Samuel Huntington, a legend in academia, passed away on Christmas Eve at the age of 81. Like them or loathe them, his ideas were highly influential among scholars, policy makers, and the reading public. His 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order theorized that the world was divided into cultural ‘zones’ and that the differences between those cultures would define the post-Cold War age.
Personally, I wasn’t a huge fan but that might be because I think culture is overrated.
That’s not to say that “culture” (as a thing, if a thing difficult to define) doesn’t exist nor that this thing “culture” is unimportant. Rather, the excessive focus on culture (or nation, or ethnicity, pick your poison) tends to obscure as much as it illuminates, and in fact can be quite destructive.
‘Culturally incompatible’ is too often lobbed about by those opposed to ‘foreign’ concepts (such as, say, human rights in China or women’s rights in Saudi Arabia) as if such an ill-defined phrase could ever be the final word on a particular subject. (The rhetorical equivalent of Michael Corleone hissing at his wife “Don’t ever ask me about my business” in the Godfather).* Problems of compatibility of course DO exist, but these problems are not necessarily insurmountable nor can they be considered fundamentally incomprehensible to “outsiders.”
And this excessive focus on “culture as an excuse or explanation” can compound the situation when differences lead to conflict.
I can think of an example quite close to home, in fact from within our home. YJ and I grew up in different places, environments, and family structures (to name only three differences).* She was raised in a working-class home in a large Chinese city while I come from an upper-middle class home in exurban New Hampshire. Yet we both feel that we are quite compatible. In cross-cultural (there’s that word again) relationships, there is a tendency, by those on the outside looking in (and sometimes even the people in the relationship) to immediately attribute misunderstandings or conflict — both the real and the possible – to ‘cultural differences,’ when in fact ‘culture’ might be only one part of the problem.
This is especially pernicious if the definition of culture deployed is based primarily on ethnicity/nationality. One could argue that just as large a ‘cultural’ gulf exists between YJ and me based on my growing up surrounded by trees, a 45 minute drive away from the nearest mall or cinema, whereas YJ grew up in an urban environment teeming with people and activity.
Moreover, if I forget to do the dishes, it’s generally because I’m lazy, not because I’m American, and when YJ changes her mind 95 times before she decides on where we’re getting dinner it’s because she can be maddeningly indecisive about food and not because of some sort of inherent aspect of “Chineseness.”
In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to sometimes falling into the trap I’ve described above and it’s something for which I must constantly be vigilant. For example, why should it be that when somebody cuts me off in traffic in Beijing, I think “crazy Chinese drivers” but when somebody does it in my hometown I just think the guy’s being an asshole?
Problems arise, both internationally and (ahem) domestically, when disagreements are stuck with the label of
“cultural trait” and thus assumed to be somehow essential and hopelessly unresolvable. Add to the mix the tiresome and horrifically anti-intellectual idea that a person cannot hope to understand a particular culture unless they are identified as a member of that group, and the results can be quite destructive.
I admit to a strong universalist streak: I believe that when our path to mutual understanding is blocked, it slows the journey to peaceful coexistence.
Awareness of culture, even cultural difference, is a good thing. People do come from different backgrounds and these differences do inform our life choices and perceptions. But there is far more that unites us as human beings than divides us, and it’s time we focus on that rather than participate in the continued artificial fragmenting of the world.
———————–
* The Boston Red Sox had a manager about five years ago named Jimy Williams. A taciturn man, he would frequently dismiss reporters’ questioning of his decisions with a terse “manager’s decision” and that would be that. I thought the Al Pacino reference would be (slightly) more recognizable.
There is no more malevolent force in society than culture. Am on a mobile but happy to take you through it when appropriate.
“There is far more that unites us as human beings than divides us.”
Agreed!
Too often do I hear people talk about culture as immutable, which strikes me as unbelievably ironic in Asia, which has experienced a huge amount of cultural change over the last two hundred years. In one recent frustrating conversation, a Taiwanese friend told me that because of Chinese culture, Chinese people could not have a federalist system- “we need to suppress dissent!”. His attitude was that because this is the way Chinese culture is, it could not be changed, there was no point in trying to do anything else regardless of morality or efficiency. To an American who sees pushing for changes in the worst parts of his own culture as a moral imperative, this kind of attitude was flabbergasting.
Hi Jeremiah,
Great Post (as usual).
I am also in a “cross-cultural relationship” (though I have never once used the trem before today!!)
In my particular case, I think the foundation of our relationship is a commitment to understanding the other’s language and culture because if we didn’t do this there would be some resentment, I think. Not to say that we are not individuals (not at all) but beyond the vast imperatives of survival (which indeed absolutely unites all of humankind), culture and language does inform so very much. To be truly cross-cultural is an ideal as in reality usually one language or culture dominates (which can be OK for individual couples for sure)
However, I would argue that universalism itself has its roots in Western concepts (from Plato to JudeoChristian philosophy)…. The Japanese tradition does not necessary see its practices as being transferable in the same way. At the same time I do agree with you that city versus countryside and education, life experiences all this plays a part…. Before I got married, I think I must have been told a thousand times by japanese friends and acquintainces, “If you marry a Japanese person, you marry the entire culture”… ok….. I thought. Guess what? It’s pretty true (for me more than him perhaps)
The only real problem I had with your post in fact was I question whether one can really extrapolate from people (or couples) to societies (since really societies are more like organizations than they comparable to individual human beings)
A japanese philosopher I like says, “civilzations don’t clash, ignorance does…” I like that.
PS
Because this is a touchy issue, I thought I would speak more concretely. When I “look” at my husband, I do not see a Japanese person, I see him. In our home, the words “Japanese” and “American” are never used (we have never discussed this but we both just instinctively NEVER talk that way in front of our son– who of course is both).
At the same time, this is very different from denying that culture is not huge. Especially for my husband (who is rather traditional) but increasingly for me too, understanding and working to really commit and honor the other’s culture is pretty important.
And this is not to say that culture is some unchanging thing…
As an example, when I had a baby, the local culture (this is not representative of Japan, just the very local culture) had informed the practices in such a way that any kind of pain therapy (epidurals etc) in labor was not an option. Even the local university hospitals (!!) did not have an option of medicated labor. It was natural or nothing.
The reason I attribute this to culture is because every single person (from doctors to friends to strangers!!) all attributed it such: “We 我々) think that bearing pain is a virtue 美徳”. And before anyone says, what about men? I will say in general this is what they feel concerning men as well.
So, what could I do, declare that pain therapy was a woman’s right?? This is the kind of moral gray area where you can either stick by your guns and say “my way is the Right way” or you can say, well, maybe I should really try and find out more. Indeed, childbirth is universal but the approach and cultural practices surrounding this universal experience varies from place to place and ackowledging this (as part of the overall puzzle of understanding and knowing) is not really a negative thing (in my opinion).
And I did struggle with this to try to understand this point of view (which obviously as a 1st time mother was very scary for me)
My conclusion… it hurt!
But, at the same time, having experienced both (myself in japan and my sister’s birth which somehow I was there for the entire time) I have come to the rather obvious conclusion that neither should be the preferred universal appraoch as both have their own blindspots. My Japanese experience was scary on one hand it was also very advanced in other ways…
For those interested, Chris Panza and I have been discussing these issues for about a week on our blogs. We started here and then ended up over at at his place
Peony,
Thank you for your usual insightful comments. I have little to add, except one or two small points.
First, I might gently suggest that, while I can’t speak for all cultures, there is a strong tradition of universalist thinking in Chinese philosophy. One of many examples would be the writings of Kang Youwei.
An earlier example would also be Mencius in the rather famous story of the child about to fall down the well. Mencius makes no distinctions for culture, but insists that all human beings, by their very nature, will feel compassion for the child.
I might also point out that I took great pains to remind readers that culture is important and that cultural differences do exist. The point of the post was to argue that an excessive focus on ‘culture’ blinds people and societies to other forms of analysis and, moreover, the idea that culture is both immutable and inscrutable needs to be reexamined. In fact this last idea (immutable and inscrutable culture), when applied to Asian culture, smacks a bit of Orientalism.
Biologically humans do the same stuff all over the planet. We eat, sleep, excrete.
The main variations are quirks such as lactose intolearance, myopia, some genetic propensities and so forth but in principal we are the same beasts.
But culture is a mile wide and a milimetre deep. Easily the most powerful reason to include or exclude from the group. Very powerful, intoxicating and dangerous. As we’ll see in the hard times we’re about to endure.
Cultural tolerance (or intolerance) will be the first goat sacrificed.
Jeremiah,
It is great hearing from you!! I don’t disagree with anything you say, really, and would only add the point that when philosophers use the word “universal” they are using it as a technical term which suggests that certain values can be exported or transferred universally without regard to context (this comes from logical universalism) The famous Mencius quote is not an appropriate counter-example to what I said about Western culture since the anti-universalist does not claim that no values are universal– as of course we are all human animals as Charles so eloquently described above so there would hence by quite a lot of shared overlapping norms and values.
What Mencius is saying about the *commonality* of one particular value (compassion for a child in trouble) is quite different from Plato’s Meno or Christian theology which sees the entire foundation of values as being transferreable (universal) to all people (under God, etc.)
Finally, regarding orientalism, if someone claims that local-knowledge is essential (to be effective in diplomacy or to avoid hegemonic discourse) that is quite different than saying the locals are inscrutable. I love UNESCO scholar Hattori’s Civilizations Don’t Clash Ignorance Does because it is basically stressing the need to understand different religions and cultures in order to get along.
If you have time I linked to a great radio interview with Martha Nussbaum on the Philosophers Zone on my Generation of Human Rights Post (you can google that too) which was really an interesting discussion about justice, entitlements and rights with Alan Sanders (who I remain a huge fan of) . By bringing in animals as well as some examples from the Indian court system I think Nussbaum brought out much to think about.
Anyway, enjoy your time home! We return to Japan in 3 more hours so I guess I’d better get going.
Talk to you soon!
Peony,
Thanks for the suggestions.
I’m familiar with the technical usage of the term (I was actually raised Unitarian Universalist, though with a heavier focus on the former than the latter). However, I again would gently suggest that the notion of Confucian universalism is something worth exploring more thoroughly before denigrating any attempts to identify universal values as a purely western invention.
I do agree that we need to understand different languages/culture which is why I think the view, too often put forth in China, that a particular culture cannot be understood except by those who are identified with that culture is counterproductive and myopic.
My argument, which the comments really haven’t touched upon, is that in addition to understanding what makes us different, we also need to explore that which we share in common.
It seems to me there is also some historical basis for saying Chinese culture is also “universalist”. I’m thinking of all the non-Chinese nomadic groups that were integrated into not only the Chinese state, but Chinese culture. Chinese people are obviously quite proud of this, in that they often talk about how the Manchus and Mongols “became Chinese.” My Chinese history professor told us that before the Ming dynasty, literacy in Chinese was enough to make you Chinese- in other words, Chinese values and culture can be spread to other peoples.
I know this is slightly different from encouraging American values in China, in that these peoples were attached to the Chinese state , but at the same time the concept remains the same (I think).
Does this make sense or am I totally off?
huntington a legend in academia? perhaps among media/think tank pundits, but his book on the clash of civilizations struck me as third rate thinking even as a lowly undergrad. i would be surprised if he was very respected in academic circles, unless he has a corpus of good work elsewhere.
as for culture, i think you’re right to want to put it in its place as one facet among many in human existence and identity. it seems to me that both the culture i’m a part of (american) and the one i study (chinese) have their universalist and particularist strains, and that culture is probably better understood as a range of familiar arguments and contested symbolic ground than a simple consistent thing that everyone ascribes to.
Wu Ming,
Yeah…I was being kind. The man just passed away and I was about to trash the theory with which he is most closely associated. To answer your second thought, Huntington has an immense body of work, some of it quite well respected at the time.
Hi guys, it was a long haul across the Pacific– but the trip gave me a lot of time to ponder this all. And, you are right, Jeremiah, while philosophical universalism is rooted in western philosophy but for all I know Confucianism does indeed have a long history of universalism as well– probably Sam Crane will have something interesting to say about this??
While I think the Mencius well example was not really appropriate, I am very friendly to what JB says above about Manchus etc. In Japan too, written literacy in Japanese is enough to make you Japanese. I do agree with this for Japan at least (and this is very close to the example in Plato’s meno) as language was an important aspect. I am glad you pointed this out to me, Jeremiah and JB (thanks for responding).
Wu ming, (Hi!) I have also remained interested for years in culture as one significant aspect of Self identity. Chris Panza recently commented that I sound like a stark existentialist– it’s true and I think the background practices which are founded in culture are hugely significant for understanding collective behavior. Regarding individual behavior that is quite a different matter– and I wasn’t committing one way or another on it.
Finally, and I think this is perhaps the most important point: to say that one needs local know-how in order to understand local conditions is very, very different from saying outsiders are unable to understand a culture which they do not belong to. These could not be more different statements. Bell (and Hattori) I believe, are arguing for better cultural sensitivity and understanding…. I am imagining that you are talking about some personal experiences of your own… I am not sure. In my own experience a bit East of you, if a Japanese person starts saying that a foreigner cannot understand their culture, the possible reasons for that
belief are so varied that it doesn’t make sense to discuss it as a generalization and I would want to understand on a case-by-case basis (that is, what are the reasons for that person’s belief?). And like I have said, the women in my expat foreign wives group like to go on about the exclusivity of the japanese and I have very mixed feelings about who is being myopic–the japanese or the wives… Like before, however, I don’t think we disagree all that much.
More later, Peony
Hah, my version of Jeremiah’s issue: soon after getting married to a Chinese woman, friends invited me out for a drink, and I said no, Ann doesn’t like me to go out too much. “Is that a Chinese thing,” one of them asked?
No. It’s a wife thing.
I was struck by something in Peony’s comments and I wonder if anyone’s got any ideas about it:
““If you marry a Japanese person, you marry the entire culture”… ok….. I thought. Guess what? It’s pretty true (for me more than him perhaps)”
I don’t necessarily buy that universalism is uniquely western; but I would accept Peony’s claim insofar as in recent history, the West seems to have thrown its weight around a lot, and tried to impose itself on other cultures. But here in microcosm, Peony suggests that Japanese culture might be more demanding than western culture within a (her) marriage. Why might there be this apparent reversal?
In my marriage I think we’ve struck a cultural balance that *feels* fairly even – though I have no way of quantifying that, of course. Perhaps there’s a gender-role issue; perhaps where you live is very important (we got more “western” when we moved out of Ann’s parents’ house).
Is there any contradiction between that macro western puissance and micro Japanese demandingness?
Hi Phil,
I don’t know how my marriage ended up quite so unbalanced– maybe gender? I have no answer and I think as people grow older they tend to be less flexible too so who knows what will happen…I can say that my husband bought this book, “America for Beginners” and was reading it very intently in California. I mean, isn’t it about time? You would think he would want to know what Easter is or some very basic factoids about the place where his wife comes from… it could also just be the difference in people (because like I said above– all of my comments regarding hemonic discourse were really restricted to the collective– I think individual persons have a lot more going on). It all could boil down to a lack of curiosity (or too much curiosity on my side?)
Anyway Happy New Year to you too Phil and do check in for Bulgakov, ok? I m going to really play up gulags and salt mines as a metaphor (for marriage of course)– just for you!
I thought this New Scientist article pretty much nails what I tried to point out in the beginning.
http://tinyurl.com/cea2cx