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)
The Classification of Cultures
By Sam Vaknin
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 Global Politician, 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.
Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com
