Is "culture" really a good thing?

I've been thinking about this a lot.  Some libertarians seem to be bent on "preserving culture."  Perhaps it is fine if you appreciate culture in general, but I find that culture inherently serves mythology, violence, indoctrination, etc. that are opposed to anarchism and help support the fallacy of polylogism.  I don't think culture is the friend of the anarchist or the libertarian in general.

It seems to me that cultures may create geniuses and geniuses may inhabit some cultures.  Some cultures may have more geniuses than others.  Some cultures may have few if any geniuses.  But it seems to me that all in all, we cannot talk about any culture by ignoring the fact that the genius is always in the minority.  Or that culture may destroy the possibility of some types of genius from developing (we can't ignore the factor of violence in the judging of cultures and what each of the enslaved individuals would otherwise be lead to believe).  Those who advocate liberty are too in the minority.  And any culture's history is in fact one of mostly abetting slavery in one form or another.  No base of "liberty" is implanted in any culture as far as I can tell.

  Particularly in what is referred to as "western culture."  A very minority of western culture believes in liberty.  And if they do so, it is such a vulgar and incoherent a theory of liberty which if truly examined it may apply to even the most enslaved (think "positive" liberty).  As Nietzsche said, it is "too cold for their spines."

I've also been thinking about "multiculturalism" which I find it to be wrongly labeled.  It seems more appropriate to say "cross-cultural" instead.  I don't feel that the preservation of these multiples of cultures to be a positive thing.  To have their fears and indoctrination persist in the knowledge of other cultures I feel is a negative thing.  What should happen instead is that communication across cultures to try and defeat indoctrination, violence, and so forth should be the prime goal. I think even religious people (particularly monotheists) would agree on this point.  Individualism, like religious salvation of mankind, cannot come with some exceptionalism.

When we say that many middle-easterners are indoctrinated with certain views, we should be sympathetic.  It shouldn't be an opportunity to say that American culture is somehow not indoctrinated or is relatively less indoctrinated (neither of these assumptions seem particularly well-defined or substantiated).  I'm not even convinced that our educational system is more inclined to teaching liberty than theirs is.  Nor can we say that ours is less jingoistic.  We cannot talk about "communist" or "Islamist" or "fascist" peoples -- even college students -- unless we can know what they would believe minus the violence of the state and its cultural mythology enforced by that violence.

This is not to say a culture could not develop to hold libertarian views.  But as far as I know, all cultures today seem to be ruled by violence and enslavement.  Even ours is runned by a nanny state and compulsory education.  It is then useless to defend the political values of the American people (even if they tend to be schizophrenic in regards to their love/hate for the market and entrepreneurship).   Or of any people.  If the free market views depended on violence and compulsory education to drill them into the minds of the people, then they would not be ones which are legitimately believed.  In fact, many socialists hold the view that culture indoctrinates.  On this general view they are right.  But they believe such violence indoctrinates people away from Marxist views.  And would rather have compulsory education for their own purposes.  This is where must disagree.  We cannot think the existing culture is ripe for evolution or (our non-violent) revolution.  Experience seems not to work in shaping the public's consciousness of economic truths.  Whether it be business cycles or socialism or the causes of inflation.  To that end, it seems more likely that the public cannot believe in the things we believe unless they are free from the compulsory educational establishment and culture which keeps mythology persisting.  Any assumption that our culture has "won" the battle for liberty any more than another is simply doomed to failure and we can't kid ourselves.

Well one may have to define culture. What is it a set of beliefs, norms, preferences, ways of doing things?

Either way I do not think there is a choice between humans having culture or having no culture at all. If you can consciously act, you will have some kind of "culture".

But here is some advice: For any political movement to succeed they need to influence the popular culture (beliefs, norms, preferences, manners etc.) Of the group whose politics they would like to change. One influences culture via intellectuals, artists, literature in short the educated upper class of a society + those one can consider as activists.

IRShenchmanJon:

But as far as I know, all cultures today seem to be ruled by violence and enslavement.

Quakers, Amish, Buddhist, Mennonite, Jainism, etc, etc. Plenty of religions hold pacifist views, even more believe that only defensive violence is legitimate, and so on. I think the main problem is perversion of culture, rather than culture itself, is to blame. Statism, a verifiable religion in itself, is the main contaminant, in my opinion, but definitely not the only one. The very idea you put forth, that of abolishing cultural, is a significant one as well, which I think has growth in tandem with relativism.

Multiculturalism is a dangerous idea, i think. Mixing two or more different cultures in the same place can have a grand negative effect. They have a program at my school to hire more "minority" teachers. This is nothing but positive racism. 

Culture is a result of violence and struggle. And it has its myths too. Cultures should be able to communicate with each other if they want. But you can't have an African tribal culture live in the confines of Las Vegas culture. 

Culture war has always been around. Statism just excuses one culture to be superior at the expense of an other. Mixing cultures with a rule of enslavement will deteriorate every aspect of every culture. But culture makes us different, and that is what is good. imposing different culture on different people is what needs to stop.

Globalization is going to cause a mass revision of peoples culture, since it is greatly determined by economic factors. Then maybe there will be a culture of liberty.

All cultures, good or bad, are abolished by the State. Civilization and State are a zero-sum game. From Rome to the U.S., anytime the State gets larger, any values once held in these regions are slowly killed. And when the culture dies, the State dies with it to, and it is ripe for conquest by another State.

Culture is, at least at present, a form of social control.  Statism and religion are both artifacts of culture.  Morality, too.  Vaunted ideas like your family and country are part and parcel of culture.  I dislike 'culture' because I am an individualist and I think any man who doesn't question pronunciations for at least logical consistency is basically enslaving himself to the opinion of others.  This is where I dislike Hans Hoppe's conservative view of libertarianism. simply because although most masses do passively accept ideas from elites doesn't mean it's a rational way to conduct one's affairs.  Theoretically - if the elites were libertarian - then the masses could be led in a libertarian direction.  But it relies on its failure only on the subversion of certain elites (or their conscious use of influence to undermine liberty) and the whole thing gives way.  Thus, America.  Until people think for themselves, we are going to be screwed up one way or another.

Is culture good? It depends how you define culture but I would say no, if we define it as most things people tend to think of as "culture."

I tend to think of culture as being a set of beliefs which are widespread and not subject to logical criticism... basically mythologies. Let's look at a few examples of American culture. America free; it is a great democracy (oxymoron); our president is referred to as "the leader of the free world." Now all of this is of course sheer nonsense. There are certain cultural taboos: abstaining from voting; not "paying your fair share;" not "supporting the troops;" etc. all of which are pretty easy to spot as things designed to keep the slaves well behaved. There is also a pretty widespread belief that America is nearly perfect and you should "love it or leave it." This belief is widespread enough that I'm sure many of you have been told to leave the country when questioning the status quo (I know I have). Then there's flag worship, cop worship, troop worship, etc. 

There are certain aspects of culture that are useful for liberty, such as: the gun culture, the blind hatred of Marx culture, the "limited government" culture. Even these, however, can be potentially destructive to liberty and at best seem to be only semi-helpful. The Marx hatred means that an open communist takeover can never happen, but since it is based on blind belief (as all culture is) FDR's silent coup goes by unnoticed. The gun culture is kinda helpful, but most gun owners seem to think guns should be owned for hunting and target practice and cannot imagine ever having to use it against their government. The limited government culture might occasionally slow down the aggrandizement of the state but it will prevent people from embracing the option of "no government," and allow for an Orwellian totalitarianism under the guise of "freedom."

There are other things in culture which seem totally benign like: "we eat hamburgers;" or "we don't use chopsticks," or "we like firecrackers."

It's not coincidental that the word cult and culture are related.

Brainpolice:

It's not coincidental that the word cult and culture are related.

Isn't the ultimate answer to this question is that it's not good to believe things without rational reasons; insofar as culture is passive acceptance of ideas it's kind of irrational or 'bad' by definition.

Brainpolice:

It's not coincidental that the word cult and culture are related.

Both terms come from the same root. And both terms need to be defined and explained still. Culture usually refers to something that is mainstream, while cult normally deals with something that's a bit off "normal society".

So what is culture?

IRShenchmanJon:

Is "culture" really a good thing?

It depends on what you mean by culture.

If by "culture", you mean a common brainwashing that everyone is subject to, then culture is evil.

If by "culture", you mean a collection of sound practices that everyone knows, then culture is good.

The belief "taxation is not theft" is an example of evil culture.

Most good software engineers follow similar practices.  That is an example of good culture.

Torsten:

Either way I do not think there is a choice between humans having culture or having no culture at all. If you can consciously act, you will have some kind of "culture".

Precisely.  The question is irrelevant because culture is a fact of human existence, unless you're going to try and beat us all into utilitarian automatons like Mao or Pol Pot.

The difference between cult and culture currently is only one of hypocrisy and double standard.  And I doubt if cult could be "defined and explained still" in order to cast it in a positive light.  (Please hold the Liberty Colony jokes!)

What is culture?  It is what you see.  And it is not libertarian.

I never said it was not inevitable, only that that the prevailing and "preserved" cultures are not libertarian, it is not even the friend of libertarianism, and as it is perfectly logical to say that it can be opposed -- that violently maintained culture can be disapproved of -- it should be opposed.  I don't see this as any different than opposing prevailing cultures in the pre-Enlightenment age.  Fear of comparatively more violent or more absurd cultures should not stop one from opposing all prevailing cultures or cause one to fall back on the fatalism of what is assumed is possible.  That is simply religious fear and proof that culture behaves and thrives like a cult, in fact.

As for Byzantine:  utilitarianism and Maoism, et al are cultural concerns. They are not opposition in the slightest.

The relevant issue is not *if* culture is or not a good thing, but *which* culture is good.

One of the most frequent logical fallacies of today is to try to establish a moral equivalence between all cultures.
The massive Politically-Correct-rubbish and propaganda on the mainstream media - and therefore the opinion of the majority of the populace - stresses out that all cultures should be regarded with the same respect and considered equally valid, in the name of democracy, tolerance, multiculturalism & blahblah.

However, I can't but disagree with this standardized viewpoint.

Let's take some examples:

1. Should I consider "good" the culture of certain tribes that, still today, kill their newborn babies by starving them to death if they have any physical defect? Is this culture equal or superior to others that advocate the baby should be treated with love and compassion, raised within the family and taken care of ?

2. Should a certain culture, where the highest artistical manifestation is to beat with a stick onto a hollow tree, be considered equivalent to another which produces symphonies and impressionist pictures?

3. Should I consider a culture that compels you to believe in their faith, leave or die (or accept to be a second-class being and pay high taxes just to be left in peace) equivalent to others -- including the culture I've voluntarily identified myself with -- that allow you to freely choose your faith, or even to believe in nothing but yourself?

I could quote many other examples to illustrate my opinion that there are good and bad cultures indeed, when analyzed through a libertarian viewpoint (considering the non-aggression principle above all subjective criteria) and also to evaluate through the outcomes of these mindsets.

Not to say that I would coerce anyone to follow my culture or adopt my personal values, however I do believe there are superior sets of values, beliefs, habits and other elements which compose the so-called "culture", and that these factors also lead to a better life when transposed to business, personal relationships and other human interactions.

Culture is a naturally emerging system of beliefs, ideas, habits, and mannerisms which act as a means to the end of the individuals survival. Cultures are essentually programs which are designed to enhance the individual's ability to survive, and as a result the ability of the individaul to cooperate with other individuals. Hence, all cultures are designed as a means of social cooperation, whether that is a particularly moral cooperation (in the case of Sparta for example) is another matter entirely. We must note first of all that as a parasitic meme, statism thrives off the destruction, or assemilation of culture into it's own format. Statism often can and does use culture as a trojan horse by which to enter an individuals mind, and the increased meme power of statism automatically feeds off of cultures, slowly consuming them into nothingness. An example would be the cultural life of North Korea. Culture is compeletly natural, and completely good, cultures as meme's routienly combat eachother for meme space, and weaker and less efficent parts of cultures are eliminated, time naturally does this, but free and open trade and cross-cultural communication increases it, so long as it is actually an intentional free act by the individuals in quesiton. If not, then the exchange does not happen as easily, and it leds to excessive destruction and conflict. What we see today as foolishness prevaiding a culture is the retarding of a natural process by statism as a meme and the state as a reality, and the corruption of a natural part of the human life being used as a trojan horse or a host meme.

IRShenchmanJon:

As for Byzantine:  utilitarianism and Maoism, et al are cultural concerns. They are not opposition in the slightest.

My point being, even if your goal is to strip man down to pure homo economicus, there will still nevertheless be "culture" albeit a drab, ruthless one.

So as others have noted, the relevant question is not whether "culture" is really a good thing since culture is omnipresent.  You may as well ask whether "time" is a good thing.  The relevant question is which culture is a good thing.

The key point is: "What is the definition of 'culture'?"  There are positive aspects and negative aspects to culture as generally understood.

If "Ameircan culture" means individual self-reliance, that's good culture.

If "American culture" means the welfare state, IRS, and Federal Reserve, that's bad culture.