Does "Western Culture" Exist Anymore?

[Father Heathen]

To me "western world" is collectively the nations that are developed, democratic, and respect human rights and civil liberties (or at least pretend to).

 

[The Hammer]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this argument.
Where exactly do you see an ideological divide? What ideologies do you see in conflict?

Mainly in the way they control their population. While the US and the West are obviously huge perpetrators of Colonialism, I'm under the impression that we have grown out inflicting it's major atrocities (cultural genocide for one). We tend to focus on building a cohesive and pluralistic tapestry of ideas (United States, European Union), many small groups working together towards a common interest. Whereas China's implementation for expansion is subjugation and control, through domination of what they see as "lesser" people's; Hong Kong and Taiwan are good examples, as is their treatment of the Uighers. Just look at their expansion activities throughout the South China Sea, claiming and taking over territories, that are not theirs.

So the difference is Pluralism vs Assimilation.

 

[Left Coast]

It's a great question to consider and an important one at that.

I would say that all cultures have quite porous 'borderlines' and somewhat mythologise their shared identities. Yet even as they aren't monoliths - there are still distinguishing 'constellations' of intellectual heritage, ways of thinking and social norms that differentiate certain societies and individuate them in 'clusters'. These 'dividing lines' are never absolute, since cultures are always inculturating things from other cultures, especially in our Internet Age - but they're still identifiably 'there' to me.

Cultures are less like islands in the sea and more akin to 'polyhedric' circles of relation. Their centres of gravity are often situated in a set of roughly distinguishable assumptions that represent a basic 'consensus' (broadly) of 'non-negotiables' amongst people in that given society who might bitterly disagree on other matters, yet they have enough of an underlying set of shared beliefs as to constitute a 'culture' in relation to other 'cultures'. True, there's numerous subcultures within cultures and constant interchange coming from the 'outside', such that the borders are porous (within and without) and cultures are never 'closed' islands unto themselves (which would make them stagnant).

On the inherent incohesiveness side, think of the historical Ottoman Empire. It was founded by rulers of Turkic heritage and language on the model of a largely 'Persianate' society (in terms of governance-style, literary form and social norms) with an Arabic religion and moral system that made it the 'caliphate' or epicentre of a much larger Islamic world.

Architectural designs for Istanbul mosques were strongly indebted to their Greek Byzantine forbears. The ruling class increasingly embraced European modes of dress, infrastructure and political philosophy from the 1830s onwards. Some Ottomans resented the intrusion of these Western norms; others eagerly incorporated them into a new national secular consciousness of being 'Turkish' as opposed to the latent universalism represented by polyethnic Ottoman imperialism.

Thus, Ottoman 'culture' was never an island to begin with. Moreover, it kept absorbing new impulses from the subject peoples brought under its sovereignty and from its competing neighbours.

We could look at a 'Western' example: the idea of meritocracy is often construed as this culturally subsistent pecularity in the United States, 'the American dream'. In fact, this idea has been traced to Chinese Confucian thought in the form of the imperial civil examination system, that arose from Confucius's belief that "those who govern should do so because of merit, not of inherited status".

This ideal obviously didn't originate from medieval feudal Europe (with its "great chain of being") or the English class system with its titled nobility and gentry, that's for sure. Until the First World War, many European elites still held to an essentially 'feudal' mindset of paternalism and of their being a proper 'ruling class' derived from 'good stock', even as many Western intellectuals (since the days of the 17th century Jesuits and the Enlightenment thinker Voltaire in the 18th century) had eagerly translated Confucian texts and championed this subversive 'foreign' ideal in their calls for political reform.

So, that's an instance of 'inner-Western' culture war between two quite distinct visions of society - one that its advocates touted as traditionally 'Western' and another imported from Chinese philosophy that was utilized against the "Ancien Regimes".

These are but two examples of cross-pollenization from centuries of contact and interchange between cultures that had interpenetrated each other so intimately, that it's very hard to draw a line in the sand.

With all that being said, historically speaking there certainly is a recognisable Western 'synthesis' of inheritances and socio-legal-intellectual norms that differentiated her peoples - varied though they were - in the eyes of outsiders to that civilization (rooted in classical civilisation, Latin Christianity, the Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment yada-yada-yada as we all know), just as in the reverse. I believe that still holds true today in all honesty - although I detect a much greater cleavage between America and Europe than there once was. I'm not so certain we share one single Western 'culture' now, maybe we're branching off. We do at least seem to be on rather distinct trajectories these days but maybe that's just my serious bias against the current US administration coming out......it kinda feels to me like we've "schismed" from one another or are in the very slow process of doing so.

I never knew about the Confucian connection. Do you think the translation of Confucian texts is actually what introduced the idea of meritocracy to the West? Were there not internal Western thinkers who independently developed those thoughts (I'm asking, not challenging)?

I think you're right that we're bifurcating in the West, though I'm not sure about the line between America and Europe. What in America we might call "Trumpism" I think is actually alive and well in Europe - look at Brexit. Not to mention the anti-immigrant backlashes in places like Hungary and Poland, the authoritarian craziness happening in Belarus...I'm afraid that the cultural conflict is much larger than one US presidential administration. And it doesn't seem to me that there is one cohesive "counter-culture" running against whatever we're calling the Trump-Johnson-right-wing-populism movement. Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[Left Coast]

I've been trying to avoid using the phrase "Western culture" because of the problems with that term, but just haven't managed to find good alternatives. Sometimes I say "English-speaking world," perhaps specifically represent "Abrahamic" in religious discussions or "American" when I know that the American way is distinct from other "Western cultures" (which are a lot more socialist than we accept in the United States).

In any event, culture is complicated. There are cultures and subcultures. I routinely feel like a foreigner within my own culture since I reject or question a lot of the prevailing mythologies of the United States (and to some extent in Europe) on top of basically not caring less about "popular culture." Even so, I am still a product of Western history and intellectual traditions because that's inescapable having been immersed in it.

Culture is indeed complicated. I think it's natural to use short-hand ways of talking and thinking about complex issues. As long as we remember that our short-hand is just that. I resonate with feeling like a foreigner in my own culture. I certainly feel "American" culturally, but having once been immersed in both Christian and politically conservative culture(s), I often feel strange interacting with people who are still part of it, like I have to translate language, customs, and norms to constructively engage.

 

[Tambourine]

Mainly in the way they control their population. While the US and the West are obviously huge perpetrators of Colonialism, I'm under the impression that we have grown out inflicting it's major atrocities (cultural genocide for one). We tend to focus on building a cohesive and pluralistic tapestry of ideas (United States, European Union), many small groups working together towards a common interest. Whereas China's implementation for expansion is subjugation and control, through domination of what they see as "lesser" people's; Hong Kong and Taiwan are good examples, as is their treatment of the Uighers. Just look at their expansion activities throughout the South China Sea, claiming and taking over territories, that are not theirs.

So the difference is Pluralism vs Assimilation.

But, that's not really true is it?

In Austria, we have been very hotly debating just how much we should force immigrants to assimilate into our culture - should we make them learn our language? Force them to do tests how to be a "good European" and teach them "European values"? Is diversity of values inherently desirable? - and come down very clearly on the side of assimilation, with only vestigial liberal restrictions such as basic human rights (freedom of religion, freedom of expression etc.) limiting just how much we are allowed to force that kind of cultural assimilation.

In the US, I can see a similar thrust with Christian fundamentalists and White supremacists trying their very best to clamp down on public displays of racial diversity and "identity politics" (i.e. the acceptance of non-mainstream sexualities, gender identity expressions etc.).

As I have already expressed in my rant in post #3, Pluralism only ever seems to have existed as an ideal of the West - and not even an ideal that was broadly shared by the majority of people claiming to belong to Western culture at that (cultural/racial supremacy, nationalism, whatever you may call it has a long history in the West, after all). Whereas demands of assimilation (that is, the subjugation of other, "lesser" cultures under our "superior" values) have been part of Western cultural expression for centuries at this point. This can be seen even at its most benign in the way people in the US demand the removal of foreign dictators by military force, whenever e.g. Iran or North Korea gets brought up - and this cultural imperialism has been championed for a long time as a tool of colonialism and oppression.

And so far, the conflict between "the West" and "China", as far as I can tell, has been about Smartphones and rivaling social media platforms, with actual people and rights being fielded, at best, as rhetorical chesspieces.

Heck, even if you look at the Hong Kong protests, you aren't really seeing much that is different to how America or Europe are treating protesters.

As far as I can tell, the current ideological conflict is not between the East and the West, it is between authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian forces in East and West, and their civilian population being fed up with their treatment.

Be it Belarus, America, or Hong Kong - it is always, in every situation, a bunch of hired thugs called "police" beating unarmed civilians - or, if you trust the authorities' message, "looters" and "rioters" endangering the social order.

 

[Tambourine]

I've been trying to avoid using the phrase "Western culture" because of the problems with that term, but just haven't managed to find good alternatives. Sometimes I say "English-speaking world," perhaps specifically represent "Abrahamic" in religious discussions or "American" when I know that the American way is distinct from other "Western cultures" (which are a lot more socialist than we accept in the United States).

In any event, culture is complicated. There are cultures and subcultures. I routinely feel like a foreigner within my own culture since I reject or question a lot of the prevailing mythologies of the United States (and to some extent in Europe) on top of basically not caring less about "popular culture." Even so, I am still a product of Western history and intellectual traditions because that's inescapable having been immersed in it.

I personally think that "the West" is a useful concept in areas of political and cultural theory, as long as we don't let our usage of the term run away with us and fool us into thinking we're talking about a definite, easily-defined monoculture.

 

[curious_mind]

Recently, I have noticed a variety of people (both on RF and off) speaking casually about "Western culture," as though it is a readily identifiable, monolithic thing. On the Right, we hear not infrequently from those who's hair is ablaze with fears that immigrating brown people are going to destroy "Western culture" or "Western civilization."

On the Left, we sometimes also hear criticism of "Western culture," equating it with capitalism, individualism, materialism, or patriotism.

In my view, both of these camps - those who want to defend "The West" and those who wish to critique it - have too simplistic a view of what the modern West is. From my vantage point, the West has largely lost any sense of one cohesive culture that characterizes it. Rather, it is composed of a number of co-existing, competing cultures all vying for dominance in an ongoing game of political and cultural chess.

One might argue that this indicates the West is characterized by a kind of pluralism. Ironically, though, a substantial cohort of Westerners have grown (or arguably have always been) antagonistic toward the very pluralism on which their own freedom of expression stands.

What do you think? What is "Western culture" to you? Is there only one?

Very interesting question and I like how you have built towards it.

Anyway, for many people who have not been born or raised in "the west", namely Europe and its offshoots, would think of certain following norms as western culture:
- Drinking alcohol and getting drunk seen as a fun time out on Fridays or Saturdays
- Rampant fornication
- The liberal attitude of the "no harm" principle
- Democratic political structure....or so called democratic
- Rampant capitalism which leads to a materialist world view and way of life
- Although many may claim to be Christian, a near complete disregard for religion over personal views

This is not an exhaustive list but this is what is viewed as western culture by many non western people.

I myself, as a Muslim who has spent his whole life in the UK would not regard this has m culture, which leads to part of your idea, that western culture in indeed pluralistic in nature, made up of many different ways of life...which, surprise surprise, is culture almost everywhere on the planet where there are hundreds of millions of people.

I will however say, a culture would likely be the majority way of life and in our society, what I have listed is the majority way of life. And it still exists.

 

[metis]

What is "Western culture" to you? Is there only one?

What this reminds me is that when Gandhi was asked what he thought about British culture he said "They outta try it".

 

[Vouthon]

I never knew about the Confucian connection. Do you think the translation of Confucian texts is actually what introduced the idea of meritocracy to the West? Were there not internal Western thinkers who independently developed those thoughts (I'm asking, not challenging)?

Good question!

I think there have always been people aspiring to improve their "lot".

But to formulate an entire philosophy, with the aim of actually encoding a system of civil administration that is anchored around a foundational belief that 'promotion' should be based on cultivated virtue and talent, by means of rigorously testing for these qualities (ostensibly with the assumption that 'anyone' from any class is in principle 'capable'), originated in ancient Chinese philosophy in a developed form.

Mencius (372-289 B.C.), a disciple of Confucius, wrote: "Cao Jiao asked, 'Is it true that all human beings are capable of becoming a Yao [yellow-emperor] or a Shun [sage-king]?' Mencius said, 'It is true" (Book 6B).

Re-phrasing that in our terms would be: "Is it true that every American is capable of becoming the next George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? It is true."

Imperial examination in Chinese mythology - Wikipedia

Scholar-official - Wikipedia

Theoretically, this system would create a meritocratic ruling class, with the best students running the country. The examinations gave many people the opportunity to pursue political power and honor — and thus encouraged serious pursuit of formal education. Since the system did not formally discriminate based on social status, it provided an avenue for upward social mobility​

From a historian: "Passing the government-initiated examination was viewed as signifying mastery of Confucianism. The local elites of non-aristocratic background were able to obtain a powerful government position by this means. The examination was used and, perhaps more importantly, was viewed, as a way to enact social and economic justice and upward social mobility for poor, but intellectually able, people. This has generally been considered to be a fair way to promote equality in a highly structured society" (Nuyen 2001).

For the formative influence this exerted on the Enlightenment thinkers (by way of the Jesuit translations of Confucian texts) and later administrative reform in the nineteenth century, see:


http://projects.mcah.columbia.edu/nanxuntu/html/state/ideas.pdf

The story of how European thinkers of this period reacted to Chinese thought is a fascinating one that can only briefly be told here. The most striking example in the seventeenth century was the German philosopher, Leibniz (1646-1716), one of the most internationally minded men who ever lived. He read extensively on China, corresponded with Jesuits who had lived there, and wrote on Confucian philosophy. In a letter written in 1697, he announced: "I shall have to post a notice on my door: Bureau of Information for Chinese Knowledge."

But the most famous leader of the Enlightenment to fall under the Chinese spell was Voltaire (1694-1778), to whom Confucius was the greatest of all sages. A portrait of Confucius adorned the wall of his library. He regarded China as the one country in the world where the ruler is at the same time a philosopher (Plato's "philosopher-king").

Though the European enthusiasm regarding China died away after 1789, it left behind it one very important practical heritage. This is the modern civil service system now prevailing in many Western countries.

As mentioned earlier, the Chinese examination system, from which the various European civil service systems are ultimately derived, seems to have been started in 165 B.C., when certain candidates for public office were called to the Chinese capital for examination by the emperor on their moral excellence. In following centuries the system grew until finally almost anyone who wished to become an official had to prove his worth by passing written government examinations.

Nothing like such a system seems to have been known among the other great civilizations of antiquity. In the universities of Europe, written examinations seem to have been unheard of before 1702. As for government-administered civil service examinations, these were of considerably later date. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Chinese examinations were described repeatedly in Western literature on China of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and aroused intense admiration among such men as Voltaire and Quesnay.

During the eighteenth century a number of Englishmen wrote in praise of the Chinese examination system, some of them going so far as to urge the adoption for England of something similar. The first concrete step in this direction was taken by the British East India Company in 1806. In that year the Company established a small college near London whose purpose was to train Company employees for administrative service in India, the British-controlled portions of which were at that time still governed by the Company on behalf of the British Crown.

The proposal for establishing this college came, significantly, from members of the East India Company's trading post in Canton, China. Thus the principle was established of using for public administration men who possessed certain preparatory qualifications.

During the next several decades many Englishmen referred to the example of China as an argument for establishing a universal civil service system in England itself. Most persistent among them was Thomas Taylor Meadows, a gifted man who served for many years in the British diplomatic service in China.

In 1847 he published a book, Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China, whose main purpose, in his own words, was "to urge the institution of Public Service Competitive Examinations for all British subjects with a view to the Improvement of the British Executive and the Union of the British Empire." In it he described the Chinese system and argued that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only."​

 

[Vouthon]

A comparison with Western philosophy's foundational text and most ambitious ancient 'utopian' vision, Plato's Republic (375 BCE), is instructive.

Plato explicitly excludes “inferior members of the human race" (495c) and to “inferior kinds of people” (545a) from attaning to this, arguing that if “a small, bald metalworker” happened to get rich and married “his master’s daughter,” their defective offspring would only be “second-rate half-breeds” (496a). Plato therefore argued that philosophy “should only be practiced by men of true pedigree” (535c), which takes him to the conclusion that we should ideally prohibit the lower orders of human from reproducing: “sex should preferably take place between men and women who are outstandingly good, and should occur as little as possible between men and women of a vastly inferior stamp. [. . .] This is how to maximize the potential of our flock” (459d-e):


The Republic: Book III, page 3 | SparkNotes

Most first-time readers of The Republic are shocked by how authori-tarian Plato’s ideal city is. In this section, many of the authoritarian aspects come to the fore. Personal freedom is not valued. The good of the state overrides all other considerations.

Social classes are rigid, and people are sorted into these classes with no thought to their preferences. Of course, Plato would object to this latter claim by saying that each person will find their class most pleasing to them since it is best suited to their nature. Nonetheless, they are given no input when the state determines what life they will lead. A citizen’s fate—producer, warrior, or ruler—is decided at an early age, and no provisions are made for individuals to shift classes as they mature.

Those labelling the ideal city authoritan can also point to state-controlled propaganda in the form of the myth of the metals.
​

So, Plato would not have said that, "all human beings are capable of becoming Hercules or Achilles". For him, being born into a 'class' really involved a qualitatively different 'essence' of humanity ('gold' in the bodies of the top class and 'bronze' in the lower), with a few 'flukes' of nature excepting.

Mencius wished to defend social stratification based on a "justified inequality" by way of differential attainments in cultivation of knowledge and virtue (he was not a believer in any concept of 'human rights' derived from every person being created in the 'image of God' and endowed with subjective, inviolable rights as early Christian liberals like John Locke in 17th century Europe). Plato and Aristotle on the other hand just wished to defend inequality (outside a narrow elite class of 'guardians') as 'natural', period (and with a 'class-based' difference of inferior/superior).

I should thus stress that one cannot, therefore, impute 'proto-equality' to the Confucians either - other than selection based on 'merit' they were innately inegalitarian in mindset, as scholars note:

"The greatest textual challenge to reconstructing a Confucian value of equality is probably posed by the Xunzi, which explicitly opposes equality:

Where classes of society are equally ranked, there is no proper arrangement of society; where authority is evenly distributed, there is no unity; and where everyone is of like status, none would be willing to serve the other.17
​

For Xunzi, it is a "norm of heaven" that those with equal eminence cannot serve each other, and those who are equally lowly in status cannot command each other; social stratification is required to resolve and prevent conflicts in order to bring about and maintain order. Those who interpret the idea of "heaven" (f/an, also translated as "nature") as a metaphysical or transcendent source of value are likely to see this as the direct opposite of Lockean and other ideas of moral equality with metaphysical or religious bases.

A reconciliation of Confucianism with the democratic value of equality is unlikely from such unpromising beginnings. Equality is not a deeply rooted principle in Confucian thought..."

(Sor-hoon Tan, Philosophy Department, National University of Taiwan)

​

But back to the 'merit'.... there was one earlier semi-precursor to the Enlightenment influence from China in the West, in the universal educational plan of Pierre Dubois (c. 1255 – after. 1321) under King Philip the Fair. Pierre Dubois was a French canon lawyer, who had a different vision for an ideal society: he advocated egalitarian state-funded education for especially talented boys and girls equally from poor backgrounds; whereby they would be trained at internationally-run schools to become an elite scholar class that could be dispatched by the Papacy on missionary journeys abroad. He also called for basic universal education for all children period, writing:


Pierre Dubois' Scheme of Education, 1309

"In each province, according to the resources of the localities available for this purpose and the size of the population, instead of the priories of the Templars or Hospitalers there located, there should be established what would be more opportune for this purpose two or more schools for boys and about the same number for girls, who should be chosen to be instructed there at the age of four or five years. And let them be selected by some wise philosopher who would recognize the natural disposition likely to make progress in philosophical studies.

It is especially desirable that every Catholic should know written figures, the situation and places of the elements, their magnitude and shapes the thickness of the celestial orbs, their magnitude; the velocity, motion, and influences of sun, moon, and other stars; and how small the earth is compared to them, and how great with respect to man...

By provision of schools of this sort and transmission of instructors of both sexes to oriental parts we westerners would get trade in precious commodities abounding in those regions, lacking to us and very dear here, and we would import them cheaply once the world were made catholic...."​

But the education plan never came to fruition, remaining the unfulfiled vision of a maverick (it also had the weakness of having an arbitrary selection method e.g. a 'wise philosopher' recognising their natural disposition at the age of 4 or 5 years of age, which is obviously too young to judge!) . Its still closer to Plato's Republic than the Mencian Chinese model, albeit with the notable exception of his calling for "every Catholic" regardless of social class (and not just those selected for the special 'elite schools') to receive universal tertiary education in how to read and write, as well as in science (which would have been better in this respect than Plato or the Chinese system).

Other than Dubois, I wouldn't say that we can really find the idea of 'society' being systematically remodelled on the basis of a clearly defined concept of merit, prior to Western engagement with Confucian texts.

In China, by contrast, this had been one of the foundational 'ideas' at the heart of their philosophy and administration since the second century BCE - indeed, of their 'culture'.

When the Jesuit mission historiographer Daniello Bartoli (1608 – 1685) set out to write his account of the evangelism at the Chinese Court, he marvelled at this imperial scholar-mandarin system: "Each person is worth just what he is, and owes his circumstances to nothing other than his own merits". He noted that the Chinese civil service was far better organized than the Western versions, because it was a "literary empire" that prized virtue and knowledge through examination over blood lineage in selecting the most capable officers for governing roles in the imperial administration.

And these Jesuit commentaries on Confucian ideals really captured the attention of 'proto-liberal' intellectuals throughout Europe in their calls for political revolution.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Very interesting question and I like how you have built towards it.

Anyway, for many people who have not been born or raised in "the west", namely Europe and its offshoots, would think of certain following norms as western culture:
- Drinking alcohol and getting drunk seen as a fun time out on Fridays or Saturdays
- Rampant fornication
- The liberal attitude of the "no harm" principle
- Democratic political structure....or so called democratic
- Rampant capitalism which leads to a materialist world view and way of life
- Although many may claim to be Christian, a near complete disregard for religion over personal views

This is not an exhaustive list but this is what is viewed as western culture by many non western people.

I myself, as a Muslim who has spent his whole life in the UK would not regard this has m culture, which leads to part of your idea, that western culture in indeed pluralistic in nature, made up of many different ways of life...which, surprise surprise, is culture almost everywhere on the planet where there are hundreds of millions of people.

I will however say, a culture would likely be the majority way of life and in our society, what I have listed is the majority way of life. And it still exists.

This seems to me a very distorted perspective then, if this is in fact what many non Western people believe. Perhaps as much as how many perceive Muslims to be. That is, seeing the majority through the actions, behaviours, and beliefs of a few. And a bit surprising if you have lived in the UK all your life, since that is not what I perceive - after living here for seven decades.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Recently, I have noticed a variety of people (both on RF and off) speaking casually about "Western culture," as though it is a readily identifiable, monolithic thing. On the Right, we hear not infrequently from those who's hair is ablaze with fears that immigrating brown people are going to destroy "Western culture" or "Western civilization."

On the Left, we sometimes also hear criticism of "Western culture," equating it with capitalism, individualism, materialism, or patriotism.

In my view, both of these camps - those who want to defend "The West" and those who wish to critique it - have too simplistic a view of what the modern West is. From my vantage point, the West has largely lost any sense of one cohesive culture that characterizes it. Rather, it is composed of a number of co-existing, competing cultures all vying for dominance in an ongoing game of political and cultural chess.

One might argue that this indicates the West is characterized by a kind of pluralism. Ironically, though, a substantial cohort of Westerners have grown (or arguably have always been) antagonistic toward the very pluralism on which their own freedom of expression stands.

What do you think? What is "Western culture" to you? Is there only one?

Not sure one can define this in any meaningful way other than by defining what it isn't, and perhaps this is more useful. As in, it tends to discount and avoid theocracies, dictatorships, anarchies, etc., striving to give as many freedoms as can usefully be maintained (beliefs, behaviours, expression, etc.) through democracy and capitalism, hence often espousing secularity as the norm whilst also allowing essential religious freedoms, but can be messy as to political systems (too many political parties so often or just two) because of such freedoms. We can certainly recognise those outside of Western Culture - China (authoritarian and politically dogmatic), Russia (essentially a dictatorship), Iran (essentially a theocracy), Saudi Arabia (same), and Turkey perhaps (getting more authoritarian), amongst the many others quite similar. Many countries are in between such, often valuing what 'Western Culture' has to offer whilst also trying to navigate their own ways. One thing that generally can be said about Western Cultures is that the forces of right and left politically are a bit like a see-saw act, with either side being in power dependent upon the foibles of the voting public, and removing what the other side might have previously put in place, as the two sides struggle to make any definite progress (as they see it). Hence all do tend to be a bit unstable - but perhaps better than the alternatives.

 

[curious_mind]

This seems to me a very distorted perspective then, if this is in fact what many non Western people believe. Perhaps as much as how many perceive Muslims to be. That is, seeing the majority through the actions, behaviours, and beliefs of a few. And a bit surprising if you have lived in the UK all your life, since that is not what I perceive - after living here for seven decades.

As I stated, this is a perception and if it is true, then I would not regards it as MY culture, which leads to western culture being quite pluralistic. However, it would be crazy to deny that this is not the way of life of the majority of the people of the UK. Just look at the strains alcohol consumption has put on both the NHS and the police service (read The Royal College of Nurse's open letter to the PM about 5 years ago, or the NCAs assessment of violent crime in the UK links to alcohol, or the expenditure reports on policing major cities during Friday, Saturday and eve Thursday nights etc), the situation is so bad that every year our government spends millions on drink responsibly advertising. Fornication is so rampant that STDs are a far bigger infection crisis than Covid 19, as is teenage pregnancies and yet it is accepted in our society and the attitude, especially among those of my generation is "so what, we should be able to do what we like". And if you're going to argue that capitalism is not rampant, then I don't know what to say.

 

[Tambourine]

As I stated, this is a perception and if it is true, then I would not regards it as MY culture, which leads to western culture being quite pluralistic. However, it would be crazy to deny that this is not the way of life of the majority of the people of the UK. Just look at the strains alcohol consumption has put on both the NHS and the police service (read The Royal College of Nurse's open letter to the PM about 5 years ago, or the NCAs assessment of violent crime in the UK links to alcohol, or the expenditure reports on policing major cities during Friday, Saturday and eve Thursday nights etc), the situation is so bad that every year our government spends millions on drink responsibly advertising. Fornication is so rampant that STDs are a far bigger infection crisis than Covid 19, as is teenage pregnancies and yet it is accepted in our society and the attitude, especially among those of my generation is "so what, we should be able to do what we like". And if you're going to argue that capitalism is not rampant, then I don't know what to say.

I've known Muslims who drink and/or have casual sex with people. Then again, they were mostly born here with their parents being migrants from Turkey or the Balkans, so probably not part of a non-Western culture as you seem to identify as.

 

[Mock Turtle]

As I stated, this is a perception and if it is true, then I would not regards it as MY culture, which leads to western culture being quite pluralistic. However, it would be crazy to deny that this is not the way of life of the majority of the people of the UK. Just look at the strains alcohol consumption has put on both the NHS and the police service (read The Royal College of Nurse's open letter to the PM about 5 years ago, or the NCAs assessment of violent crime in the UK links to alcohol, or the expenditure reports on policing major cities during Friday, Saturday and eve Thursday nights etc), the situation is so bad that every year our government spends millions on drink responsibly advertising. Fornication is so rampant that STDs are a far bigger infection crisis than Covid 19, as is teenage pregnancies and yet it is accepted in our society and the attitude, especially among those of my generation is "so what, we should be able to do what we like". And if you're going to argue that capitalism is not rampant, then I don't know what to say.

But it isn't. You are choosing to look at one demographic, and being selective at that. I was never part of any binge-drinking so-called norm as a youth or at any other time, and neither were so many others. It always tends to be the few who make the news. Alcohol consumption might be high in the UK but not as bad as in many countries, and it doesn't imply that those who drink are 'getting drunk', it just means they drink:

List of countries by alcohol consumption per capita - Wikipedia

And the rampant fornication is just moral judgment - when others see this as freedom of expression - and again, teenage pregnancies, although high compared with most other European countries, has been falling steadily over the last several decades, but it always has been higher than it should be. Perhaps it reflects the freedoms available here, apart from the traditional notions of family breaking down, and which has occurred in many other similar countries. You perhaps see value in religious control where some of us see value in freedom of expression. And one other thing - the age for having children has been rising steadily, so perhaps the trend is better than the appearance.

As a Muslim, you really should be looking at what happens in so many predominantly Muslim countries before attacking the non-Muslim ones - like FGM being very high in some (90% or more), let alone teen pregnancies or child marriage:

Highest Teen Pregnancy Rates Worldwide

 

[wellwisher]

Western culture was rooted in the Roman Empire. The Roman empire included most of Europe and parts of Western and South Western Asian. In the 4th Century AD, Rome made Christianity the official religion of Rome. This made Christianity part of the new Western Culture. The Catholic Church would be the result and it became the new hub of Western Culture.

The Age of Exploration and the division of the Catholic Church, in the middle ages, is when the various countries of Western Culture; Europe, explored the world, discovered America, and colonized most of the world. This spread an evolving western culture to most of the world. Great Britain was the most prolific in this sense, with colonies in all four corners of the earth.

This British colony in America would become the USA. The USA was formed based on its British and Christian values of God given rights and laws.The USA would eventually take over as the central hub of western culture after a few world wars. Very few people on earth are not exposed to aspects of western culture via the innovative and creative influences of the USA. This drive to influence still has its roots in ancient Rome, but tempered by the softness of Christianity.

 

[Secret Chief]

That's why we still speak English here (and we even speak it better than they do in England ).

Don't.

We borrowed bits and pieces of other cultures, threw them into the melting pot, mixed them around into a swirl, added some spices, and the end result was baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.

Indeedy. The British national dish is either Chicken Tikka Masala* or Chinese Stir Fry.

*A dish possibly created in Glasgow.

 

[curious_mind]

But it isn't. You are choosing to look at one demographic, and being selective at that. I was never part of any binge-drinking so-called norm as a youth or at any other time, and neither were so many others. It always tends to be the few who make the news. Alcohol consumption might be high in the UK but not as bad as in many countries, and it doesn't imply that those who drink are 'getting drunk', it just means they drink:

List of countries by alcohol consumption per capita - Wikipedia

And the rampant fornication is just moral judgment - when others see this as freedom of expression - and again, teenage pregnancies, although high compared with most other European countries, has been falling steadily over the last several decades, but it always has been higher than it should be. Perhaps it reflects the freedoms available here, apart from the traditional notions of family breaking down, and which has occurred in many other similar countries. You perhaps see value in religious control where some of us see value in freedom of expression. And one other thing - the age for having children has been rising steadily, so perhaps the trend is better than the appearance.

As a Muslim, you really should be looking at what happens in so many predominantly Muslim countries before attacking the non-Muslim ones - like FGM being very high in some (90% or more), let alone teen pregnancies or child marriage:

Highest Teen Pregnancy Rates Worldwide

What? When did I say Britain consumes more alcohol than any other country on the planet? How is that even relevant to my post.

Is alcohol consumption in the UK the norm?

Is fornication the norm?

Is capitalism the norm?

Is democracy, or so called democracy the norm?

This is what I stated, you have, it seems been offended and rather than accepting or trying to provide counters to those claims, you have done what most angry old men do and that is create strawmen arguments.

I expect you to answer the above.

I will answer your question by creating a thread on the matter, which I will invite you to join me in a discussion. Please allow the discussion to be objective and academic, not emotional, as you so clearly seem to be.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What? When did I say Britain consumes more alcohol than any other country on the planet? How is that even relevant to my post.

Is alcohol consumption in the UK the norm?

Is fornication the norm?

Is capitalism the norm?

Is democracy, or so called democracy the norm?

This is what I stated, you have, it seems been offended and rather than accepting or trying to provide counters to those claims, you have done what most angry old men do and that is create strawmen arguments.

I expect you to answer the above.

I will answer your question by creating a thread on the matter, which I will invite you to join me in a discussion. Please allow the discussion to be objective and academic, not emotional, as you so clearly seem to be.

- Drinking alcohol and getting drunk seen as a fun time out on Fridays or Saturdays
- Rampant fornication

Getting drunk was one of your points (no qualifier), as if the norm. Factually incorrect - for the majority. Very few binge-drink in actual fact and most of the drinking (by consumption) is done by those older than those likely to be going to pubs on a Friday or Saturday. And rampant fornication (again unqualified) is just some moral judgment based on some particular religious morality - and again is likely incorrect.

Where some countries have freedoms, some have less so. Why expect countries that have grown up with democracies and tolerance of others to behave as you seem to think they should behave - apart from this coming from your religious beliefs?

If you want to compare moralities, then why not look around at what others do, and how differences will be seen - since there are usually benefits and deficits to most cultures. Things like FGM, child marriage, less tolerance, for example. You seem to be looking through an Islamic lens. Like to trade the freedoms you have in the UK for what is on offer in some other country?

 

[Tambourine]

[...]
This British colony in America would become the USA. The USA was formed based on its British and Christian values of God given rights and laws.The USA would eventually take over as the central hub of western culture after a few world wars. Very few people on earth are not exposed to aspects of western culture via the innovative and creative influences of the USA. This drive to influence still has its roots in ancient Rome, but tempered by the softness of Christianity.

Yes, a lot of Americans see the US on a civilizing mission to bring "freedom" and "Western values" to the various corners of the Earth, much like the British Empire saw itself as bringer of Western civilization when it enslaved India, Africa, and Australia. The imperialist drive to subjugate other cultures and make them worship our gods has not let up since the days of the Roman Empire.

Of course, the Roman Empire was not "Western".