I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash?
To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture.
However, it is often argued that cultures "clash". What doesn't make sense to me is how immaterial things "clash". I know that there is such thing as a "conflicting view", but a "clashing culture" is ludicruous in the sense that traditions and habits can't "clash" or "come into conflict" with other traditions and habits. Why? This is due to the notion that traditions and habits pertain to individuals who associate themselves with a certain culture. We can argue that the views on such habits may conflict, but the habits themselves do not. Even if certain habits do conflict, you can't assume that the entire cultures that exhibit these habits clash wholly with each other. It is often argued that cultures can change. This is true if you consider a precarious society with changing values. However, when people speak of violent practices as being "part of a culture", I beg to differ. Actions such as stoning, killing, forceful abortions, and mutilation don't make part of a culture; they are trends in crime, a totally different concept altogether and one that does not mix with culture like water does not mix with oil.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that cultures really do "clash". This means that the people who exhibit these cultures clash entirely, and their habits conflict. However, it is often found that this is not the case: people within cultures have found commonalities with the culture "across the ocean", and have thus not "clashed" with the culture. Furthermore, the view of "culture clash" is oversimplifying, and those who have failed in the transition from Cold War era politics to RealPolitik may exhibit the backward idea of "cultures clashing". Moreover, when I see people speak of cultures of the East and West clashing, with one culture demonized and the other angelized, I tend to puke naught in disgust, but I am exposed to the subjectivity of viewpoints, and therefore this "black and white" mentality can't be applied here. Also, the idea of such "culture of civilization vs. culture of backwardness" smacks with racism and prejudice, considering the subjectivitiy of defining "civilization" and "backwardness"; there are many things I can consider backward in American culture, and likewise to mine.
There is this other definition of culture, which is an ideological concept that encompasses three elements: values, norms and artifacts.
But wait... what about all the cultures of the past that are now history? This happens when people forget their values, or there have been cases of ethnic cleansing in which groups exhibiting a certain culture have been wiped out, or their cultural system has been dismantled through control and conquest. People can destroy cultures by wiping out all memory of that culture. Cultures alone can't destroy or clash with other cultures.
On the other hand, people can interact with other cultures by interacting with its people and trying out their traditions. This can lead to people understanding other cultures, and appreciating them for their differences and the significance they hold to people of other backgrounds, races, and religions. This is testimony to the adage "Diversity is Strength": the diversity of cultures is what makes this world a colorful place, and, despite our differences, there is a unity amongst all this diversity in that even with our different values, we are all human, living in the same planet.
In conclusion, cultures don't clash. People do. My advice to you is to go out there, try all these cultures that dot this rock called Earth, and appreciate the unity through diversity: we are all humans... Many backgrounds... Many races... Many beliefs... One Species... One World.
Salaam, from
Saracen
To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture.
The word culture, from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity.Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Culture is also a set of traditions, etc. adopted by a certain group that "pertains" to the culture. They may include ritual dances, forms of worship, traditional dresses, cuisine, etc. These defining points are what make cultures worldwide different than each other.
However, it is often argued that cultures "clash". What doesn't make sense to me is how immaterial things "clash". I know that there is such thing as a "conflicting view", but a "clashing culture" is ludicruous in the sense that traditions and habits can't "clash" or "come into conflict" with other traditions and habits. Why? This is due to the notion that traditions and habits pertain to individuals who associate themselves with a certain culture. We can argue that the views on such habits may conflict, but the habits themselves do not. Even if certain habits do conflict, you can't assume that the entire cultures that exhibit these habits clash wholly with each other. It is often argued that cultures can change. This is true if you consider a precarious society with changing values. However, when people speak of violent practices as being "part of a culture", I beg to differ. Actions such as stoning, killing, forceful abortions, and mutilation don't make part of a culture; they are trends in crime, a totally different concept altogether and one that does not mix with culture like water does not mix with oil.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that cultures really do "clash". This means that the people who exhibit these cultures clash entirely, and their habits conflict. However, it is often found that this is not the case: people within cultures have found commonalities with the culture "across the ocean", and have thus not "clashed" with the culture. Furthermore, the view of "culture clash" is oversimplifying, and those who have failed in the transition from Cold War era politics to RealPolitik may exhibit the backward idea of "cultures clashing". Moreover, when I see people speak of cultures of the East and West clashing, with one culture demonized and the other angelized, I tend to puke naught in disgust, but I am exposed to the subjectivity of viewpoints, and therefore this "black and white" mentality can't be applied here. Also, the idea of such "culture of civilization vs. culture of backwardness" smacks with racism and prejudice, considering the subjectivitiy of defining "civilization" and "backwardness"; there are many things I can consider backward in American culture, and likewise to mine.
There is this other definition of culture, which is an ideological concept that encompasses three elements: values, norms and artifacts.
Values comprise ideas about what in life seems important. They guide the rest of the culture. Norms consist of expectations of how people will behave in different situations. Each culture has different methods, called sanctions, of enforcing its norms. Sanctions vary with the importance of the norm; norms that a society enforces formally have the status of laws. Artifacts — things, or material culture — derive from the culture's values and norms.Artifacts are material, but by definition innate and inactive. They are products of the immaterial aspects of culture. Therefore, the assumption that crime, politics, and other societal controls are part of a culture is bigoted and arrogant in a way that oversimplifies situations. For example, it is often argued that freedom in American politics is derived from American culture. Freedom is a fundamental concept that can't be written down or grasped; everyone has it. There is nothing that restricts a certain person from doing something, except politics itself. But to say that fundamental concepts like freedom and crime stem from culture is wrong in the sense that culture, the habits of a people, can't bring this about.
But wait... what about all the cultures of the past that are now history? This happens when people forget their values, or there have been cases of ethnic cleansing in which groups exhibiting a certain culture have been wiped out, or their cultural system has been dismantled through control and conquest. People can destroy cultures by wiping out all memory of that culture. Cultures alone can't destroy or clash with other cultures.
On the other hand, people can interact with other cultures by interacting with its people and trying out their traditions. This can lead to people understanding other cultures, and appreciating them for their differences and the significance they hold to people of other backgrounds, races, and religions. This is testimony to the adage "Diversity is Strength": the diversity of cultures is what makes this world a colorful place, and, despite our differences, there is a unity amongst all this diversity in that even with our different values, we are all human, living in the same planet.
In conclusion, cultures don't clash. People do. My advice to you is to go out there, try all these cultures that dot this rock called Earth, and appreciate the unity through diversity: we are all humans... Many backgrounds... Many races... Many beliefs... One Species... One World.
Salaam, from
Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment