The disconnect between the 'Leitkultur' and the actual society

[Astaroth]

The term "Leitkultur" ("leading culture" or "core culture") has most commonly been used in Germany in the context of immigration debates. In the recent years, it has often been used by those who oppose immigration or demand a greater restriction on it in Germany. "Leitkultur" symbolises everything Germany (or even "the West") supposedly stands for a mixture of the Judeo-Christian system of belief, humanist values, human rights, democracy, securalism and other related values.

However, this thread is not about immigration, nor is it concerned with German culture in particular. However, seeing that I am German, I will be using many examples from German society. Instead, the subject of this topic is the deviation between what is perceived as the Western or European Leitkultur and the actual beliefs, knowledge and values of (Western) societies. It is easiest to address this by first examining a few examples and then proceeding to more general points.


Exhibit 1: Schools

Most children in western countries attend public schools, in which the curriculum is entirely dictated by the state. But even private schools have to base their curricula on the public parameters, considering that there are almost always standards that have to be met by all schools, such as standardised tests.

Bluntly put, the state essentially has to decide what the students should learn at what time. Naturally, education experts are chosen for this task. These experts are usually more or less qualified academics who, based on a variety of factors, have to decide what students should learn in school. This is usually greatly influenced by what they think an educated person in the country *should* know or be aware of. This tends to be a mixture of language skills, math knowledge, historic backgrounds, science, music and so on.
Of course this is partly meant to prepare people for university and being able to choose from different jobs later on, but it is also intended as an academic foundation that citizens of a country should ideally have.

But this is just one side of the medal. On the other side we have the students. Naturally, being 'forced' to learn something and to participate in tests that might decide your future is not always the best atmosphere for creating genuine interest in every student. But what I have noticed in my own time in school, even amongst people who are part of the richer or more academic parts of society, there are few who actually care about any of the values that are supposed to be taught in school.

And it's not just bad or lazy students. Even amongst the good and fairly bright students, there is often little interest or knowledge in any of the humanist values or democratic ideals that are supposed to be taught in class, especially once you go beyond the actual syllabus. This disconnect can also be seen in math class: Back when I was still in school, there were about 15 people in my math class. Out of those, 5 regularly failed all the tests, 2 people did really well and the 8 others fluctuated between barely bassing, occasionally failing and sometimes doing alright. This raises the question, who are those classes created for? Who does the curriculum or syllabus aim at? How can the disconnect between the standard set by experts and teachers on the one hand and what the students are actually interested in or capable of be explained?

This is the first observation: already in school (even in private schools full of children from academic backgrounds), a clear disconnect can be seen between what teachers or experts think students *should* know and what the students *actually care about*, even if they might superficially participate in the system in order to get good grades. Of course there are always exceptions, but this certainly applies to the vast majority of students, intelligent or not, lazy or studious. More on that later.



Exhibit 2: the Media

One of the most respected daily newspapers in Germany is the FAZ. While it is arguably conservative/slightly right-leaning, it is very reputable and quoted as a reliable source all over Germany by other media or people. Reading the FAZ is a sign of being somewhat educated and interested in the day-to-day affairs of the country. Despite that, the paper has a circulation of merely 400,000 (German population: 80+ million).
In other words, the perceived effect the FAZ has on the German "Leitkultur" is vastly disproportionate to its actual readership and the actual effect it has on the life of the majority of people in the country.
In comparison, take the Bild, the most successful German tabloid, a low-quality paper that most people would never even admit to reading. Circulation: 2.5 million, over 5 times that of the reputable FAZ. This is a newspaper that many people in Germany actually read, yet everyone ridicules and (rightfully) condemns the paper for its poor research and bad articles.

This once again shows a clear disconnect, a clear gulf in society: On the one hand, you have a paper that is perceived as "good", a paper that shapes the everyday political discourse and could be considered part of the Leitkultur. On the other hand, you have a tabloid that is respected by nobody, a paper of no cultural value, yet also the most successful and commonly read 'newspaper' in Germany.



Exhibit 3: Culture - theatres, literature, philosophy

Naturally, every country prides itself in its past and a nation's cultural heritage is an important part of its identity. As a result, German poets, philosophers or authors heavily influence our thinking of what Germany as a nation is about. This is reflected in many parts of society: German poets (Goethe, Schiller, Lessing etc.) are read as part of the syllabus, German poets are quoted in speeches by politicians, German authors have countless roads and public places named after them and are widely revered. Based on this you could believe that German literature is an important part of the nation's very fabric.

However, let's go beyond this superficial analysis. When looking at the statistics, you will quickly realise that most people barely -- if ever -- read books. Any books, that is, let alone complicated works of classical literature. I went to school, I'm attending uni right now and I have read many books, but I have only read a handful of German classics aside from what I had to read in school. I'm sure that applies to most uni students, let alone the millions of people who never go to university.

Once again, there is a clear gulf between the (on the surface) mutual consent of most people on what everyone *should* know and be interested in and what the vast majority of people actually *do* know, what they actually *are* interested in. Most people are not interested in any of the writers that are considered part of Europe's cultural heritage. What they care about are (at best) crime thriller books or even just TV shows about the miserable lives of other people. Now, this is not about saying that one or the other is inherently superior. It is merely pointing out the difference between what we praise as our Leitkultur and what the majority of us actually follow in our daily lives.

This also applies to cultural experiences like theatres or operas. Everyone believes that the two are an integral part of our culture, but a tiny minority of people ever attend one or the other on a somewhat regular basis. At least in Germany, theatres have to receive money from the state because not enough people ever go there and buy tickets. In other words, we paradoxically subsidise theatres because they are part of our Leitkultur but not actually popular enough to survive on their own. This again shows the difference between what we think we should care about and what we actually care about.




Exhibit 4: politics and values

And now we come to our final exhibit, the disconnect between the values represented by most politicians and the values most people actually believe in. This is a good example to start with. The Green government in the German Bundesland (~state) of Baden-Württemberg wanted to introduce teaching a few hours about sexual diversity (including homosexuality etc.) into the syllabus. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people protested against this and a petition was created against the proposal. Apparently, many people were irrationally afraid of children being infected and turned gay by being taught about different sexual identities in school.
Whereas the politicians pursued more equality and less discrimination based on sexual orientation or identification, a considerable amount of society opposed this based on a conservative set of beliefs and irrational fear.

Similar deviations can be seen with regards to the EU. Whereas most politicians see the Union in the context of Europe's history and the desire to overcome close-mindedness, xenophobia and national borders, the majority of people share an irrational hatred and fear of change and of a loss of their national pride.

But this isn't so much about who is right or wrong in these discussions, but more to point out the disconnect between the (often fairly educated) politicians and the vast majority of people who lack the same education or values. I am fairly sure that in most Western countries, the relatively progressive, pro-rights, pro-US, pro-EU, pro-Enlightenment values and pro-securalism views that most politicians share run contrary to the beliefs that the majority of the electorate share. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the population as a whole was a lot less secular, more conservative, more xenophobic and anti-immigration and more strictly against rights for minorities than the representatives are.

Other good examples for this are the recent immigration restriction in Switzerland and the minaret ban a few years back, both examples of direct democracy at work.


------


I believe that these various exhibits have shown that there is often a disconnect between what we perceive to be the Western core or leading culture and what people actually care about, pursue and believe in. This disconnect can be seen in all areas of society, ranging from school curricula over the media to culture up to politics. While many values are always considered as central and fundamental for our way of life and democracy, they hardly play an active (or any) role in the lives of the silent majority. The political or cultural decisions are made by a select few, usually those who have an above average education and level of intelligence.
The values which supposedly make up the basis of our nations are really only shared by a small percentage of the population. In fact, the vast majority of people lacks any sort of knowledge or even interest in this Leitkultur. What some might consider important knowledge (or "common knowledge") is really only something that is shared by a small fragment of society.

Where does this leave us? How long can we continue living based on the false premise that this Leitkultur flows through all aspects of life, that it is the foundation of our Western societies? How long can we live in a democracy in which the majority of people are a lot less educated but a lot more racist, xenophobic and conservative than the ruling class?

[athanaric]

Leitkultur is an awkward wording made up by conservatives for something that is self-evident in every functioning country. Of course since cultural hegemony in Germany was taken over by psychos in the early 90s or even earlier, it's become a point of contention.

And now we come to our final exhibit, the disconnect between the values represented by most politicians and the values most people actually believe in. This is a good example to start with. The Green government in the German Bundesland (~state) of Baden-Württemberg wanted to introduce teaching a few hours about sexual diversity (including homosexuality etc.) into the syllabus. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people protested against this and a petition was created against the proposal. Apparently, many people were irrationally afraid of children being infected and turned gay by being taught about different sexual identities in school.

Or maybe you should actually read the stuff you link to before commenting on how stupid and homophobic the peasants are.

The values which supposedly make up the basis of our nations are really only shared by a small percentage of the population. In fact, the vast majority of people lacks any sort of knowledge or even interest in this Leitkultur. What some might consider important knowledge (or "common knowledge") is really only something that is shared by a small fragment of society.

1) There's been a huge decrease in - aboriginal - cultural diversity only fairly recently. It has to do with centralization and TV. And various episodes of totalitarianism.
2) Even today, common culture is far broader than you may realize. Many values, basic concepts, and aspects of lifestyle are implicitly shared across the board, whether consciously or not. Your definition of "Leitkultur" is quite a narrow one.

Where does this leave us? How long can we continue living based on the false premise that this Leitkultur flows through all aspects of life, that it is the foundation of our Western societies? How long can we live in a democracy in which the majority of people are a lot less educated but a lot more racist, xenophobic and conservative than the ruling class?

How can we live in a democracy when there are incredibly arrogant elitists among us?
Where exactly are all those racist and xenophobes? Compared to similar news outlets in other countries, "Bild" et al. are not particularly racist and xenophobic, and neither are their readers. Dumb, yes. Low-brow, yes. But that is another issue. The plebs today are at their most tolerant regarding foreign cultures, immigrants, or traditional misfits.
You know what's actually a racist newspaper in Germany? Süddeutsche Zeitung. One of those magazines for your "educated" people who are supposedly free of prejudices.


P.S. Enlightenment is as far from "progressive" ideologies as it is from racism.

[tarvu]

It is also called simply critical theory.



The problem for functionalists is that more and more people are no longer simply wholly ignorant outside of what they are taught in schools, or by their parents. So the chances of them being exposed to critical points of views are extremely high. That presents a challenge to the legitimacy of dominant social norms that hitherto went unquestioned, and often that legitimacy doesn't hold up too well and as a result people rebel.

It has resulted in a century of the greatest social upheaval possibly ever witnessed, and a slew of other social problems and signs of dysfunction.

But to oppose these forces that question the current social order you can appeal to people's nationalism, or their ethnocentrism, or religious fundamentalism. These all effectively poison any potential dissent. It still works in some places.... not most places that are nice to live though unfortunately.

That is unfortunately where conservatism mainly focuses its efforts, rather than trying to prove the efficacy or justification of the norms they are defending. It is also why they are so weakly represented in areas of academia which critique and study society (when not too long ago they dominated it). Of course this is not true of all conservatives, some do try and I actually hope they get more parity in the actual debate so they can stop hiding behind those previously mentioned facades.

[Dromikaites]

Exhibit 1: Schools

Most children in western countries attend public schools, in which the curriculum is entirely dictated by the state. But even private schools have to base their curricula on the public parameters, considering that there are almost always standards that have to be met by all schools, such as standardised tests.

Bluntly put, the state essentially has to decide what the students should learn at what time. Naturally, education experts are chosen for this task. These experts are usually more or less qualified academics who, based on a variety of factors, have to decide what students should learn in school. This is usually greatly influenced by what they think an educated person in the country *should* know or be aware of. This tends to be a mixture of language skills, math knowledge, historic backgrounds, science, music and so on.
Of course this is partly meant to prepare people for university and being able to choose from different jobs later on, but it is also intended as an academic foundation that citizens of a country should ideally have.

But this is just one side of the medal. On the other side we have the students. Naturally, being 'forced' to learn something and to participate in tests that might decide your future is not always the best atmosphere for creating genuine interest in every student. But what I have noticed in my own time in school, even amongst people who are part of the richer or more academic parts of society, there are few who actually care about any of the values that are supposed to be taught in school.

And it's not just bad or lazy students. Even amongst the good and fairly bright students, there is often little interest or knowledge in any of the humanist values or democratic ideals that are supposed to be taught in class, especially once you go beyond the actual syllabus. This disconnect can also be seen in math class: Back when I was still in school, there were about 15 people in my math class. Out of those, 5 regularly failed all the tests, 2 people did really well and the 8 others fluctuated between barely bassing, occasionally failing and sometimes doing alright. This raises the question, who are those classes created for? Who does the curriculum or syllabus aim at? How can the disconnect between the standard set by experts and teachers on the one hand and what the students are actually interested in or capable of be explained?

This is the first observation: already in school (even in private schools full of children from academic backgrounds), a clear disconnect can be seen between what teachers or experts think students *should* know and what the students *actually care about*, even if they might superficially participate in the system in order to get good grades. Of course there are always exceptions, but this certainly applies to the vast majority of students, intelligent or not, lazy or studious. More on that later.

There are several reasons for what you listed above.

The first reason is we cannot tell in advance which child would become a quantum physicist and which one would become a janitor. We could test them for the IQ, but the distribution of the population based on the IQ score is the so-called Normal Distribution. That means 2/3 of the people would be "average".

Within that "Average" category you would have adults working in low-education jobs and adults working in high-education jobs. That is a strong indicator that the IQ alone is not a reliable indicator for deciding what kind of things a child needs to be taught. Apparently the EQ (Emotional Intelligence Quotient) is a better predictor of a successful career. That seems to suggest it is a "poor investment" to provide good education to people who are socially incompetent because most of the time their intellect would be wasted since most of the other humans won't be able to work with them.

But the problem with the EQ is manifold: for one, there is less agreement among psychologists as how to measure it compared to the IQ. Then there is the issue of emotional development - children evolve into being adults, which makes it very difficult to evaluate the social skills of the future adult by testing the child.

Bottom line: we can't tell before hand which children would never benefit from the stuff taught in schools. Because of that the safest approach is the current one, where all the children are equally "sprayed" with the knowledge needed for future Einsteins. On some it would stick. On most it won't. But that's not such a big problem for society compared to failing to provide the future Einsteins the type of education they need.

Exhibit 2: the Media

One of the most respected daily newspapers in Germany is the FAZ. While it is arguably conservative/slightly right-leaning, it is very reputable and quoted as a reliable source all over Germany by other media or people. Reading the FAZ is a sign of being somewhat educated and interested in the day-to-day affairs of the country. Despite that, the paper has a circulation of merely 400,000 (German population: 80+ million).
In other words, the perceived effect the FAZ has on the German "Leitkultur" is vastly disproportionate to its actual readership and the actual effect it has on the life of the majority of people in the country.
In comparison, take the Bild, the most successful German tabloid, a low-quality paper that most people would never even admit to reading. Circulation: 2.5 million, over 5 times that of the reputable FAZ. This is a newspaper that many people in Germany actually read, yet everyone ridicules and (rightfully) condemns the paper for its poor research and bad articles.

This once again shows a clear disconnect, a clear gulf in society: On the one hand, you have a paper that is perceived as "good", a paper that shapes the everyday political discourse and could be considered part of the Leitkultur. On the other hand, you have a tabloid that is respected by nobody, a paper of no cultural value, yet also the most successful and commonly read 'newspaper' in Germany.

This situation is in my opinion similar to the one regarding the education.

Most people find Bild more interesting for the simple reason the type of decisions they need to make are at that level. Tabloids deal mostly with human-relations issues (who had sex with whom, who divorced from whom, who went to which parties, etc). Even the majority of the very educated people don't leave the office thinking "how am I going to eradicate hunger on Earth" or "how am I going to prove the Riemmann Conjecture". More likely they would think along the lines "I'm going home to have fun with my family" or "I'm going out tonight". Those priorities imply decisions in the realm of human relations, which is the same domain where the tabloids fish for topics.

However there is a smaller number of people who care about "higher issues". Quite likely most of them are also in positions which allows them to shape the way the rest of the society functions. They create the "framework" within everybody else moves (legal system, political system, economic system, education system, etc).

Most of the time the rest of the humans are comfortable with the framework created by that minority. When they aren't, they demand a different framework. In democratic countries they end up receiving a new framework, within which they continue to live happily till some new need arises and the framework needs to be changed again, etc.

Just like most of us use mobile phones even though most of us cannot design one, likewise most of us "use" a society which is "designed" by a handful of members of our species. Those people are the most avid consumers of Leitkultur and the most productive contributors to it, just like electronic engineering books are mostly read and written by the engineers who make the mobile phones everybody else uses.

We do not decide much on the Leitkultur itself (unless we're among those who "produce" it) just like we don't decide much on how the electronic engineering books are written.

We do have a very strong influence on the products of the Leitkultur, just like we decide which models of cell phone are successful and which aren't. When we don't like something we vote those people who [promise to] change what we dislike, just like we "vote with our wallets" which mobile phone we like.

Exhibit 3: Culture - theatres, literature, philosophy

Naturally, every country prides itself in its past and a nation's cultural heritage is an important part of its identity. As a result, German poets, philosophers or authors heavily influence our thinking of what Germany as a nation is about. This is reflected in many parts of society: German poets (Goethe, Schiller, Lessing etc.) are read as part of the syllabus, German poets are quoted in speeches by politicians, German authors have countless roads and public places named after them and are widely revered. Based on this you could believe that German literature is an important part of the nation's very fabric.

However, let's go beyond this superficial analysis. When looking at the statistics, you will quickly realise that most people barely -- if ever -- read books. Any books, that is, let alone complicated works of classical literature. I went to school, I'm attending uni right now and I have read many books, but I have only read a handful of German classics aside from what I had to read in school. I'm sure that applies to most uni students, let alone the millions of people who never go to university.

Once again, there is a clear gulf between the (on the surface) mutual consent of most people on what everyone *should* know and be interested in and what the vast majority of people actually *do* know, what they actually *are* interested in. Most people are not interested in any of the writers that are considered part of Europe's cultural heritage. What they care about are (at best) crime thriller books or even just TV shows about the miserable lives of other people. Now, this is not about saying that one or the other is inherently superior. It is merely pointing out the difference between what we praise as our Leitkultur and what the majority of us actually follow in our daily lives.

This also applies to cultural experiences like theatres or operas. Everyone believes that the two are an integral part of our culture, but a tiny minority of people ever attend one or the other on a somewhat regular basis. At least in Germany, theatres have to receive money from the state because not enough people ever go there and buy tickets. In other words, we paradoxically subsidise theatres because they are part of our Leitkultur but not actually popular enough to survive on their own. This again shows the difference between what we think we should care about and what we actually care about.

Just like my comments above: "high culture" was always paid for by the "elites".

Today it may look like the majority of taxpayers, who do not routinely go to the opera, pay for something only a minority of them enjoys. But so do the majority of taxpayers when it comes to funding universities or fundamental research.

One successful evolutionary trait of our species is that we can easily spot when some of us are smarter, braver, more talented, etc and even though we don't match them at their strong points, we value them and we create a supportive environment for them. We do that because in the overwhelming number of cases their special abilities make our life better (the big strong guy kills the bear so we can all use the cave, the smartest comes up with a faster way to make fire, etc).

This is why you won't have too many people arguing against funding the operas or the universities from the public money. They might not use those, but they know the people they need for addressing some very important issues of public interest use them.

Exhibit 4: politics and values

And now we come to our final exhibit, the disconnect between the values represented by most politicians and the values most people actually believe in. This is a good example to start with. The Green government in the German Bundesland (~state) of Baden-Württemberg wanted to introduce teaching a few hours about sexual diversity (including homosexuality etc.) into the syllabus. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people protested against this and a petition was created against the proposal. Apparently, many people were irrationally afraid of children being infected and turned gay by being taught about different sexual identities in school.
Whereas the politicians pursued more equality and less discrimination based on sexual orientation or identification, a considerable amount of society opposed this based on a conservative set of beliefs and irrational fear.

Similar deviations can be seen with regards to the EU. Whereas most politicians see the Union in the context of Europe's history and the desire to overcome close-mindedness, xenophobia and national borders, the majority of people share an irrational hatred and fear of change and of a loss of their national pride.

But this isn't so much about who is right or wrong in these discussions, but more to point out the disconnect between the (often fairly educated) politicians and the vast majority of people who lack the same education or values. I am fairly sure that in most Western countries, the relatively progressive, pro-rights, pro-US, pro-EU, pro-Enlightenment values and pro-securalism views that most politicians share run contrary to the beliefs that the majority of the electorate share. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the population as a whole was a lot less secular, more conservative, more xenophobic and anti-immigration and more strictly against rights for minorities than the representatives are.

As other contributors have pointed out already, the "plebs" of today are much more tolerant and open-minded than those 100 years ago. Or even 50 years ago. There will always be a gap between the Leitkultur and "culture of the masses" (including values), but that gap won't be that large as to make the Leitkultur disconnected from the majority of the population.

That is because the Leitkultur is the "blueprint" used by those who are in positions of power and influence to shape how the rest of the society functions.

If and when the Leitkultur comes up with "mechanisms" that are way too different from what the public likes, change happens.

In democracies it's the "mechanism" which changes.

In dictatorships the mechanisms are forced upon the population and, sometimes, they do change some of the values of that population. Actually in democracies new mechanisms might be forced as well on some sections of the population (like in the case of the desegregation or granting the right to vote to women, etc), provided they are popular with the majority.

Either way, if the gap is too big, somebody (the dictator or the voters) would narrow it again.

Other good examples for this are the recent immigration restriction in Switzerland and the minaret ban a few years back, both examples of direct democracy at work.

As I was saying, when the gap is too wide, somebody would narrow it down one way or another.

There are many ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes. For instance in some countries the separation between the state and the church is interpreted unidirectionally: the church has no saying in how the State is run, while the State can interfere with the way religion is practiced. For instance if somebody preaches violent means for achieving religious goals (like say, killing the doctors who perform abortions), most of the States would steps in.

Likewise some States can preemptively interfere by influencing with how a particular religion is taught, thus reducing the risk that the religious education might produce radical clerics. That in turn might reduce the risk that some religious buildings are perceived as a thereat, etc.

Ultimately addressing such issues boils down to how the people who consume, shape and implement the Leitkultur address the specific issues in their society. Not on how the society at large adheres or not 100% to the Leitkultur. Society at large is quite similar to a liquid: it takes the shape of the vessel in which is placed. The "master potters" who deal with the Leitkultur are responsible for creating such vessels. Just like the electronic engineers are responsible for making mobile phone we like. We, the society at large, vote their vessel designs.

I believe that these various exhibits have shown that there is often a disconnect between what we perceive to be the Western core or leading culture and what people actually care about, pursue and believe in. This disconnect can be seen in all areas of society, ranging from school curricula over the media to culture up to politics. While many values are always considered as central and fundamental for our way of life and democracy, they hardly play an active (or any) role in the lives of the silent majority. The political or cultural decisions are made by a select few, usually those who have an above average education and level of intelligence.
The values which supposedly make up the basis of our nations are really only shared by a small percentage of the population. In fact, the vast majority of people lacks any sort of knowledge or even interest in this Leitkultur. What some might consider important knowledge (or "common knowledge") is really only something that is shared by a small fragment of society.

Yes, Leitkultur is shared, created and changed mostly by the "master potters".

But that is how it has always been, for the simple reason only a few humans are "master potters". That is nothing inherently bad about it, as long as the rest of the people get to vote on the "vessels" those "master potters" create.

Where does this leave us? How long can we continue living based on the false premise that this Leitkultur flows through all aspects of life, that it is the foundation of our Western societies?

In practice that has never been an issue.

What has always been an issue was the "vessels" being inadequate for the needs of the general population. Evolution in political systems resulted in a "vessel" (democracy) which can change its shape without breaking (most of the time, though accidents happen like in 1933).

As long as democracy doesn't "break", the gap between Leitkultur and the "culture of the masses" is actually a good thing, because it forces the democracies to evolve instead of "ossifying".

How long can we live in a democracy in which the majority of people are a lot less educated but a lot more racist, xenophobic and conservative than the ruling class?

What matters is they are more "advanced" than their forefathers. That helps them leave a better life than their forefathers did.

The "elites" would always be different than the rest. What matters is for the elites and the normal people to cooperate instead of being at each other's throats. And that cooperation is more the norm than the exception in any given period of history (even when the elite was enjoying much more privileges than today).

I mean, the ideas we admire from the ancient Greek philosophers came to us because the elites of the last 2,500 years paid for those works to be copied and passed on. Likewise Confucius' ideas that the emperor is responsible for the well being of his subjects and that the State should select its employees by merit (the imperial exams system) were adopted precisely because the Chinese elites from 2500 years ago onward considered such cooperation with the ruled class to be necessary.

[Copperknickers II]

I believe that these various exhibits have shown that there is often a disconnect between what we perceive to be the Western core or leading culture and what people actually care about, pursue and believe in. This disconnect can be seen in all areas of society, ranging from school curricula over the media to culture up to politics. While many values are always considered as central and fundamental for our way of life and democracy, they hardly play an active (or any) role in the lives of the silent majority. The political or cultural decisions are made by a select few, usually those who have an above average education and level of intelligence.

And the above sentence hits the nail on the head: the Leitkultur is the culture of the ruling elite. It is proselytised as the highest form of culture, in order to make sure people know that it is a sign of high class. For example, people often claim that because I study Ancient Greek, I must be intelligent and upper class. The sole reason being, that even though they know next to nothing about Ancient Greek (or better, because they know next to nothing about it) they do know Classics is one of the mainstays of the Public school (note the capital P) education system and therefore they associate it with good education. But the important thing is not that people learn Shakespeare or Cicero or Plato, the important thing is that they know what having learned them signifies. The same applies to Oxford and Cambridge: the prestige value of going there is much more important than what you get taught. The idea of the Leitkultur is not to inculcate people with a specific culture, its to inculcate them with the knowledge that said culture is the dominant culture whereto the elite adheres, and to delegitimise the more numerically prevalent vernacular culture.

Nowhere is this more clear than in language: until recently, in most European countries, the 'standard language' was spoken by a tiny minority of the population. Even though Standard English was taught in schools all over Britain, most people spoke regional dialects, and many never properly learned to write in fluent English. But people were still educated in Standard English, and they were able from that to talk with people from hundreds of miles away who spoke totally different native dialects in ordinary life.

This shows us an important point: the Leitkultur is not some kind of cynical attempt to set class divides in concrete. It is merely a mechanism for the creation of the group identity and shared sense of identity that is required for a cohesive ruling class. It is perfectly possible for someone not born into the cultured classes to attain high rank in the elite, so long as they conform to that identity, and that means having a basic knowledge of the Leitkultur. It just makes things a lot easier: especially in the past, when the aristocracy came from all over the country to sit in parliament, the Leitkultur acted as a social lubricant, in much the same way as Standard English acted as a lingua franca. The Leitkultur in conclusion is the cultural lingua franca: very few speak it natively, but everyone who has high ambition needs to be fluent in it and everyone else needs to know that it has the highest status out of all the languages and dialect registers.

The values which supposedly make up the basis of our nations are really only shared by a small percentage of the population. In fact, the vast majority of people lacks any sort of knowledge or even interest in this Leitkultur. What some might consider important knowledge (or "common knowledge") is really only something that is shared by a small fragment of society.

Where does this leave us? How long can we continue living based on the false premise that this Leitkultur flows through all aspects of life, that it is the foundation of our Western societies? How long can we live in a democracy in which the majority of people are a lot less educated but a lot more racist, xenophobic and conservative than the ruling class?

The problem with the idea of Leitkultur today is that we live in an increasingly democritised world, where it is no longer possible for the elite to have a monopoly on the image they wish to give of cultural identity. But as I said above, it is not true that people don't have any knowledge of it: they know all they need to know about it, that it is the mark of the elite to be conversant in Classical music, ancient languages and 19th century literature, and the Standard Language. And nobody seriously believes that Shakespeare or Goethe is common knowledge, nor does anyone really want it to be. As for where it leaves us: I'm not sure about Germany, but it is simply not true that the majority of people are racist, xenophobic and conservative in Britain. If it were true, then we'd have voted in extreme right parties instead of centre parties. And frankly, as long as most racist xenophobes continue to think that learning Ancient Greek is the mark of someone that was born to govern, then I'm sure that less of such people having aspirations to govern is a good thing for everyone.

[AqD]

You think it's bad, but would it better if they're not disconnected? Your elites would be xenophobic, sexist, anti-immigration, and wasting their days reading news about celebrities? and encourage the schools to teach what? There would be nothing left.

It's not that the elites are disconnected from people, but people are disconnecting themselves from the ideals, any ideals.

[tarvu]

You think it's bad, but would it better if they're not disconnected? Your elites would be xenophobic, sexist, anti-immigration, and wasting their days reading news about celebrities? and encourage the schools to teach what? There would be nothing left.

It's not that the elites are disconnected from people, but people are disconnecting themselves from the ideals, any ideals.

They are disconnecting themselves from ideals they are increasingly disillusioned with. Ideals which were only proffered to the masses to get them to accept the elite's domination and generally mask their true motivation which is retaining their grip on power. People smell the bait and switch tactics, they recognize inconsistencies in the message with the reality, and most importantly they are no longer kept in the dark so they have other options. So their commitment to a singular set of dominant norms etc., is weakened because it simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

When the elites start acting in-line with their popular ideals maybe people will return to conformity. In reality that is what "most" people do at least in some respect, but increasingly less so both in number of people willing to conform and the extent of that conformity.

It's a brave new world, and even North Korea is going to struggle to keep the legitimacy of its social structure from crisis despite having a clear advantage on the rest of the world in terms of both controlling what people are exposed to and deterring them from deviance.

[Diamat]

One of the first things to keep in mind, I think, is that "Leitkultur" is a spiritual construct, like any other category. When humans think, they do not incessantly think about the entirety of what may be considered their identity. It's a selective and conditional process. I would argue that over the course of a man's day, little time is devoted to explicitly thinking about one's Hochkultur/Leitkultur. Instead, the category arises situationally, meaning that its contents are not natural but artificial. The category arises in particular whenever there is some perceived threat to one's identity. It is under those circumstances that man tries hard to define who he is, what his community is, and who does not belong in it. Even then, most men, if they would actually reflect, would find that they have no idea about the deeper contents of the identity they claim to hold. It's largely a superficial identity, based on other broad categories, such as Judeo-Christianity, humanism, or democracy, without actually having much of a clue what these entail or how one's own self is in accordance with the categories' contents. As a result, such categories gain a life of their own. They are no longer seen as things created by us, but natural things, things that are immutably true.

"Wer die Welt vernünftig ansieht, den sieht auch sie vernünftig an"
--Hegel

[Raubritter]

Seriously, who cares for german or "western european phony judeo christian" Culture? It is over the point where it has nothing to offer to the rest of the world long ago. With the rest of the world i mean the better rest, not the already poor countries were people live who are even more backward and dumber than the europeans.

[mishkin]

Where does this leave us? How long can we continue living based on the false premise that this Leitkultur flows through all aspects of life, that it is the foundation of our Western societies? How long can we live in a democracy in which the majority of people are a lot less educated but a lot more racist, xenophobic and conservative than the ruling class?

Perhaps the differences are now greater, but I think this has been this way for at least the last two hundred years.
Great OP.

[Mangalore]

...
You know what's actually a racist newspaper in Germany? Süddeutsche Zeitung. One of those magazines for your "educated" people who are supposedly free of prejudices.


...

So... are you drunk? You have to look deep into the bottle to make such a statement which I have never heard before. The Sueddeutsche as a center-left outlet has been accused of being anti-Israel and thus supposedly anti semitic but charges of racism I have never heard about them. What's next? The Zeit is a anarchist underground paper and "die Welt" a fascist pamphlet? I'm sure you can point to actual sources to that statement?

Generally speaking the Sueddeutsche is seen as left leaning (social democratic), the FAZ right leaning (conservative burgeois) and Die Zeit liberal centrist.

You could make more of a case about "der Spiegel" though even there the claim has more to do with the style of confrontational covers than a general ideological intent.

[athanaric]

So... are you drunk? You have to look deep into the bottle to make such a statement which I have never heard before.

Non-indicative. And no, I don't post drunk. In fact, I don't get drunk. Maybe you do, you seem to have experience with that state of mind.

The Sueddeutsche as a center-left outlet has been accused of being anti-Israel and thus supposedly anti semitic but charges of racism I have never heard about them.

Um, Anti-Semitism is a form of racism. You'd have to be pretty drunk not to see that.

What's next? The Zeit is a anarchist underground paper and "die Welt" a fascist pamphlet? I'm sure you can point to actual sources to that statement?

The Zeit is the source of news for salon anarchists and salon communists, and other people who think they're terribly intelligent and superior. "Die Welt" is your typical run of the mill newspaper, complete with sloppy research and bad spelling. My source is actually reading those newspapers, a task that everyone has to undertake for himself.

Generally speaking the Sueddeutsche is seen as left leaning (social democratic), the FAZ right leaning (conservative burgeois) and Die Zeit liberal centrist.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Now explain to me how left leaning, Social Democratic people can never be racist. Because history would disagree with that point of view.

You could make more of a case about "der Spiegel" though even there the claim has more to do with the style of confrontational covers than a general ideological intent.

Other than their pathological obsession with Hitler.

[Col. Tartleton]

I find it comforting that the aristocracy are intellectually and morally superior to the masses of serfs, so long as the serfs are treated fairly it shouldn't be an issue.

The fact there is a high culture and a leading culture naturally requires there to be a low culture and a tailing culture.

If I want to watch celebrity gossip (I don't) its there for me. If I want to read a book on Prussian history I can pick that up at a library or bookstore. Somewhere in between is Game of Thrones.

There's nothing wrong with people in Germany being more interested in Diane Kruger than Goethe (I'm struggling to think of current German actresses). Goethe will always be there for people to read if they're interested. I for one haven't bothered and I don't think I'm worse for it. Germany has a high culture for those willing to invest in it, and that should be good enough.

[Col. Tartleton]

They can't be more obsessed than the History channel was before it stopped making history programs.

[Wismar]

So it's like political correctness? I hate it...