Are Traditional Cultures Doomed to be Wiped Out by Globalisation (Westernisation)?

[Dragus]

In the end, economic pressures and the human desire for pleasure usually overpower the arbitrary and often inane aspects of "culture". Though I do not mean any snarkiness or ill will, I must say that in the end I find social freedoms/liberty and economic efficiency make for a better world to live in than many of the world's old superstitious beliefs or admittedly pointless cultural identities.

[War lord]

For all the griping Socialistic types do about "the 1%" and the wealth gap, it's often forgotten that in the West atleast, even if you're poor you still live a more comfortable life them someone in the same socioeconomic position 20 years ago, and I think that means that the system works as a whole even if parts of it (the political side of it) doesn't.

[Dracula]

"Traditional" culture may be a very slippery term. There is one, european, which is basically asexuall, and it isn't very great in this. Allthough perfect in any other aspect.

But there is also, let's say african traditional culture, heterosexual extremism, people forced to live miserably for being gay or open-minded. And this thing is always on the rise for unexplicable to me reasons. Then there is also some savage pleasure for literally burning the others on the streets, or stoning, also associated with traditional african culture. Then there is asian, cultures, islam, which is even worse than the previous, and the various sorts of Far East cultures, which are considerably better but still awfully familial and clan orientated.

"Western" can be a simple change to all this, not necessarily negative as some people understand it.

Question is, why the negative things are so persistant in all, traditional and globalistic, and can something be done for the non-european ones, and by whom. Allthough, when we give an example, a lot of people are eager to follow. Yet the process of change should be intensified, because the ill-traditionalism gets reborn surprisingly tough and endurable. And for me this means lack of civilisational education and practise.

[IlluminatiRex]

As an Anthropology student, I don't think they'll be wiped out - they'll just evolve. That's what cultures do, they're fluid and grow and change all the time. Taking bits and pieces of other cultures and creating a blend unique to itself.

[Boyar Son]

Regardless of whether we like to admit it or not, we obviously live in a Westernised world where traditional non-Western cultures are eroding. Westernisation started a long time ago, but due to the advent of modern technology and mass media as well as the relentless flood of Western cultural and material products, the process has accelerated quite a bit. This Westernisation has not only transformed the way non-Westerners think, dress, eat, speak, learn, behave, and express, govern and entertain themselves, but it has also threatened traditional principles and values. How and why the non-Western world has come to this sorry state of affairs is not the concern behind this thread. Rather, I'm interested in the question of what lies ahead of non-Western civilisations with regards to the issue of Westernisation.

Is Western culture destined to sweep across the globe and supplant its non-Western equivalents, or do non-Western civilisations still have a chance to revive/reform what has been lost and pump fresh ("native") blood into their seemingly dying cultures? Has the cultural war already been lost to the West, and if not, what do you think non-Western civilisations should do in order to compete on the cultural battlefield?

Western culture? You mean American culture. Big difference. One values science and the arts; the other values rap music, feminism, and hollywood.

[War lord]

Western culture? You mean American culture. Big difference. One values science and the arts; the other values rap music, feminism, and hollywood.

I like how you just blended together a bunch of things you hate and reduce to a stereotype into a boogyman of "American culture" even though the three things you mentioned are often at odds in reality. Your bigotry and bias isn't an Anthropological category.

[Boyar Son]

I like how you just blended together a bunch of things you hate and reduce to a stereotype into a boogyman of "American culture" even though the three things you mentioned are often at odds in reality. Your bigotry and bias isn't an Anthropological category.

Oh you liked it? Nice, I also like it.

They're at odds, so they aren't part of the culture? And my bias and bigotry can't fit into a category?! 'War lord', besides the cool name my 3 year old niece finds amusing, you sure can pretend to be smart!

[Winston Smith]

Obviously we can't foresee the future, but there are indicators at the outcome of this universal Westernisation the world is undergoing. I believe cultural extinction awaits every non-Western civilisation that hasn't checked the creeping influence of Western culture, but perhaps I'm wrong, and that's why I opened this thread, to seek other points of view.

What do I want to do about it you ask. Well, the answer is simple: totalitarian ultra-nationalism.

If that's your solution, I want no part of it. Freedom and democracy are for all peoples.

[Sharukinu]

If that's your solution, I want no part of it.

Nobody is asking you to partake in it. In an Iranian ultra-nationalistic regime, Brits would not be welcome anyway.

Freedom and democracy are for all peoples.

"Of course with the exception of those who nationalise their oil."

[sumskilz]

If that's your solution, I want no part of it. Freedom and democracy are for all peoples.

Why so intolerant? You know many groups around the world have long cultural traditions of authoritarianism and now you just want to impose your Eurocentric individualist ideals.

[Gaidin]

I'm still wondering why any culture is under any sort of protection, including the Western ones.

[Winston Smith]

Nobody is asking you to partake in it. In an Iranian ultra-nationalistic regime, Brits would not be welcome anyway.

But the Iranian people have the right to choose their own government, and the parties to govern them. They have the right to hold Pride Parades, to be Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Atheist. Freedom is not something that stops at the border.
"Of course with the exception of those who nationalise their oil."

I never voiced any support for Operation Ajax. And that's not a rebuttal.

[Sharukinu]

But the Iranian people have the right to choose their own government, and the parties to govern them.

The Iranian people have the undisputed right to live in a secure, stable, and prosperous Iran ruled by a regime dedicated to nothing but the pursuit of Iranian national interests. The Iranian people's right to choose their own government comes only if a government fails in acting in their interests. If a government does that, the people's struggle against the ruling regime becomes not only necessary, but also a duty. Other than that, the Iranian people have no inherent right to have a say in their government. Against the current Islamic regime though, an uprising is required, since the Islamic Republic does not act according to the interests of Iran and its people. This reasoning applies to every civilised nation, not only Iran; you and I or anybody else are not entitled to choose our governments.

They have the right to hold Pride Parades, to be Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Atheist. Freedom is not something that stops at the border.

Freedom ends where national, societal, and cultural interests begin. Nobody in Iran has the right to make Iranian streets a public ground for sickening and indecent displays of homosexual acts in front of every man, woman, and child. Keep that "pride" garbage in the West thank you very much, the decent people of Iran do not want to have anything to do with the Western liberal gay agenda of imposing homosexuality on all levels of society in order to condition the people to a repulsive sexual orientation and to bestow on homosexuals that which is not rightfully theirs. No, I'm fairly certain that most Iranians are honourable and decent enough to realise what the gay agenda is all about. Decent Iranians shall preserve their noble concepts and values, so tell your unprincipled liberal friends in the West who hold nothing of sanctity that the people of Iran haven't lost their moral compass.

BTW, in Iran there are Jews, Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrian, Baha'is, and atheists. With the exception of the latter two, non-Muslims are not being persecuted. What is not allowed by the IR is de/conversion from Islam, and this is one of the oppressive aspects of the Iranian government that warrant an overthrow of the regime.

I never voiced any support for Operation Ajax.

Never said you did.

[Winston Smith]

So TIL that free speech, democratic elections and LGBT rights and so forth are immoral, that liberals like myself are incapable of morality, and that people are too stupid and infantile to enjoy liberty. You claim to oppose the Islamic Republic, but you're arguments are the same ones it uses. Their is nothing noble about tyranny and bigotry. Nobility is found in a free people exercising their rights. The Chartists were noble. Benjamin Franklin was noble. Malala Yousafzai is noble. The people of Myammaar and Iran fighting for freedom are noble. It is no surprise that socities based on rights and prosperous and sucessful; freedom of speech, of religion and so forth are actually rather good motivators you know?

[dogukan]

For all the griping Socialistic types do about "the 1%" and the wealth gap, it's often forgotten that in the West atleast, even if you're poor you still live a more comfortable life them someone in the same socioeconomic position 20 years ago, and I think that means that the system works as a whole even if parts of it (the political side of it) doesn't.

Thats not what it means. It can also mean that increased capital accumulation and production capacity along with technological change has increased the standards for absolute poverty.
Its not necessarily capitalism's success as we don't exactly have it any other way at the moment to compare.

Also, you have to view global capitalism in its international relations. IF there are still billions living in poverty, capitalism as a global system isn't faring well. Because capitalism isn't in Swedn or in Zambia, its also between them.

[Sharukinu]

So TIL that free speech, democratic elections and LGBT rights and so forth are immoral, that liberals like myself are incapable of morality, and that people are too stupid and infantile to enjoy liberty. You claim to oppose the Islamic Republic, but you're arguments are the same ones it uses. Their is nothing noble about tyranny and bigotry. Nobility is found in a free people exercising their rights. The Chartists were noble. Benjamin Franklin was noble. Malala Yousafzai is noble. The people of Myammaar and Iran fighting for freedom are noble.

Freedom for the sake of it is not a virtue, it is selfishness. Selfishness is the cornerstone of individualism, and individualism is one of the foundations of liberalism. There is nothing noble in that at all. Freedom that doesn't come at the expense of national, societal, and cultural interests should be exercised and protected. Otherwise, it shouldn't be. Things like free speech and democratic elections are not inherently noble, since they do not always serve common interests, and therefore they aren't prerequisite to healthy nations. As for LGBT rights, now this is what I call moral bankruptcy. LGBTs have no right to demand things they have no rightful claim to, such as marriage and child adoption. These people say sexual orientation is a private issue, and yet they keep shoving their sexual preferences down our throats whilst arrogantly demanding equal footing with heterosexuals in spite of their abnormal sexuality. That is the epitome of hypocrisy and selfishness. They want to take that which is not rightfully theirs, and worse, they mean to impose their repulsive sexuality on all levels of healthy society in order to force the people to put up with something they find distasteful and unhealthy. They aim at sullying the noble concepts of marriage and family as well as usurping the pivotal social roles of mothers and fathers. No sir, this is not going to happen in a family-centred society like Iran. To Iranian culture, LGBT rights is a barbaric and immoral concept.

It is no surprise that socities based on rights and prosperous and sucessful; freedom of speech, of religion and so forth are actually rather good motivators you know?

There are many reasons why these societies are prosperous and "successful", and "freedom" is definitely not one of them. Heck, in the UK for example homosexual acts were not decriminalised until as recently as 1967. Does that mean that Britain was not a prosperous and successful society prior to that? I think not.

The problem is that in mainstream Western culture there seems to be an idealistic view of the world in which the concept of liberty is exaggerated beyond its actual significance and value. To many Westerners, "freedom" and "liberty" are always synonymous with "good" and "noble" when in fact they are not. This is an inferior aspect of Western culture, since it is an idealistic view that appeals to the basest desires of human beings: selfishness, individualism, and freedom from social responsibilities. Too many non-Westerners have fallen in that trap, but not me.

[dogukan]

What gives you the authority to judge certain values as if there are set in stone, god-written ones in the objective universe though?

A nation is a socially constructed concept and nobody has to serve the "common good", for there is none. There never is a common good, there are always conflicts within a society.
What defines interests is the ideology, the world-view, the outlook of an individual, enforced to an extend by the authority. You are a product of authority who sees itself as an extension of it. But even then, you are not set in stone. At some point you could realize the problems in your thinking, or someone else would try to change something and people like you would have problem with those.
Unfortunately, there will never be a consensus, that and authority breeds radicalism. Enforcement breeds direct action.

Freedom owes nothing to culture or nation, for they are merely existing in our minds and nowhere else. They are not objective phenomena.
LGBT shoves their thing in your face because they are forbidden and illegitimized by the standards...they are, by taking radical action, trying to balance that out.

When I came to this earth, no superior entity gave me a a paper and made me sign I can do this and that. It was(culture and norms) decided "historically" and it will change "historically". I was merely born to a moment of it. A moment of something that never stops changing.

[Phier]

Thats not what it means. It can also mean that increased capital accumulation and production capacity along with technological change has increased the standards for absolute poverty.
Its not necessarily capitalism's success as we don't exactly have it any other way at the moment to compare.

We can compare to the rest of the world and history. "Poor" in the West means more in relation to your neighbor than any absolute situation.

[Sharukinu]

What gives you the authority to judge certain values as if there are set in stone, god-written ones in the objective universe though?

As an atheist I don't believe in a higher authority. But these are my values and the values of most of my people, and this gives me an authority to judge and defend them. Since I'm a person who holds certain principles and values, I also have the authority to judge other cultures.

A nation is a socially constructed concept and nobody has to serve the "common good", for there is none. There never is a common good, there are always conflicts within a society.

Common interests exist in society regardless of conflict, this is pretty much obvious. For example, there are conflicts even within a family: between wife and husband, father and son, mother and daughter, and between siblings; that doesn't mean a family doesn't share common interests. Common good is what makes a society, it is the social fabric itself. Your statement therefore has no basis in reality.

What defines interests is the ideology, the world-view, the outlook of an individual, enforced to an extend by the authority. You are a product of authority who sees itself as an extension of it.

Your perception of society is fallacious and very simplistic.

Basically, environment and circumstances define interests, and culture is shaped by those three. Ideology, world-view, individual outlook, and even authority are products of culture. Each and every one of those factors influence one another. We are not only products of authority, but authority is also a product of ours. None of the aforementioned factors is independent or exist in a vacuum. Society is in fact an intricate web.

Unfortunately, there will never be a consensus, that and authority breeds radicalism. Enforcement breeds direct action.

This is an anarchistic notion. Of course there will never be consensus in society, this is the reality of our world. However, the answer to this is not anarchy, since authority does not always breed radicalism. Not all radicals are passive entities at the mercy of authority, a lot of the time they are driven by self-interest defined by their radical world-view. Enforcement is prerequisite to an orderly society, and order in the end must serve nothing but the common good.

Freedom owes nothing to culture or nation, for they are merely existing in our minds and nowhere else. They are not objective phenomena.

Freedom is not an objective phenomenon either.

LGBT shoves their thing in your face because they are forbidden and illegitimized by the standards...they are, by taking radical action, trying to balance that out.

No, they are trying to threaten values and sully noble concepts and principles for their own selfish interests. LGBTs are sexually defective, and as such they have no right to demand equality with healthy people. This liberal obsession with equality is really getting out of hand. It has caused a massive devaluation of noble concepts and principles as well as a degree of conflict in all levels of society between various social groups. The reality is this: the world is not fair and people are not equal in everything. Liberals and left wingers must go out there and smell the truth instead of trying to damage society and culture with their idealistic and selfish nonsense.

When I came to this earth, no superior entity gave me a a paper and made me sign I can do this and that. It was(culture and norms) decided "historically" and it will change "historically". I was merely born to a moment of it. A moment of something that never stops changing.

Cultural change is one thing, cultural decline is another.

[Dragus]

Those with an antiquated anti-individualist ideology are far more "defective" than we and the LGBT community will ever be. They are likely pained by their recent defeats at our hands, and know that eventually the same individual freedoms will find their way to the rest of the planet.

Individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness are powerful, and combined with the reality of economic forces compose an unstoppable steel meat-grinder for the world's less efficient and thus obsolete cultures.