From a memetic way of looking at things I sometimes wonder where culture lies. Does any one particular culture stand to gain anything by wiping out or minimizing other contenders, or do they, like genes, flourish from a diversity that whittles things down leaving only those which work well with others standing? Cultures most certainly contain a mixture of elements and are always changing in their make up, much as any organism does. But considering many cultures contain portions which people consider intrinsically linked, and as whole we've come to a point where so much care is taken to avoid offending one culture or another, I wonder sometimes if perhaps we have lost some form or another of valuable criticism. How are things ever to change if we really believe everything created by everyone is equal and are too polite to ever say when we see what might be a problem?
"Universal" Culture
The idea that all cultures are equal, that none is superior or inferior, but rather just different from one another is called "Cultural Relativism". The major problem with such a concept is, as I said earlier; that if every culture is equal, what right does anyone have to even suggest changes to let alone forcibly impose it? If, for example, the Nazis were a culture that was equal to all others, what right would anyone have had to intervene in their genocide of the Jews? Of course, one would most certainly argue that the Nazis clearly didn't believe all cultures were equal to be doing such a thing in the first place, but doesn't then considering every culture out there an equal become nothing more than a disadvantage to those who believe it? Classic nice guy dilemna, you finish last if others are willing to play mean and history's full of examples: the most influential cultures haven't just been wealthy, advanced, and powerful, but also willing to push others around. Kind of makes you wonder if in the end, nice cultures finish last too. The way things have changed in modern times, however, it's beginning to seem a bit like playing mean now carries the real consequence of others losing trust in you.
If there are any universal cultural traits out there, I really can think of only two. Every culture seems to have a problem with indiscriminate killing. This, for the obvious reason that people cannot perpetuate when there is no stability in life even continuing. Situations that resemble this one (The Reign of Terror, The Khmer Rouge Regime, and to some extent, China's Cultural Revolution) have generally not lasted long before some other, more stable system replaced them.
The other trait I mentioned is lying. We need to be able to believe what others are saying to us. Without some level of trust, even the smallest of societies looses cohesion and productivity. Completely outside of the religious reasons that it's "wrong" to do so, we castigate people who break these rules for a very good reason. They bring everybody else down.
It is of some small relief that every culture in the world recognizes these principles, and can never be made entirely of cheats who break these "rules", and yet very unsettling the idea that it's often those who do so that tend to rise to the peaks of their societies and then screw up others' as well.
In his book "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins at one point mentions a computer simulation repeatedly running different various strategies in a never ending loop of "prisoners dilemna". One surprising result was that very often the so-called "nice" strategies finished first. By "nice" we mean simply the programs which didn't do things like "attack" first unprovoked, break trust, screw over opponents/partners. Viewing the whole thing as not being a zero-sum game, where working with others, and not playing them false can get one ahead, it would seem, is actually a very sound strategy. Cheats have always gotten by in societies that are large enough to afford some, but not too many.
Now the world, it appears, has become like one giant society, one in which the different cultures interact with one another much as members in a small village do, and with technology increasing as it is, the village is getting smaller. When one person does something to another in a place this small, other people hear about it.
On "Policing" the World
Many people out there seem to view the current foreign policy of the U.S. as one of an unwanted watchdog to world. John McCain once said he felt that while everyone complains of the U.S. policing the world, he thought deep down inside people were really more afraid of the reverse: the idea that if no one did so, there would be all kinds of states ready to act greedily on their own behalf at the expense of others. In short: if america didn't do it, who would?
While I agree with the basic assumption that being a law enforcer is tough work, and sometimes a dirty job that someone has to do, I also have a major problem with the idea that those who do it can ever be considered truly altruistic. In many circumstances, law enforcers reap rewards by basically being above or beyond the law. They choose how and when they enforce it, and often times this leads to exemptions when faced with judging their own and every group of enforcers from knights and samurais all the way to our modern day cops has had its examples of corrupt members and bullies. Most every country out there wants to be the one to enforce things as they see fit but only those with power seem able to do so and once again we come to the disappointment that the most successful of countries is willing to push around others.
But the world is changing, as I said earlier, and with many a nation able to see what another one does, reputation on a world scale seems to be growing in importance in such a way that blatant flaunting will put the cheater behind. America's war in Iraq has been analyzed to death on moral grounds from both sides of the aisle (and it was idealogical reasons that needed to be used to gain approval), but the final result might just be a matter of the U.S. falling behind for what was merely a short term gain in the long run of things as many countries lost their trust in it.
Somehow I doubt that the use of force to get things will ever go out of style. Strength is, after all, admired in societies because it makes all other things possible, or rather the stability it provides does. It seems every culture out there that has become remotely successful on a world scale has some lingering legacy of a strong warrior caste somewhere in its ancestry. The world society at large has since become more connected, more educated, and more weary of violence and turmoil. No group seems able to dominate on the level possible before, the victors no longer kill the losers, and the perpetuation of the written word has left the idealogies of those defeated to persist long after they depart.
Threat of Violence
On December 10th, 2009 U.S. President Obama received the Noble Peace Prize on grounds many found fragile. While his message of hope had inspired many to take steps towards real and positive change, a common attitude of his detractors was that in terms of actual acheivement Obama had still yet to prove himself. Regardless of whether he deserved the award or not, one thing that struck me more than anything else was something he said in his speech, and has led me to a question I've had trouble coming to grips with. He mentioned at one point his admiration for men like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. with their non-violent approach to confrontation, but then (in what surely amounted to the most tension filled part of his acceptance speech) maintained that a strong leader for a country like the U.S. needed to know when to be strong and when to use force if necessary.
To be fair, Obama was (and still is iat the time of this writing) involved in two wars (in Afganistan and Iraq) which certainly could not be ignored as he received a prize for peace. Still, the whole idea of it all, at first seemed very much a contradiction to me. Gandhi and King Jr. were both willing to die as martyrs for their causes and more or less unwilling to take lives in doing so. I've thought quite a bit about this and realized that while their messages preached peace, brutality raged all around them, and that at least some of it was coming from people on their own side. They preached against this destructiveness on their behalf, of course, but the danger of it was still always there. Both men did indeed die for their causes, and upon their deaths tensions boiled over in a tide of violence that rocked their societies to their cores. I don't mean to criticize these men or their methods, but never before did I realize that despite what is a message of peace is carried a threat of violence should the other side ever go too far. I shudder to think of what might happen to America if Obama were ever assassinated, not only for the loss of a message and symbol but also of what backlash might occur. Something tells me the Tea Partyers would count themselves lucky to still have the skin on their backs let alone get off with mere reprimands in such a situation.
So whose memes are the strongest?
I remember hearing once that an ancient king whose lands stretched far and wide and encompassed many peoples decided one day that he wanted to learn more about the customs of those different groups within his borders. He sent out envoys and ambassadors on what might be described as an early type of anthropolgy project and discovered to his surprise that some of his subjects, of a small and remote group, ate their ancestors when they died as a sign of respect. This ran contrary to the practice of burning the dead which was common in the king's main territories, and true enough, when these people heard the notion of burning their dead, they were shocked and appalled. "Why would you burn your dead?!!" they cried, "How horrible and disrespectful can you be to leave your loved ones uneaten when they die!" The point, I suppose, was that looking through the prism of another culture almost anything could be seen as either ok or barbaric depending on whose point of view you started with.
It strikes me that today there are no groups out I can think of that eat their dead, despite the sort of ambiguity of the above tale. Indeed, a genetic study a few years back, delving into the causes of mad cow disease, revealed that cannibalization of almost any sort begins to set in motion a sort of mutation that causes the sickness. Makes sense from a genetic point of view. When there's nothing left to eat but your own kind, the body begins to believe something is wrong out there and begins mutation as a defense mechanism hoping to survive. Eating one's dead as a custom didn't make it to the modern age because there was something wrong with it, something incompatible, unworkable.
Cultures and societies have a habit of dropping the parts that don't work, much as most creatures do (to re-use an earlier analogy) with genes that bog them down. The major difference of course is that social groups have a choice in what to let go, and it doesn't take a specimen dying per say to put an end to detrimental memes as it does with genes. There are plenty of examples aside from those major ones I mentioned eariler: killing and lying, though I'm of the thought that most have ties to these two. Falsehoods and half-truths have a habit of slowing down and screwing up the groups which hold onto them, especially those that advocate the taking of lives.
Many Muslims in the world today do their best to disassociate themselves with Islamic Jihadists. It might not simply be that they find the acts they commit reprehensible, there just doesn't seem to be much at the end of the road for violent extremists; they rarely get what they want in this world because people stop listening to them.
Somehow I doubt that the use of force to get things will ever go out of style. Strength is, after all, admired in societies because it makes all other things possible, or rather the stability it provides does. It seems every culture out there that has become remotely successful on a world scale has some lingering legacy of a strong warrior caste somewhere in its ancestry.
Within every society lies the abilty to drop the contents which do not work. To survive is to change, to improve is let go the things which do more harm than good. No part of our culture is completely unremovable. The strength that traditions have lies within the cohesion they create as much as the lessons they provide. Their detraction lies in inflexibility when change demands it. Within the history of any group comes the time to compromise what we've grown accustomed to in the past, with what is necessary for the future. In these times of incredible change it might all seem to be happening too fast, but time has a habit seperating what can survive from what can't, and only it will tell which of our traits make it to the next round.
No comments:
Post a Comment