Political Theory

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

eliotn — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:57:02 GMT

majevska:
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).

I second that I have been told this, many times.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

majevska — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:23:06 GMT

Torsten:

Jon Irenicus:

A culture is just a way of life, a set of shared beliefs, ideas, habits, rituals &c., and as others have noted, is inevitable from the minute one participates in society as any form of interaction will be of some shape or other. Any culture that promulgates the harm of others, either within it or outwith, could be said to be bad, I suppose. The same goes with one that promotes blind obedience and the suppression of free thought. On the other hand, a culture that is based on a strong work ethic, freedom of expression &c. seems to be better. Different people have different values, which will lead to different cultures, even if some share certain elements with other (e.g. there are a variety of potential cultures consistent with the NAP.)

Basic agreement. Just that Robinson Crusoe had already a kind of culture before Friday arrived. With Friday he only became aware that there are cultural differences.

Another important question would be: What causes culture, what makes it what it is?

I'd also like to formulate a thesis. That culture (as emerging from civil society) is actually more potent then official government (the political society or apparatus). Or in other terms: Peoples behavior is regulated by the culture and preferences rather then by legislation and force.

I'm inclined to agree. Your thesis' implications be taken as a condemnation of culture or of statism. I would say both.

That being said of course there will always be some forms of culture, but hopefully they'll start to evolve into a less destructive direction.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

Torsten — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:44:54 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

A culture is just a way of life, a set of shared beliefs, ideas, habits, rituals &c., and as others have noted, is inevitable from the minute one participates in society as any form of interaction will be of some shape or other. Any culture that promulgates the harm of others, either within it or outwith, could be said to be bad, I suppose. The same goes with one that promotes blind obedience and the suppression of free thought. On the other hand, a culture that is based on a strong work ethic, freedom of expression &c. seems to be better. Different people have different values, which will lead to different cultures, even if some share certain elements with other (e.g. there are a variety of potential cultures consistent with the NAP.)

Basic agreement. Just that Robinson Crusoe had already a kind of culture before Friday arrived. With Friday he only became aware that there are cultural differences.

Another important question would be: What causes culture, what makes it what it is?

I'd also like to formulate a thesis. That culture (as emerging from civil society) is actually more potent then official government (the political society or apparatus). Or in other terms: Peoples behavior is regulated by the culture and preferences rather then by legislation and force.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

Mlee — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:51:40 GMT

If Mao understood what culture was he would realize that he was simply giving birth to a retarded and undeveloped culture, not some evolution of the concept.

A free exchange of ideas that naturally occurs with trade and communication, which puts in place a natural survival of the fittest in cultures ("bad" cultural elements ((Women should not participate in the life of community beyond cooking and cleaning)) tends to be adopted less by individuals, hence it slowly dies out) is the ultimate protection from statism, that indeed we might try and have a cultural firewall against the worlds most virulent meme virus.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

MacFall — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:08:49 GMT

I think that culture, as we know it, is a manifestation of groupism. However, I do think there could be something called a "culture" which would form in a freer, more individualistic society. Even today we have a libertarian culture, although it is reactive against statism, it still exists. I think culture is a naturally-forming association that has been perverted by the state. We'er not going to get rid of it. Mao killed millions trying to destroy culture, that didn't work out too well.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:12:07 GMT

A culture is just a way of life, a set of shared beliefs, ideas, habits, rituals &c., and as others have noted, is inevitable from the minute one participates in society as any form of interaction will be of some shape or other. Any culture that promulgates the harm of others, either within it or outwith, could be said to be bad, I suppose. The same goes with one that promotes blind obedience and the suppression of free thought. On the other hand, a culture that is based on a strong work ethic, freedom of expression &c. seems to be better. Different people have different values, which will lead to different cultures, even if some share certain elements with other (e.g. there are a variety of potential cultures consistent with the NAP.)

-Jon

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

JonBostwick — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:06:56 GMT

I always love it when "Libertarians" try to run other people's lives.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

IRShenchmanJon — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:16:42 GMT

If that were my intention, why do you think it is a "quest"?

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

Byzantine — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:33:14 GMT

IRShenchmanJon:
Why can't we ask if time is a good thing?

You can ask it if you want, but since the answer won't do anything to change the existence or character of time, the better question is how to economize time or what to do with your time.

Good luck in your quest to become an acultural individual.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

IRShenchmanJon — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:18:00 GMT

Byzantine:

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.

Why can't we ask if time is a good thing? Certainly we ask it in the issue of space-time. And mathematics deals with the issue of if it is a natural or real entity. It can also depend on a number of variables, the measure of its accuracy/regularity can be flawed. Like culture, too, it is not everywhere self-aware in the people. Nor was it always known about or used in the same complicated sense (beyond perhaps the logical use of future, present, and past concerns). And awareness certainly shapes it in a number of ways. Like all science, the concept and measure of time and culture can be used not for its own sake but for the purpose of furthering some end. Time just happens to be a neutral end (though it is indeed for economic reasons that it is now better understood today than in the past). We should attempt to know and measure what culture-as-yet-explored is furthering. If violence is present, it seems fairly obvious that it is not libertarians.

The knowledge of time would be as perverted as that of culture if the same assumptions were made about time that are now made about culture. For instance, that time is superior in some places than in others, that groups of people would prefer time-itself in one location versus another, that the knowledge thereof depends on violence to educate them about it, etc. Time, in another human era, could be said to be not a good thing, too. In another era, ideas about it could be wrong even if popularly believed... and its science would have to be replaced with another paradigm that is more true. Today the same could be said of culture.

It is up to the libertarian to make rational assumptions about culture, not to accept the best of the status quo in his/her mind. Now, the popular attitude of cultures is one of anti-libertarianism and anti-freedom. Cultures tend to be more concerned with symbolism, mythology, et al and the use of violence to maintain these in stone. A person could feel welcome in some culture by their own subjective valuation, but this person could not judge the culture to be libertarian nor moral. And for this reason I see little reason to defend culture.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

Brainpolice — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:41:12 GMT

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.

While I don't agree with the idea that all cultures are morally equal, I don't think that's what multiculturalism actually means (you're conflating pluralism with relativism or equalitarianism), nor do I think that there is truly such thing as a singular culture that is a uniform characteristic within a particular territory or group of people. I do not believe that a cultural generalization can be used to accurately describe an individual in a predeterministic sense, let alone an entire mass of different individuals. I do not believe there is such thing as an entire nation or community that all share the same so-called culture in every single way.

I consider myself in favor of multiculturalism because I think that if cultures can be said to exist at all they inherently overlap, they do not exist in a hermetically sealed bubble. They influence eachother and merge at various points. There is no singular culture you can point me to that everyone of a particular group completely fits into. I think that there are so many cultures and so many possibilities that it eventually breaks down to the individual level, with each individual having their own individual culture that consists of their own experiences and a synthesis between the various things that they value.

This does not mean that all values or all cultures are inherently equal, it simply means that no single culture has a rightful monopoly and that there truly is no such thing as a monoculture in the first place. It also means that individuals are not predetermined by a single culture, they are free to choose among a plurality of cultures that are not necessarily entirely mutually exclusive. I reject the traditional conception of monoculture because I see it as a collectivist abstraction that fails to recognize the individual and the degree of variance between people.

All multiculturalism means to me is a free market in culture. If a particular culture is truly unbeneficial or bad in the grand scheme of things then it will not be sustainable in free conditions. It will have to adapt or become obsolete. If a particular culture is truly good and superior, then it will tend to be sucessful in free conditions. I generally think that the outcome of a free market in culture is pluralistic, as competition is an inherently pluralistic thing. The moment that anyone tries to coercively monopolize culture (which states tend to do in various ways), this kind of process is disrupted and cultural chaos ensues.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

Brainpolice — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:15:05 GMT

Mlee:

Culture is not the sum of the current conditions in a given society, those are mere expressions. The culture itself is the ideas, stories, and collective experienes of millions of people passed down through various means including oral tradition, literature, songs, stories, the languages themselves etc. The Welfare State is a symptom of Statism, a parasitic meme that presents itself in a given culture.

If that's the case, how can you get away with the following claim in your previous post: "Culture is compeletly natural, and completely good"? The ideas, stories and collective experiences of millions of people are "completely good"? Really? Surely you recognize that these can be bad ideas, bad stories, bad experiences. If that's the case, culture cannot be uniformly good. I'm really struggling to understand where you're coming from here with your high regaurd for culture as such.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

Mlee — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:09:32 GMT

Culture is not the sum of the current conditions in a given society, those are mere expressions. The culture itself is the ideas, stories, and collective experienes of millions of people passed down through various means including oral tradition, literature, songs, stories, the languages themselves etc. The Welfare State is a symptom of Statism, a parasitic meme that presents itself in a given culture.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

fsk — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:32:31 GMT

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.

Re: Is "culture" really a good thing?

Byzantine — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:29:06 GMT

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.