Monday, July 2, 2007

Culture organized by Geography.

One of the problems that modern government is faced with is cultural diversity within one geographic entity.

In the old days cultures were pretty much defined by location. NY had its own culture, as did Kyoto and Damascus. Because one's main influence was from the more immediate surroundings, cultures ended up being tied to location.

With the advent of global commerce, travel and information, one's cultural and practical makeup is not as geographically centered as before.

This leads to a number of government problems:

a. The use of dividing a government into local governments is not as effective as it once was. This solution is still effective, to the extent that cultures are organized by location.

b. Although cultures aren't organized by location, they do exist. This means that large parts of society can end up under-represented in the government. For example, if 25% of the US is a member of the KKK, the senate may still lack a Klansman, if the members are distributed evenly across the states.

Any other ideas?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

One of the problems that modern government is faced with is cultural diversity within one geographic entity.

Why is this a "problem?" What role does or should government play when it comes to culture? Aren't most governments' issues with "culture" in reality real conflicts over real things between specific groups? In other words, culture is somewhat irrelevant to governments until there is an inter-cultural conflict.

In the old days cultures were pretty much defined by location.
When were the "old days?" What was the last year when NYC had a culture? What replaced it? Isn't it fair to revise this statement to posit a time horizon beyond which we can remember only one culture? In other words, as history progresses, the dominant culture of a place becomes the only "official" historical culture.

NY had its own culture, as did Kyoto and Damascus. Because one's main influence was from the more immediate surroundings, cultures ended up being tied to location.

With the advent of global commerce, travel and information, one's cultural and practical makeup is not as geographically centered as before.
This is true. But in reality it played out as a gradient. Global commerce has been with us for thousands of years. The Buddha sculptures famously destroyed in Afghanistan a few years back, for instance, were built by the descendants of Alexander the Great's generals, who wanted to mesh Buddhist theology with their Greek idols.

I think there are two phenomena at play here. On the one hand is the aforementioned "globalization" of local populations - the individual's ability to respond to far-reaching stimuli.

On the other hand is the enormous strengthening, since about 1850, of national governments. Modern weaponry has made this possible. The government-culture relationship was different (not less complex) in the "old days" because national governments did not, for the most part, attempt to impose their will on local populations. Thus the survival of non-global culture until the 19th century.

With the rise of national governmental power (e.g. unification of Germany or Italy, or even the recognition of the Jewish national consciousness) there evolved an idea that there should be some equivalence between government and culture. When these does not coincide, great violence occurs.

What I feel is important to glean from this is:
It is a central notion of our time that national self-government is the ultimate expression of cultural validity.

However, this was not always the case, and will probably not be the case forever.
Part of the Israeli-Palestinian debate stems from that fact that the Palestinians say that they were there before, and the Israelis say that there was no country there before. Both are right. The issue is that Zionism emerged as a political force at the height of the rise of the nationstate idea. There was no Palestinian country in 1920 for the same reason that there was no Jewish State in 1500. It was not thought that there needed to be.

Culture = Nation & Culture != Nation

Fish Goldstein said...

One of the problems that modern government is faced with is cultural diversity within one geographic entity.

Why is this a "problem?" The problem I have in mind is the global jihad movement. It is difficult for countries to combat it, or create a democratic system that will prevent the need for jihad. What role does or should government play when it comes to culture? In general, the laws of the land are partially based on sentiments of what is good and what is evil. Those sentiments are primarily dictated by culture.Instability can arise when a large segment of the population does not share the sentiments that the laws are based on. Aren't most governments' issues with "culture" in reality real conflicts over real things between specific groups? In other words, culture is somewhat irrelevant to governments until there is an inter-cultural conflict. Agreed.

In the old days cultures were pretty much defined by location.
When were the "old days?" What was the last year when NYC had a culture? What replaced it? Agreed. In general, the blog could be improved if it was more specific and sourced. Isn't it fair to revise this statement to posit a time horizon beyond which we can remember only one culture? In other words, as history progresses, the dominant culture of a place becomes the only "official" historical culture.

NY had its own culture, as did Kyoto and Damascus. Because one's main influence was from the more immediate surroundings, cultures ended up being tied to location.

With the advent of global commerce, travel and information, one's cultural and practical makeup is not as geographically centered as before.
This is true. But in reality it played out as a gradient. Agreed. Global commerce has been with us for thousands of years. The Buddha sculptures famously destroyed in Afghanistan a few years back, for instance, were built by the descendants of Alexander the Great's generals, who wanted to mesh Buddhist theology with their Greek idols.

I think there are two phenomena at play here. On the one hand is the aforementioned "globalization" of local populations - the individual's ability to respond to far-reaching stimuli.

On the other hand is the enormous strengthening, since about 1850, of national governments. Modern weaponry has made this possible. The government-culture relationship was different (not less complex) in the "old days" because national governments did not, for the most part, attempt to impose their will on local populations. Thus the survival of non-global culture until the 19th century.
That's a nice observation.

With the rise of national governmental power (e.g. unification of Germany or Italy, or even the recognition of the Jewish national consciousness) there evolved an idea that there should be some equivalence between government and culture. When these does not coincide, great violence occurs. I think the logic behind that idea is that as long as a group of people is governed by another group, it's culture can't find absolutely free expression.

What I feel is important to glean from this is:
It is a central notion of our time that national self-government is the ultimate expression of cultural validity.
I Agree that many people think that way. I think the notion is wrong, and one example of its failure is Israel. Due to international law and observation, sovereign states don't have absolute freedom of their actions. Israel suffers from this. I think cultures are better off working together than splitting. In the modern world, such a model where every culture has its own state is impossible because cultures can't be delineated geographically. Israel suffers from this reality, because not all Jews live in Israel, and not all Israelis are Jewish. Hence, Israel struggles greatly with its identity and defense of its right to exist.
However, this was not always the case, and will probably not be the case forever.
Part of the Israeli-Palestinian debate stems from that fact that the Palestinians say that they were there before, and the Israelis say that there was no country there before. Both are right. The issue is that Zionism emerged as a political force at the height of the rise of the nationstate idea. There was no Palestinian country in 1920 for the same reason that there was no Jewish State in 1500. It was not thought that there needed to be.

Culture = Nation & Culture != Nation