison and Thomas Sowell have given us an inkling of how to think about this stuff, but for the most part, this is open ground.

If you are 18 and you've got that big brain, the whole field of cultural geography is waiting for you.

****************

Is D. Brooks on to something or is he just trying to keep up with his more famous colleague at the Times, Tom Freidman (The World is Flat)?

Is this just a case of the glass being half-full or half-empty, depending on your view?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wrench



Joined: 07 Apr 2005

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greed is always going to surpass, socialist type idealogy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The economists and scientists tend to assume that material factors drive history - resources and brain chemistry - because that's what they can measure and count.


The rest of the article has some points good as well as dubious, but the above I selected as the high point. The acceptance of Marxist thought insofar as he preached that social history was driven primarily by material forces was facilitated largely by the acceptance of the scientific community for the above reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
insofar as he preached that social history was driven primarily by material forces was facilitated largely by the acceptance of the scientific community for the above reason


I agree with this in part. Marx did bring in the idea that economics drives history. Wasn't it Carlyle who said something like "History is the biography of famous people"? That is largely the way history was viewed and written before Marx. Since then, history has gone to the other extreme: individuals don't matter; only impersonal social forces matter. The reason is probably what Brooks says it is. The funny thing is that no one really understands why economies behave the way they do. Greed is a pretty powerful motivator, but it isn't the only motivator in play. I've seen sexual attraction play havoc with people's monthly budget. Religion certainly plays a role in people's behavior. Last fall there was a lot of talk about how values trumped the pocket book in determining many people's votes.

Quote:
Go into the field that barely exists: cultural geography. Study why and how people cluster, why certain national traits endure over centuries, why certain cultures embrace technology and economic growth and others resist them.


I'm puzzled by this. When I was in school, cutural anthropology and sociology took care of these topics.

There are two opposite trends going on in the world. (I don't think this is new.) One trend is globalization, bringing people together. There are plenty of articles about the emerging world culture. The opposite trend is toward localization. Toeffler wrote about this 30 years ago in The Third Wave and other books. Brooks is only focusing on half the story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jajdude



Joined: 18 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All cutures are not equal.

Damn straight, homes.
-----------------------------------------------
All men are created equal.

Homes, you be trippin' on that one, yo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
panthermodern



Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Taxronto

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
All cutures are not equal.


Hammer this is Head.
Head this is Hammer.

Hammer, Head is a Nail.

BANG ...

Some cultures are more equal then others ...


Quote:
All cutures are not equal.


If this statement is not true, Why are "we" "here" ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
EFLtrainer



Joined: 04 May 2005

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
insofar as he preached that social history was driven primarily by material forces was facilitated largely by the acceptance of the scientific community for the above reason


I agree with this in part. Marx did bring in the idea that economics drives history. Wasn't it Carlyle who said something like "History is the biography of famous people"? That is largely the way history was viewed and written before Marx. Since then, history has gone to the other extreme: individuals don't matter; only impersonal social forces matter. The reason is probably what Brooks says it is. The funny thing is that no one really understands why economies behave the way they do.


I have to disagree. If you take an eclectic view of personality theory, add in some group dynamics stuff from sociology, add a big dollop of history through the view of the cycles of societies, cultures, economics and power and some genetics, then view all this within a framework of chaos theory, not much mystery at all. (I don't mean to imply I have all, or any, answers, but the basic shapes of things have a real clarity. The joke is that none of this is really applicable at the level of the individual. I.e., men are stronger than women.... but not always... right?)

Try Chaos: The Making of a New Science (I think), The Rise and Fall of the Great Nations (Kennedy) and the reat depression/recession of 1999 (Ravi Batra). Add it all together and things come into a very interesting focus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I have to disagree. If you take an eclectic view of personality theory, add in some group dynamics stuff from sociology, add a big dollop of history through the view of the cycles of societies, cultures, economics and power and some genetics, then view all this within a framework of chaos theory, not much mystery at all. (I don't mean to imply I have all, or any, answers, but the basic shapes of things have a real clarity. The joke is that none of this is really applicable at the level of the individual. I.e., men are stronger than women.... but not always... right?)



I am going to be disagreeable and disagree with your disagreement. However, you did hit the nail on the head at the end: 'the joke is that none of this is really applicable at the level of the individual'. I know there are all sorts of theories that are useful in understanding how economies work. But as you pointed out, it's only in the abstract or the general sense.

When a president calls in his economic advisors and says, "There's an election coming up. The market is down. Investment is down. Unemployment is up. What do I do to save my buns?" He gets more views than he has economists in the room because most of them say, "Do this..., but on the other hand, do that." That's the sense that I meant my statement. Is a tax cut good and if so, how big a cut is needed to attain the goal? Should interest rates go up or down and by how much? Those are pretty much guessing games because there are so many factors involved that can't be accurately predicted.

In terms of history, look at the Election of '00. 9/11 was planned and would have happened regardless of who was in the White House, but does anyone seriously believe that Gore, with no neo-cons around him arguing for an American empire, would have invaded Iraq? Would there have been a tax cut that wiped out the budget surplus? Would the American reputation be in shreds?

Broad general strokes are important and have their place, but their limitations need to be respected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Manner of Speaking



Joined: 09 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems to be a bit of knocking down the straw man, isn't it? Brooks makes some strange statements:

Quote:
Go into the field that barely exists: cultural geography. Study why and how people cluster, why certain national traits endure over centuries, why certain cultures embrace technology and economic growth and others resist them.


The field of Cultural Geography barely exists? News to me.

Quote:
This is the line of inquiry that is now impolite to pursue.


Again, this is news to me. Just about every major university in Canada and the US has a Geography department, and does research into Cultural Geography, and does cross-cultural comparisons.

Quote:
The gospel of multiculturalism preaches that all groups and cultures are equally wonderful. There are a certain number of close-minded thugs, especially on university campuses, who accuse anybody who asks intelligent questions about groups and enduring traits of being racist or sexist.


Here's where the knocking down the straw man part comes in. While I would agree there are a certain number of know-it-all undergrads who are big into "enforced diversity", Brooks' statement is rather an oversimplification of Cultural Geography and Multicultural studies. Multiculturalism starts with the assumption that a given culture is a shared way of looking at the world, a shared way of thinking, a shared way of approaching and solving certain problems. This raises the obvious issue of where does one culture end and another begin, but that's beside the point. If a culture is a shared way of looking at the world, it follows that
one culture's perspective is just as valid as the next. Multiculturalists don't argue that all cultures are "equal", but that the perspectives of say, Maori culture are just as valid as the perspectives of Korean culture.

Brooks argues that all cultures are not equal, but then he doesn't define what he means by "equality". All cultures are not equal at what? Expansionism? Quality of life? Scientific innovation? Ecological balance? Economic growth? Personal happiness? Of course all cultures are not equal, because by WHATEVER standard you measure equality, there are going to be variations. Cultures evolved as shared ways of viewing the world and dealing with the problems life presents. They were never designed to be compared, any more than apples, oranges, and other kinds of fruit evolved in order to be compared. They just evolved, period.

I'm surprised the NY Times would publish such a muddle-headed and poorly-thought-out editorial. On the one hand, Brooks says:

Quote:
Not long ago, people said that globalization and the revolution in communications technology would bring us all together. But the opposite is true. People are taking advantage of freedom and technology to create new groups and cultural zones. Old national identities and behavior patterns are proving surprisingly durable.


Then a few lines later he says:

Quote:
Global inequality widens as some nations with certain cultural traits prosper and others with other traits don't.


Actually what is happening is that certain cultures -- in fact, almost all cultures and third-world countries -- such as Korea, are participating in the world economy in order to gain the financial resources to maintain and develop elements of their traditional culture.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International