Was it Eastern?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does "Western Culture" Exist Anymore?
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
It was neither. The concept of "Western" and "Eastern" in a cultural sense did not exist.Was it Eastern?
The Romans tended to partition the world into "Rome" and "Barbarians".
Ok. The point is: I can wear fishnet stockings and a miniskirt in my Western country.
I cannot in Riyadh.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ya, that's what my Italian wife tells me.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
You cannot wear a Burqa in most European countries. You can in Riyadh.
So what was your point?
That different countries have different restrictions on what women are allowed to wear?
Something else?
Honestly, I find the term "Western culture" rather quaint. It's such a throw back.
It's from when Europe dominated the globe. English speaking people could divide the world into the western part of Eurasia, the eastern part, and places suited mainly for colonization(like the American continents and Australia and such).
And it does still have some meaning. Greece, Spain, and Germany have common cultural roots, even though they're very different. And China, Thailand, and Japan share cultural roots different from Euro-Christian culture.
But in the modern global village everything's getting more eclectic and less culturally distinct. Especially now that culture can travel at the speed of electronic devices.
Tom
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Greece, Turkey, and Syria have common cultural roots.
India and the UK have common cultural roots.
Japan and Brazil have common cultural roots.
It all depends on digging beyond the political-propaganda surface of popular history and into the deeper stuff, the lost or covered up history that everybody dismisses or doesn't want to talk about too much.
curious_mind
Member
Again you are emotional or English is not your first language (apparently you have lived here 7 decades lol). I stated, in my very first post that the points I was raising could be viewed as assumptions and not everyone is involved in those things, I made it very plain. However, the majority of the population in the UK does drink, many of this occurs on a Friday or Saturday night, I did not necessarily claim it was only binge drinking, although the UK is one of the worst when it comes drinking too much. This is a plain fact, if you do not believe it, please complain to The Royal College of Nurses for highlighting an issue you claim does not exist or maybe write to your local MP to raise in PMQs why so many millions are spent every year on advertising for safe drinking.
Now, you keep making this assumption, and I think you have anti Islamic views, about FGM child marriage, bla bla bla. I told you, this is not what this thread is about. Heck, I doubt you even know what FGM is. As stated, I am happy to start a thread on this topic and invite you in there. Can you take that challenge or will you have another emotional outburst?
Long enough to recognise trolls - so very much English.
I questioned two of your points - which seemingly coming from your religious beliefs - came across as - I'm a Muslim so my morality is better than you stupid others - hence your bad assessment of the numbers getting drunk (very much a minority), and you seeing sexual freedoms as 'rampant fornication'. If this doesn't come from moral judgement where the f*** does it come from? Some universal morality?
It was all about the language you use - which betrays you. Not interested in discussions with you any more.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
To be fair, cultural values can be dominant even when not everyone is following them. As long as an influential and politically dominant majority believes in these values, then they are still dominant.
Throughout the course of the thread, I've been hoping for a further elaboration on the nature of these "co-existing, competing cultures" but have yet - at least to my knowledge - seen you identify the distinct characteristics (and geographical reach) of each. Could you do so? I'm very much interested to hear more.
There is, of course, the counter-narrative that modernity - in much of the developed world - is actually converging towards a set of common political, social and legal norms that constitute a kind of "globalized society" defined by traits that used to be the unique preserve of Western Europe and the United States (pretty much).
This happened in the classical age with ancient Greek culture (and so has precedent), which was disseminated across the vast multicultural Mediterranean world through Alexander the Great's conquests, resulting in a "Hellenized" sphere stretching from the Ionian peninsula to India.
After the emergence of Roman hegemony following the defeat of its great North African (and semitic-Phoenecian cultural) rival Carthage in the Punic wars, this Hellenized cultural sphere found itself politically unified under one government (from Britain to North Africa) through a network of Roman political alliances that Julius Caesar and his nephew Augustus later converted into outright colonies. So you ended up with Roman roads, bath-houses, Greek-style gymnasiums, coliseums and amphitheatres, temples, philosophical schools and lifestyle (togas, culinary tastes, entertainment in the form of Greek drama, sports such as gladiatorial combat and chariot racing) everywhere in cultural dominance from Londonium in Britain to Sepphoris in Judea.
Somewhat analogous to this, I think it's hard to deny that since World War II American culture, represented by your country's political norms, entertainment (Hollywood and web-television like California based "Netflix"), consumerism in the form of the hegemonic "Amazon" (which dominates shopping worldwide) and lifestyle (the sexual revolution of the 60s began in California and I'm wearing a pair of jeans right now) has a kind of widespread applicability and currency outside its borders. MacDonald's is a symbol of American capitalism that is found everywhere from Dubai to London.
For those of us outside America, some part of us both "loves" and "hates" our purported "Americanization". You find this same attitude in Baghdad and London, albeit to greatly varying extents (given that the UK is a political ally and shares close political and cultural heritage with the United States).
There were societies in the ancient Mediterrenean region that attempted (unsuccessfully) to resist the advance of this kind of transcultural homogenization, one of them being Judea; which had social, religious and political norms at a complete odds with that of the new hegemonic 'transculture'. The Judeans had one God as opposed to a polytheistic pantheon, a distinct moral system, different sexual norms (i.e. opposition to Greek pederasty and polygamy as opposed to Roman monogamy) and their lifestye cut a stark contrast in general (i.e. circumcision vs Greco-Roman disgust with the practice, refusal to depict divinity with images vs idol-worship etc. etc.).
The Maccabean Revolt against the Hellenized Seleucid Empire (one of Alexander the Great's many Greek successor kingdoms) was triggered in the second century BCE by a 'civil war' involving rival Judean factions (one beholden to the 'Hellenization' of the occupying 'Gentile' power: embracing gymnaseums and ceasing to circumcise or keep kosher versus those diehards committed to the traditional, ancestral ways and opposed to the new omnipresent Greek lifestyle). Ultimately, however, the centuries-long Judean battle for cultural and political independence resulted in the disastrous Roman-Jewish Wars (66 - 132 CE), which saw the entire Jewish nation wiped off the map, its central religious complex (the Second Temple) levelled to the ground, wholesale slaughter of Jews and its survivors 'exiled' into the Diaspora, to the four corners of the Empire.
(In a 'fluke' of history, of course, three hundred years later a Jewish-offshoot cult that we both might have heard something about became the state religion of the Empire and in time brought about a new cultural-synthesis between the dying classical civilisation and this Semitic-Middle-eastern culture - but that's another story
).So, could one say that you are in fact "overemphasizing" the particlarity / distinctiveness of sub-cultures here which, rather than constituting wholly unique cultural "spheres', are in fact just a "debate" or "debates" within a broader shared culture (as to its future) that would have little relevance for people outside it, who don't necessarily submit to a set of prior "assumptions" derived from Western civilizational heritage?
The recent political reform that has swept many 'Western' countries over the past decade surrounding the issue of LGBT rights and gay marriage, for example, certainly seems to be suggestive of social change across societies sharing some basic cultural assumptions about equality, freedom and non-discrimination - and one can think of other parts of the world where such developments would just not be possible; where the actual "debate" that led to these progressive legal reforms would just not be 'had' in the first place, because that given society is starting off from a very different set of fundamental premises.
I don't know if "American culture" is part of a cohesive if now looser Western cultural sphere, or a sub-branch of it, or some kind of new cultural synthesis. But I'm strongly inclined to feel - as a person from outside the US looking in - that the decisions made in your nation's Oval Office, the fashions emanating from your country's largest city New York, the entertainment trends pumped out by Hollywood in Los Angeles and your reality TV shows, deeply shape my life in a whole manner of ways. There's a burgeoning Evangelical church up the road from me, the "Harvest", that took over when the old Presbyterian church closed down for lack of parishioners. Guess where it's headquarters are based in and what kind of missionaries founded it? United States, yes.
And whether one wishes to view America as something "cohesive" or not, I can't deny that I feel this way - especially when I look across the pond at the face of our mad orange-faced emperor holding a Bible in his hand as his heavy-handed police forces crush protestors seeking equal treatment, all the while having his finger on the nuclear button of the American controlled "alliance" system my country is a member of. Then I look outside my window, here in the UK, and see a "Black Lives Matter" poster on my neighbour's window (still there). And I feel a deep sense of contentment in seeing that.
Last edited:
I tend to think "American culture" is cohesive to some degree, although still containing sub-cultures which might be somewhat competitive with each other. I don't know if it was always this way, though. In the past, the hegemonic culture tended to strongly encourage cultural assimilation. Henry Ford, for example, used to have schools for his immigrant workers, where they would learn about America. There would be a graduation ceremony where students would start by wearing the clothes of their native culture, but then it would end with them wearing American style clothing. Learning English was mandatory, and some schools even had corporal punishment if any kids were caught speaking Spanish or some language other than English. A lot of people changed their names to make them sound more American.
Of course, assimilation was hardly a friendly process, as it appeared to be linked to the overall racist, xenophobic, ethnocentric policies which dominated America's political culture for a long time. Many immigrant groups also made a point of expressing their patriotism and gratitude towards America, symbolized by Lady Liberty. This was also an American cultural motif, related to the "American Dream" and the common perception that a person could come to America with nothing and still become a billionaire (although that was probably more myth than fact in the vast majority of cases).
The World Wars clearly had an influence on how Americans saw themselves and the outside world, and those events also clearly affected cultures across the West and throughout the world for that matter. While I wouldn't characterize the World Wars as culture wars, there were certainly cultural aspects and a clear divide between those who favored the "old order" versus those who favored something new and reactive against that older order.
The Germans, for example, saw Americans and our culture as "mongrelized," while they saw European culture as "pure," as well as older, more stately, refined, etc. This attitude still seems to be evident today, as America is often viewed as analogous to a brash teenager, uncouth, unsophisticated, provincial, and without any real "culture" at all. But on the other side, American culture (expressed in popular movies and music) was also seen as more fun, entertaining, and to some extent "innocent" (although that may have only been on the surface).
For those who lived in or were born during that period, they saw a world where America was on top and could literally do no wrong whatsoever. While the rest of the world was devastated by war, poverty, famine, and deprivation, America was the land of plenty, with a cornucopia of resources and an industrial infrastructure which ran like a well-oiled machine. America was at its peak, and this was the time when many viewed America as "great" - the same level of greatness which some might refer to amidst claims of wanting to "make America great again."
"Great" is a subjective judgment, but some would argue that it really wasn't that great for a lot of people, particularly people of color, but there was still some measure of progress. The Civil Rights movement would start to pick up steam during this period as well. Immigration laws, which became severely restricted in the 1920s, would start to loosen up again. This also led to a reaction against the pressure to assimilate to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture which had dominated America for generations. Various groups discovered that they wanted to get back in touch with their true cultural roots, particularly the Native Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans who didn't feel that the hegemonic "WASP" culture represented them (and was also considered the source of oppression and racism).
As a result, we saw things like boxing champion Cassius Clay changing his name to Muhammad Ali. Football player Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashad. The American Indian Movement (AIM) also started up around the same time, as it was a reaction against poverty and police brutality against Native Americans, but also emphasized preserving the traditional cultures of the Native American nations. Hispanic Americans also reacted against assimilation and the push to make them all speak English. As I mentioned above, the process of assimilation was not a friendly one, particularly to those who are/were people of color. So, there was a certain reaction against it which became more and more noticeable in the years which followed.
This may be the point where some among the "WASP" Americans started to feel their cultural dominance was starting to erode. Even those who supported Civil Rights and equality in a multi-racial society might have still carried the expectation of the "WASP" culture which had pervaded every aspect of life in the U.S. at every level. Racism was about more than just skin color, although for the longest time, that's how it was presented to the public. Many WASPs had no problem with varying shades of skin color, as long as everyone thought, acted, and spoke like WASPish Americans.
But this also had effects on minority communities which may have been somewhat divided on the issue. Blacks might speak scornfully of other Blacks who act "too white" (this was an early criticism against Obama when he first ran, at least until he got Oprah's endorsement). The pejorative "oreo" (black on the outside, white on the inside) also came into usage. There was also a growing interest in African-Americans wanting to find their roots and the culture of their ancestors which was literally beaten out of them. They wanted to take back that which had been stolen from them. They wanted to forge their own cultural identity, not one which was forced upon them by the white man.
Language is a key element in culture, and I noticed in the 70s and 80s that there was a strong push to promote multilingualism - along with a strong reaction against it from the "English Only" crowd. A lot of people with immigrant roots from non-English-speaking countries would often say "My ancestors came to this country and learned English! Why can't they?" People reacted against bilingual education, multilingual voting ballots, "press 2 for Spanish," etc. A common lament I would hear is Americans relating stories of how they went into certain areas and felt like "strangers in their own land." Or you might hear people talk about their old neighborhood where they grew up decades ago, while lamenting that it's not the same since the ethnic and cultural demographics changed.
I'm not sure how much actual competition there is among cultures. I think some of the earlier cohesion has been lost to a degree, and considering that it had to be brought about through forced assimilation, some see this as a good thing. There's still a great deal of historical "baggage" and cumulative resentment out there, but there's even friction between various cultural and ethnic groups which have a shared history of oppression and victimization due to their race. For example, both Blacks and Hispanics have been victims of racism and oppression by the white Anglo-Saxon hegemonic power, so there's a certain natural alliance and feeling of solidarity that one might expect, but it's not always the case. I've seen first-hand how they can get into all-out brawls and melees. Individually, they might both be reasserting and reclaiming their cultural heritage in opposition to assimilation and other aspects of institutionalized racism they lived under. But in the process, it creates a different kind of cultural competition in which they might tend to step on each other's toes.
From the vantage of those outside America, they might just see the more visible and hegemonic parts of it - the Oval Office, the fashions of New York, the entertainment coming from Los Angeles. These most certainly have a major effect on our lives as well - all of us living here in America, regardless of our politics or cultural/ethnic roots. We're all pretty much in the same boat, more or less, even if some people refuse to look at it that way. But for those of us at "street level" or in "flyover country," I don't think they get a clear view of that from L.A., N.Y., or inside the Beltway, as they seem to live in their own little worlds. The image and reputation that they have set for America may be felt and seen beyond the seas, but it may not really give a very clear or accurate picture of what's going on.