By Sam Vaknin
Author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"
Culture is a hot topic. Scholars (Fukoyama, Huntington, to mention
but two) disagree about whether this is the end of history or the
beginning of a particularly nasty chapter of it.
What makes cultures tick and why some of them tick discernibly
better than others - is the main bone of contention.
We can view cultures through the prism of their attitude towards
their constituents: the individuals they are comprised of. More so,
we can classify them in accordance with their approach
towards "humanness", the experience of being human.
Some cultures are evidently anthropocentric - others are anthropo-
transcendental. These two lingual coins need elaboration to be fully
comprehended.
A culture which cherishes the human potential and strives to create
the conditions needed for its fullest materialization and
manifestation is an anthropocentric culture. Such striving is the
top priority, the crowning achievement, the measuring rod of such a
culture, its attainment - its criterion of success or failure.
On the other pole of the dichotomy we find cultures which look
beyond humanity. This "transcendental" look has multiple purposes.
Some cultures want to transcend human limitations, others to derive
meaning, yet others to maintain social equilibrium. But what is
common to all of them - regardless of purpose - is the subjugation
of human endeavour, of human experience, human potential, all things
human to this transcendence.
Granted: cultures resemble living organisms. They evolve, they
develop, they procreate. None of them was "created" the way it is
today. Cultures go through Differential Phases - wherein they re-
define and re-invent themselves using varied parameters. Once these
phases are over - the results are enshrined during the Inertial
Phases. The Differential Phases are period of social dislocation and
upheaval, of critical, even revolutionary thinking, of new
technologies, new methods of achieving set social goals, identity
crises, imitation and differentiation.
They are followed by phases of a diametrically opposed character:
Preservation, even stagnation, ritualism, repetition, rigidity,
emphasis on structures rather than contents.
Anthropocentric cultures have differential phases which are longer
than the inertial ones.
Anthropotranscendental ones tend to display a reverse pattern.
This still does not solve two basic enigmas:
What causes the transition between differential and inertial phases?
Why is it that anthropocentricity coincides with differentiation and
progress / evolution - while other types of cultures with an
inertial framework?
A culture can be described by using a few axes:
Distinguishing versus Consuming Cultures
Some cultures give weight and presence (though not necessarily
equal) to each of their constituent elements (the individual and
social structures). Each such element is idiosyncratic and unique.
Such cultures would accentuate attention to details, private
enterprise, initiative, innovation, entrepreneurship, inventiveness,
youth, status symbols, consumption, money, creativity, art, science
and technology.
These are the things that distinguish one individual from another.
Other cultures engulf their constituents, assimilate them to the
point of consumption. They are deemed, a priori, to be redundant,
their worth a function of their actual contribution to the whole.
Such cultures emphasize generalizations, stereotypes, conformity,
consensus, belonging, social structures, procedures, forms,
undertakings involving the labour or other input of human masses.
Future versus Past Oriented Cultures
Some cultures look to the past - real or imaginary - for
inspiration, motivation, sustenance, hope, guidance and direction.
These cultures tend to direct their efforts and resources and invest
them in what IS. They are, therefore, bound to be materialistic,
figurative, substantive, earthly.
They are likely to prefer old age to youth, old habits to new, old
buildings to modern architecture, etc. This preference of the Elders
(a term of veneration) over the Youngsters (a denigrating term)
typifies them strongly. These cultures are likely to be risk averse.
Other cultures look to the future - always projected - for the same
reasons.
These cultures invest their efforts and resources in an ephemeral
future (upon the nature or image of which there is no agreement or
certainty).
These cultures are, inevitably, more abstract (living in an eternal
Gedankenexperiment), more imaginative, more creative (having to
design multiple scenarios just to survive). They are also more
likely to have a youth cult: to prefer the young, the new, the
revolutionary, the fresh - to the old, the habitual, the
predictable. They are be risk-centered and risk-assuming cultures.
Static versus Dynamic (Emergent) Cultures
Consensus versus Conflictual Cultures
Some cultures are more cohesive, coherent, rigid and well-bounded
and constrained. As a result, they will maintain an unchanging
nature and be static. They discourage anything which could unbalance
them or perturb their equilibrium and homeostasis. These cultures
encourage consensus-building, teamwork, togetherness and we-ness,
mass experiences, social sanctions and social regulation, structured
socialization, peer loyalty, belonging, homogeneity, identity
formation through allegiance to a group. These cultures employ
numerous self-preservation mechanisms and strict hierarchy,
obedience, discipline, discrimination (by sex, by race, above all,
by age and familial affiliation).
Other cultures seem more "ruffled", "arbitrary", or disturbed. They
are pluralistic, heterogeneous and torn. These are the dynamic (or,
fashionably, the emergent) cultures. They encourage conflict as the
main arbiter in the social and economic spheres ("the invisible hand
of the market" or the American "checks and balances"), contractual
and transactional relationships, partisanship, utilitarianism,
heterogeneity, self fulfilment, fluidity of the social structures,
democracy.
Exogenic-Extrinsic Meaning Cultures
Versus Endogenic-Intrinsic Meaning Cultures
Some cultures derive their sense of meaning, of direction and of the
resulting wish-fulfillment by referring to frameworks which are
outside them or bigger than them. They derive meaning only through
incorporation or reference.
The encompassing framework could be God, History, the Nation, a
Calling or a Mission, a larger Social Structure, a Doctrine, an
Ideology, or a Value or Belief System, an Enemy, a Friend, the
Future - anything qualifies which is bigger and outside the meaning-
seeking culture.
Other cultures derive their sense of meaning, of direction and of
the resulting wish fulfilment by referring to themselves - and to
themselves only. It is not that these cultures ignore the past -
they just do not re-live it. It is not that they do not possess a
Values or a Belief System or even an ideology - it is that they are
open to the possibility of altering it.
While in the first type of cultures, Man is meaningless were it not
for the outside systems which endow him with meaning - in the latter
the outside systems are meaningless were it not for Man who endows
them with meaning.
Virtually Revolutionary Cultures
Versus Structurally-Paradigmatically Revolutionary Cultures
All cultures - no matter how inert and conservative - evolve through
the differential phases.
These phases are transitory and, therefore, revolutionary in nature.
Still, there are two types of revolution:
The Virtual Revolution is a change (sometimes, radical) of the
structure - while the content is mostly preserved. It is very much
like changing the hardware without changing any of the software in a
computer.
The other kind of revolution is more profound. It usually involves
the transformation or metamorphosis of both structure and content.
In other cases, the structures remain intact - but they are hollowed
out, their previous content replaced by new one. This is a change of
paradigm (superbly described by the late Thomas Kuhn in his
masterpiece: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").
The Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome Differentiating Factor
As a result of all the above, cultures react with shock either to
change or to its absence.
A taxonomy of cultures can be established along these lines:
Those cultures which regard change as a trauma - and those who
traumatically react to the absence of change, to paralysis and
stagnation.
This is true in every sphere of life: the economic, the social, in
the arts, the sciences.
Neurotic Adaptive versus Normally Adaptive Cultures
This is the dividing line:
Some cultures feed off fear and trauma. To adapt, they developed
neuroses. Other cultures feed off hope and love - they have adapted
normally.
Neurotic Cultures Normal Cultures
Consuming Distinguishing
Past Oriented Future Oriented
Static Dynamic (Emergent)
Consensual Conflictive
Exogenic-Extrinsic Endogenic-Intrinsic
Virtual Revolutionary Structurally-Paradigmatically
Revolutionary
PTSS reaction to change PTSS reaction to stagnation
So, are these types of cultures doomed to clash, as the current fad
goes - or can they cohabitate?
It seems that the Neurotic cultures are less adapted to win the
battle to survive. The fittest are those cultures flexible enough to
respond to an ever changing world - and at an ever increasing pace,
at that. The neurotic cultures are slow to respond, rigid and
convulsive. Being past-orientated means that they emulate and
imitate the normal cultures - but only when they have become part of
the past. Alternatively, they assimilate and adopt some of the
attributes of the past of normal cultures. This is why a traveler
who visits a neurotic culture (and is coming from a normal one)
often has the feeling that he has been thrust to the past, that he
is experiencing a time travel.
A War of Cultures is, therefore, not very plausible. The neurotic
cultures need the normal cultures. The latter are the generators of
the former's future. A normal culture's past is a neurotic culture's
future.
Deep inside, the neurotic cultures know that something is wrong with
them, that they are ill-adapted. That is why members of these
cultural spheres entertain overt emotions of envy, hostility even
hatred - coupled with explicit sensations of inferiority,
inadequacy, disappointment, disillusionment and despair. The
eruptive nature (the neurotic rage) of these cultures is exactly the
result of these inner turmoils. On the other hand, soliloquy is not
action, often it is a substitute to it. Very few neurotic cultures
are suicidal - and then for very brief periods of time.
To forgo the benefits of learning from the experience of normal
cultures how to survive would be suicidal, indeed. This is why I
think that the transition to a different cultural model, replete
with different morals, will be completed with success. But it will
not eliminate all pervious models - I foresee cohabitation.
Note about Adolescent Cultures
The tripling of the world's population in the last century or so
fostered a rift between the majority of industrial nations (with the
exception of the United States) and all the developing and less
developing countries (the "third world"). The populace in places
like Western Europe and Japan (and even Russia) is ageing and
dwindling. These are middle-aged, sedate, cultures with a middle-
class, mature outlook on life. They are mostly liberal, consensual,
pragmatic, inert, and compassionate.
The denizens of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa are still
multiplying. The "baby boom" in the USA - and subsequent waves of
immigration - kept its population young and growing. Together they
form the "adolescent block" of cultures and societies.
In the Adolescent Block, tastes and preferences (in film, music, the
Internet, fashion, literature) are juvenile because most of its
citizens are under the age of 21. Adolescent cultures are
ideological, mobilized, confrontational, dynamic, inventive, and
narcissistic.
History is the record of the clashes between and within adolescent
civilizations. As societies age and mature, they generate "less
history". The conflict between the Muslim world and the USA is no
exception. It is a global confrontation between two cultures and
societies made up mostly of youngsters. It will end only when either
or both ages (chronologically) or matures (psychologically).
Societies age naturally, as the birth rate drops, life expectancy
increases, pension schemes are introduced, wealth is effectively
redistributed, income and education levels grow, and women are
liberated. The transition from adolescent to adult societies is not
painless (witness the 1960s in Europe and the USA). It is bound to
be protracted, complicated by such factors as the AIDS epidemic. But
it is inevitable - and so, in the end, is world peace and prosperity.
==============================================================
AUTHOR BIO (must be included with the article)
Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant
Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West
Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Central Europe Review,
PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International
(UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health
and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and
Suite101.
Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government
of Macedonia.
Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com