• 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!

What is Western Culture?

Kirran

Premium Member
This is something I've thought about on and off for a little while now.

We often easily use terms such as 'Western culture', 'Arab culture', 'South Asian culture' and whatever else, but we seem to only have vague ideas what these things mean.

To look at Western culture as an example (people are free to bring up others if they like, I'm sure that'll be very interesting as well), I wonder there is that uniquely culturally unites these people. If we include at the very least Western and Northern Europe, Anglo-North America and Anglo-Oceania in this definition (I'd say that all the EU could be included as well, and to a substantial extent Latin America, but I digress) then this is a cultural mega-grouping which includes farmers from up in the Appalachian mountains, the Belgian Royal Family, the United States' Congress and the populations of urban centres such as Dublin, Munich and Vancouver.

Is there something at a deeper level, in terms of priorities, ways of looking at the world, ways of approaching and interacting with other human beings and thinking about societies, which unites Western culture? I have seen it said that there is, in reference to the heritage of the Western Enlightenment and its impacts on Western mindsets. In particular, that would be things like a certain level of freethinking, an appreciation of humanistic ideals, of democracy, etc.

Either way, are there things that unite Westerners in terms of their customs and outward culture, whether or not they are united by shared values or intellectual and emotional approaches? One could argue there is common heritage, in Roman Catholicism and its derivatives in the form of Western Christianity, but is this really accurate to say when many countries where Orthodoxy or even Islam have historically been dominant are increasingly described as Western? e.g. Romania, Greece and Bosnia. And, perhaps more importantly, when people whose personal heritage is not Western Christian have come to make up a large proportion of modern Western society? Not to forget, Western societies have long had established Jewish populations, many of whom engaged in the Enlightenment etc as well.

Is there something that unites me, as a Wales-raised anti-nationalist whose spirituality is primarily Hindu, with someone in the American conservative mainstream? Do we approach the same history and language from a totally distinct way of looking at the world, or are there commonalities within Western culture above ad beyond such superficialities?

As with any identity, it is of course somewhat of a moving feast. It was not so long ago that 'the West' referred to the bloc allied with the USA against the Soviets, but that definition is no longer valid. Nevertheless, the Western world still seems to exist as a discrete identity in some sense.

Any thoughts welcome :)
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Those are indeed vague stereotypes.

The best I can think of to characterize "Western Culture" is a degree of rough familiarity with certain ideas and terminology.

But that is often more of a self-image than a reality as such. We end up emulating each other to some extent, but not always having a functional understanding of what we are attempting to emulate.

Nor are there definite boundaries (fortunately). Cultures bleed into each other all the time, and that is very much a good thing.
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
This is something I've thought about on and off for a little while now.

We often easily use terms such as 'Western culture', 'Arab culture', 'South Asian culture' and whatever else, but we seem to only have vague ideas what these things mean.

To look at Western culture as an example (people are free to bring up others if they like, I'm sure that'll be very interesting as well), I wonder there is that uniquely culturally unites these people. If we include at the very least Western and Northern Europe, Anglo-North America and Anglo-Oceania in this definition (I'd say that all the EU could be included as well, and to a substantial extent Latin America, but I digress) then this is a cultural mega-grouping which includes farmers from up in the Appalachian mountains, the Belgian Royal Family, the United States' Congress and the populations of urban centres such as Dublin, Munich and Vancouver.

Is there something at a deeper level, in terms of priorities, ways of looking at the world, ways of approaching and interacting with other human beings and thinking about societies, which unites Western culture? I have seen it said that there is, in reference to the heritage of the Western Enlightenment and its impacts on Western mindsets. In particular, that would be things like a certain level of freethinking, an appreciation of humanistic ideals, of democracy, etc.

Either way, are there things that unite Westerners in terms of their customs and outward culture, whether or not they are united by shared values or intellectual and emotional approaches? One could argue there is common heritage, in Roman Catholicism and its derivatives in the form of Western Christianity, but is this really accurate to say when many countries where Orthodoxy or even Islam have historically been dominant are increasingly described as Western? e.g. Romania, Greece and Bosnia. And, perhaps more importantly, when people whose personal heritage is not Western Christian have come to make up a large proportion of modern Western society? Not to forget, Western societies have long had established Jewish populations, many of whom engaged in the Enlightenment etc as well.

Is there something that unites me, as a Wales-raised anti-nationalist whose spirituality is primarily Hindu, with someone in the American conservative mainstream? Do we approach the same history and language from a totally distinct way of looking at the world, or are there commonalities within Western culture above ad beyond such superficialities?

As with any identity, it is of course somewhat of a moving feast. It was not so long ago that 'the West' referred to the bloc allied with the USA against the Soviets, but that definition is no longer valid. Nevertheless, the Western world still seems to exist as a discrete identity in some sense.

Any thoughts welcome :)

I would define it as those who benefit from radically skewed economic exchange rates.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Those are indeed vague stereotypes.

The best I can think of to characterize "Western Culture" is a degree of rough familiarity with certain ideas and terminology.

But that is often more of a self-image than a reality as such. We end up emulating each other to some extent, but not always having a functional understanding of what we are attempting to emulate.

Nor are there definite boundaries (fortunately). Cultures bleed into each other all the time, and that is very much a good thing.

I think a lot of culture is indeed about self-image. These are realities we construct ourselves. When you say certain ideas and terminology, would you expand?

Also, are you a Westerner?

The relationship between Latin America and the Western identity is often somewhat ambiguous. In many cases the societal elites have been part of the flow of Western culture, but not the lower classes.

I would define it as those who benefit from radically skewed economic exchange rates.

You would include the Japanese, then?
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
I think a lot of culture is indeed about self-image. These are realities we construct ourselves. When you say certain ideas and terminology, would you expand?

Also, are you a Westerner?

The relationship between Latin America and the Western identity is often somewhat ambiguous. In many cases the societal elites have been part of the flow of Western culture, but not the lower classes.



You would include the Japanese, then?

Sure. At least since the end of ww2.
But they seem to be showing an inkling towards breaking away from it.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
You might try studying sociology and/or social psychology and/or even anthropology to get past the broad stereotypes and into the things that make regional cultures different from each other.

I might recommend reading up on the work of Geert Hofstede (Geert Hofstede - Geert Hofstede , or, the wikipedia article is a good start as well), who developed a set of measures on different dimensions that suggests how people differ by nation/region.

The six dimensions of culture in his model are: 1) power distance index, 2) Individual versus collective, 3) Masculinity v. femininity, 4) Uncertainty avoidance, 5) Long-term v. short-term orientation, and 6) indulgence v. restraint.

He says of culture,
"Culture only exists by comparison
The country scores on the dimensions are relative, as we are all human and simultaneously we are all unique. In other words, culture can be only used meaningfully by comparison.

These relative scores have been proven to be quite stable over time. The forces that cause cultures to shift tend to be global or continent-wide. This means that they affect many countries at the same time, so if their cultures shift, they shift together and their relative positions remain the same. Exceptions to this rule are failed states and societies in which the levels of wealth and education increase very rapidly, comparatively speaking. Yet, in such cases, the relative positions will also only change very slowly.

The country culture scores on The Hofstede Dimensions correlate with other data regarding the countries concerned. Power Distance, for example, is correlated with income inequality, and individualism is correlated with national wealth. In addition, Masculinity is related negatively with the percentage of national income spent on social security. Furthermore, Uncertainty Avoidance is associated with the legal obligation in developed countries for citizens to carry identity cards, and long term orientation (LTO) is connected to school mathematics results in international comparisons."
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
It seems to me you're conflating 'the West' with 'the developed world'.

Well you could just draw a line down the Greenwich meridian and the international dateline, and decide that everything
in the one half is 'the west' - if you wanted to to be pedantically literal.

But if we are trying to observe how the idea is/can be used in ordinary language,
then Japan since ww2 is little different from America & Britain in terms of lifestyle.

A lifestyle of ivory-tower-wealth generated from economically skewed exchange rates.

The real questions however, are:
'Can the western lifestyle be maintained indefinitely'?
and
'What happens when the BRICS realize that they are actually sustaining the west?'
iow
When do the chickens come home to roost?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
You might try studying sociology and/or social psychology and/or even anthropology to get past the broad stereotypes and into the things that make regional cultures different from each other.

I might recommend reading up on the work of Geert Hofstede (Geert Hofstede - Geert Hofstede , or, the wikipedia article is a good start as well), who developed a set of measures on different dimensions that suggests how people differ by nation/region.

The six dimensions of culture in his model are: 1) power distance index, 2) Individual versus collective, 3) Masculinity v. femininity, 4) Uncertainty avoidance, 5) Long-term v. short-term orientation, and 6) indulgence v. restraint.

He says of culture,
"Culture only exists by comparison
The country scores on the dimensions are relative, as we are all human and simultaneously we are all unique. In other words, culture can be only used meaningfully by comparison.

These relative scores have been proven to be quite stable over time. The forces that cause cultures to shift tend to be global or continent-wide. This means that they affect many countries at the same time, so if their cultures shift, they shift together and their relative positions remain the same. Exceptions to this rule are failed states and societies in which the levels of wealth and education increase very rapidly, comparatively speaking. Yet, in such cases, the relative positions will also only change very slowly.

The country culture scores on The Hofstede Dimensions correlate with other data regarding the countries concerned. Power Distance, for example, is correlated with income inequality, and individualism is correlated with national wealth. In addition, Masculinity is related negatively with the percentage of national income spent on social security. Furthermore, Uncertainty Avoidance is associated with the legal obligation in developed countries for citizens to carry identity cards, and long term orientation (LTO) is connected to school mathematics results in international comparisons."

Thanks. This was essentially the kind of thing I was getting at speaking of common ways of looking at the world and relating with other people etc.

In part, I wonder if one's mindset can be transformed to the extent that it's fair to you're not a Westerner, due to having changed your mental assumptions and identities to that degree.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Thanks. This was essentially the kind of thing I was getting at speaking of common ways of looking at the world and relating with other people etc.

In part, I wonder if one's mindset can be transformed to the extent that it's fair to you're not a Westerner, due to having changed your mental assumptions and identities to that degree.
I suppose it is; Hofstede's model only deals with aggregation at the level of nations (although you can compare nations by however you want to group them). Individuals within a nation will vary, and I suspect can and do change, but it probably only slowly affects the national scores.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I suppose it is; Hofstede's model only deals with aggregation at the level of nations (although you can compare nations by however you want to group them). Individuals within a nation will vary, and I suspect can and do change, but it probably only slowly affects the national scores.

Here he is explaining his dimensions in context - http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc

I suppose it's worth noting that a lot of Hofstede's data is based on how people act in the working environment. I don't know if that skews things, or if it leaves some things out. He has gone on to compare the data with various other trends and so on.

For example, in relation to the masculinity vs. femininity thing, I wonder what Hofstede would say about some areas of queer and allied subcultures where there people operate in an increasingly 'genderqueer' or even postgender space. Kind of blows the whole metric out of the water.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I think a lot of culture is indeed about self-image. These are realities we construct ourselves. When you say certain ideas and terminology, would you expand?

Much of what constitutes a culture is ultimately learning "how things are usually done" and "what the words are supposed to mean".

Take for instance a clash of expectations that we both know somewhat close. Roughly speaking, "western" culture tends to define religion as a function of belief in the existence of deities, while Hindu culture uses the concept of Dharma instead and had to accomodate the idea of religion to allow more effective communication with those troublesome westerns.

I know personally people who have a hard time understanding what Hinduism and Buddhism are - or even insisting that they are not religions - because they do not fully correspond to their rigid expectations of "how a religion is supposed to be".

It is somewhat typical for a cultural concept to be in a certain way for no other reason beyond enough social support and expectation that it should be so.


Also, are you a Westerner?

I guess I am. No other group seems to accept me, unless you include nerds/geeks or fans of RPG.

The relationship between Latin America and the Western identity is often somewhat ambiguous. In many cases the societal elites have been part of the flow of Western culture, but not the lower classes.
That is an interesting point to note. What you say is roughly correct, although the obvious conflict of identity manifests in a somewhat more complex way.

That said, I think such a situation is actually fairly common. People seem to always pick and choose the cultural legacies that they claim to belong to, and there is very little to make those choices at all stable. To pick a historical and obvious example, I would assume that Alsace and Lorraine don't confortably fit into either French or Western culture while clear not being a part of the other one.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Much of what constitutes a culture is ultimately learning "how things are usually done" and "what the words are supposed to mean".

Take for instance a clash of expectations that we both know somewhat close. Roughly speaking, "western" culture tends to define religion as a function of belief in the existence of deities, while Hindu culture uses the concept of Dharma instead and had to accomodate the idea of religion to allow more effective communication with those troublesome westerns.

I know personally people who have a hard time understanding what Hinduism and Buddhism are - or even insisting that they are not religions - because they do not fully correspond to their rigid expectations of "how a religion is supposed to be".

It is somewhat typical for a cultural concept to be in a certain way for no other reason beyond enough social support and expectation that it should be so.

I think these points generally make sense, yeah.

Have you any other examples of the kinds of things that characterise Western society?

I guess I am. No other group seems to accept me, unless you include nerds/geeks or fans of RPG.

Didn't know you were into RPGs!

But what I mean is, you wouldn't see 'Latin American' as being its own other mega-culture alongside Western culture? Fuzzy as these terms obviously are, and rightly so.

That is an interesting point to note. What you say is roughly correct, although the obvious conflict of identity manifests in a somewhat more complex way.

That said, I think such a situation is actually fairly common. People seem to always pick and choose the cultural legacies that they claim to belong to, and there is very little to make those choices at all stable. To pick a historical and obvious example, I would assume that Alsace and Lorraine don't confortably fit into either French or Western culture while clear not being a part of the other one.

Why would you say Alsace and Lorraine are not Western, or do not comfortably fit into that label? If that is what you're saying.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Here he is explaining his dimensions in context - http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc

I suppose it's worth noting that a lot of Hofstede's data is based on how people act in the working environment. I don't know if that skews things, or if it leaves some things out. He has gone on to compare the data with various other trends and so on.

For example, in relation to the masculinity vs. femininity thing, I wonder what Hofstede would say about some areas of queer and allied subcultures where there people operate in an increasingly 'genderqueer' or even postgender space. Kind of blows the whole metric out of the water.
Yeah, there are limits to his model, just as there are to every model of human behavior. I'm familiar with Hofstede's work primarily because it impacts both organizational management and public policy, but there is good question of whether the selected dimensions are sufficient even in those contexts. That's why it helps to look to other models of society and culture as well.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Maybe Western culture is a culture that has been invaded multiple times and been changed thereby. For example England is an island that has been invaded many times. Maybe the more times you get invaded, the more Western you are.

No, not joking.

Have you heard the song We Won't Be Fooled Again ? There is a kind of culture forged in multiple invasions.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I think these points generally make sense, yeah.

Have you any other examples of the kinds of things that characterise Western society?

Generally speaking I tend to discourage identification into specific cultures, or at least to encourage taking those somewhat in jest.

But let's see... "Western" society as I understand it seems to revolve around the idea that material wealth is a good thing and a major motivator; that the individual person is somehow always unique and influential "if he or she chooses to be"; that the world as a whole exists as a function of its own convenience and is ours to shape as we please; and that pride and rebellion are normal and understandable relationships for one to have with his or her own social groups, while gratitude isn't quite as proper.

Oh, and it also tends to greatly value what amounts to thinly disguised authoritarianism and arrogance, usually presented as "role of law" and as "respect for the institutions". And to have deeply ambiguous and contradictory expectations of the relationship between the individual and the social groups, although that may be an universal or at least very common human trait.



Didn't know you were into RPGs!

I don't narrate nor play as often as I would like, but I have been attempting to for some 30 years now.

But what I mean is, you wouldn't see 'Latin American' as being its own other mega-culture alongside Western culture? Fuzzy as these terms obviously are, and rightly so.

I don't. Some people do, clearly, but I think that is to a very large extent wishful thinking.

Perhaps I would think differently if I understood Latin America to be a bit more stable. Our communities tend to resemble pyramids of playing cards trying to proudly ignore our own insistence at being fragile and doomed to collapse.

Much of it may be simple lack of proper time to learn to form a culture in any meaningful sense. We have a mixed and often unresolved legacy from both natives and Europeans and we just don't really know what to make of it, let alone how to cooperate and negotiate among themselves to reach goals that we have not even decided on.

Why would you say Alsace and Lorraine are not Western, or do not comfortably fit into that label? If that is what you're saying.

I guess I would call them Western. But those things are as specific as we want them to be. There are often competing regional and national identities at work, then there are ethnic ones, etc.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
In a large and diverse country such as the US, there's quite a variety of cultural types: if you look at music tastes, for example, there's at least two subcultures that listen to Country--they share some traits, but it isn't universal. Popular music gets listened to by much of the population, but again it varies by region and other characteristics. Jazz, R&B, Metal, Rap, etc., all appeal on geographic, social, economic, ethnic and other grounds.

But you can also start with any of those geographic, social, economic, ethnic, etc., grounds and study their "cultures," which will include music types, leisure-time activity preferences, professional and vocational preferences, political attitudes, and so on...
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Any thoughts welcome
Much like dogs, humans are territorial and "tribal". We don;t like to think of ourselves that way, but the reality is those are very strong impulses within our species.

Can these be overcome? To an extent yes, but it's tough because so much is simply "built in" to our personal and societal psyche.

"Culture" (as in different cultures) is a human construct with ill-defined lines of demarcation. In descending order by size, we in anthropology tend to use culture, society, and sub-culture.

Gotta go.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
A little factoid to illustrate how artificial those things can be.

Brazil largely thought of itself as a colony of the kingdom of Portugual from 1500-something up until 1815, when it was decreed a part of the "joint Kingdom" with Portugal.

Then in 1822 the heir prince, with the accordance of the king, decided to decree Brasil a sovereign, independent country - the sole monarchy in the history of the Americas.

Then in 1889 it became a Republic (after exactly two monarchs).

In the 128 years since we had IIRC six "republics" and as many "constitutions".

History of Brazil since 1985 - Wikipedia

History of the Constitution of Brazil - Wikipedia

Clearly, we like the concepts of republic and constitution in the abstract, but have a hard time understanding them enough to make it work. In a sense it is almost like a cargo cult.

Are we a part of Western culture? Beats me. But we sure like to play the part on TV.
 
Top