Culture is a thorny topic. Culture is perhaps the most essential characteristic of the human species, linked to its capability for abstract thinking, creativity, and the use of symbols. However, while culture, in a generic sense, is commonly regarded as a positive phenomenon and even an object of admiration and self-admiration, it has also been, and remains, a highly ambiguous and problematic element in human interactions. Cultural differences have long been a source of tension, conflict, and war.
Appreciation of culture is most common in works of art, music, literature, and other products of human creativity. People admire rock paintings that are 30,000 years old, as well as sculptures, pottery, pyramids, and intricate pieces of jewellery produced by long-gone civilisations. The destruction of remnants of ancient cultures is almost universally condemned as “barbaric”. Classical music, theatre plays, literature and famous paintings, sometimes referred to as high art, find worldwide appreciation, be it foremost among the “cultured classes”. At a more popular level, billions of people worldwide enjoy and admire the musical products of world-famous “stars” and blockbuster movies produced by Hollywood. These examples illustrate how culture is widely regarded as a fundamental human capability.
Yet, there is also another, ugly side to culture. Adherents of a particular culture often regard their own culture as superior to that of others.[1] Cultural differences, notably concerning religious or other worldviews, beliefs, language, behavioural norms, and expectations, are often sources of tension and conflict. History has shown that cultural differences are frequently used to distinguish between “us and them”, fuelling hatred, wars and the commission of atrocities. Perhaps the preference for “one’s own” (kin) is a human-specific universal that extends back to the beginning of our species.[2] This does not mean that different ethnic groups can’t live together more or less peacefully, as they have done in times and places. However, ethnic tension and conflict still abound around the world, from Africa and Asia to Europe, America, and Australasia. Similarly, nationalism (including ethnic nationalism) is surging rather than dwindling. At the global level, it has been argued that the “clash of civilisations” has become the main divider of humanity.[3] At the same time, within countries, “culture wars” have erupted about the dominant values and views of societies or civilisations, related to, among others, family values, gender, race, and ethnicity. Cultural differences continue to be a significant source of tension, conflict, and human suffering.
This raises several questions. First, what is culture? What is it about culture that is so important to people? Perhaps more fundamentally, where is culture coming from, why is there cultural diversity, and why is this (seen as) important? What causes the cultural disarray and conflict that afflicts so many societies? Can cultural conflict be avoided, managed and mitigated, and how? What is the future of culture and cultural conflict? Is it possible for humans to influence or shape that future?
These are all very big questions that are arguably too complex to answer. Developing knowledge and understanding of human affairs is arguably more challenging than understanding physical reality and more complex than “rocket science.” Nonetheless, this should not deter people from trying to understand such questions. After all, these issues affect many more people daily than a successful human mission to Mars will. Therefore, in this essay, I present my take on the thorny matter of culture, for whatever it is worth.
First, I dwell upon the concept of culture, as this is important to one ‘s interpretation of the issues. Second, I discuss what I consider to be the four most significant sources of culture and cultural diversity. Third, this explanation is used to identify the principal roles or functions of culture in a society. What does culture do? Fourth, I elaborate on the global state of affairs in cultural globalisation and the resurgence of tribalism – the cultural mess we’re in. Fifth, I raise the issue of the growing gap between nature and culture – a development which has been touted as the “end of nature”. I speculate about “future culture” based on the dominance of techno-religion and the assumption of the complete malleability of human nature. Finally, I present a few ideas about whether anything can be done to collectively change the course of these developments.
What is culture?
As noted above, used in a generic sense, culture is perhaps the most essential characteristic of the human species, linked to its capability for abstract thinking, creativity, and “symboling.” Culture distinguishes humans from other species, as humans rely primarily on symbols and communication (notably through language) rather than on instinct or genetically determined behaviour to survive. Humans learn to meet their basic needs and to function in groups or societies through culture. Human creativity provides the basis for the development of culture, innovation, change, and adaptation. It is perhaps the most important human capability. Whether this is so depends on what we regard as human nature, a highly ambiguous concept subject to diverse views and interpretations, none of which are entirely flattering. However, it is difficult to deny that, in general, culture is essential to all humans.
Yet, like all concepts, the term culture has and can be defined in different ways. In popular discourse and in government (for instance, a Ministry for Culture), it is often associated with art, music, theatre, literature, and other forms of human creativity that are widely appreciated or admired. In the social sciences, culture is commonly interpreted more broadly as the way of life of a people, reflected in shared values, rules, norms, beliefs, customs, traditions, food cultures, architecture, tools, artefacts, and many other aspects. Culture and civilisation often refer to the same things, but at different scales. Huntington defines civilisation as “a culture writ large”, the highest or broadest form of culture shared by people of different cultures (local, regional, national).[4] However, while the term culture suggests neutrality (a way of life), civilisation has a positive connotation, as reflected in the expression “uncivilised behaviour”. This is perhaps why Gandhi allegedly replied to the question of what he thought of Western civilisation, that it was a “good idea”.[5] Yet, the idea that civilisation constitutes a higher or more advanced form of culture has been the prevailing view in the literature and the focus of many studies on the rise and fall of civilisations.
The notion of civilisation as a “good idea” may be humorous or provocative, inviting us to consider what culture should be, but it sheds little light on culture as an empirical concept. To study and understand culture, we need to clarify its main elements. Although there is no general agreement, elements can be classified into four categories: ideational, institutional, communicative, and expressive. These categories can also be seen as different dimensions of culture, each comprising a range of aspects or elements. Ideational elements refer to aspects like knowledge, beliefs, and values. They include a shared worldview, religious or other beliefs and shared principles and ideas. Institutional elements refer to the ways in which these common beliefs have been translated into rules, norms, and organisations. These guide day-to-day behaviour and practices. Communicative elements include a common (oral) language, writing, symbols, and other means and processes by which ideas, principles, experiences, lessons, and information are shared and passed on. Expressive elements are material and non-material forms through which culture is expressed, including rituals, rites and ceremonies, customs and traditions, tools, utensils and artefacts, literature, music, dance, and play. Ideational components can be seen as the core of a culture, constituting a collective view of what is (most) important, a view that is converted into institutions that are more or less binding. All aspects are transmitted and/or discussed through communicative means and practices, notably a common language.
It should be noted that this definition of culture is broader than the notion of civilisation referred to above. In my view, culture is inherent to human groups from the earliest stages of Homo sapiens and possibly other human species as well. It is rooted in characteristics that make us essentially human, notably our biologically unspecialised nature, cognitive ability, creativity, and social nature, all of which enable and require communication, learning, abstract thinking, and organisation to function as a group. Although these human abilities have been given many different forms (in different cultures) and have evolved, human groups have always had a culture, long before the earliest civilisations are generally considered to have emerged (some 10,000 years ago). This broader interpretation is essential, as it leads us to think about the fundamental roles and functions of culture (any culture) rather than focusing (foremost) on its degree of sophistication or level of development. While the latter is important because it affects how people live, it can also lead us astray, diverting attention from the role culture plays in human societies.
Although the definition of culture provided above may seem reasonably clear, it is often difficult to sharply delineate between cultures in practice. Knowledge, beliefs, and values may not be unique to any one culture but can be shared across cultures and/or held on political, religious, or other grounds. Despite differences among French, German, English, and other European cultures, they also share particular values and beliefs, including those rooted in the Enlightenment (e.g., belief in science and rationality, objective material reality, progress, and democracy). Yet within cultures, there may be significant differences in views of what such concepts (such as democracy) mean or should mean. At the same time, religious beliefs (such as Christianity and Islam) may be shared by different cultures. Still, they can also divide people within a culture (for instance, in Northern Ireland and the wars of religion in 17th-century Europe). Linguistically, different languages may share common roots and be regarded as dialects that have evolved. The modern European languages were forged relatively recently by leading authors (starting with Dante Alighieri) from particular dialects, disseminated with the invention of printing, and institutionalised in the process of nation-building.[6] Many cultures developed similar or identical tools and other artefacts, albeit with different styles. Arguably, similarities and overlaps between cultures have always existed and increased over time, making the concept of distinct cultural identities somewhat ambiguous.
However, perhaps not surprisingly, it is the diversity of cultures rather than their similarities and overlaps, or their generic quality linked to the human capacity for abstract thinking, that has been the focus of much research. Since the 19th century, the field of cultural anthropology has undertaken the scientific (comparative) study of cultures worldwide on their own terms (referred to as “cultural relativism”). Drawing general conclusions from such studies is notoriously problematic given contextual differences, and researchers are prone to subjective interpretations (culturally and ideologically influenced). Recognising this, the field of cultural studies that emerged in the late 1950s does not even pretend to aspire to scientific objectivity or theory building but aims to ”pursue political critique through its engagements with the forces of culture and politics.” In doing so, it draws on concepts and approaches from the humanities and social sciences to explore a wide range of topics, often to expose the use of power in constructing culture.
This raises the question: Where do culture and cultural diversity originate?
Sources of culture and cultural diversity
As noted above, in a generic sense, culture is an essentially human characteristic based on the biologically unspecialised nature of the human species. Arguably, the rudimentary beginnings of culture also exist among non-human primates, as de Waal has argued.[7] However, compared to other primates, Homo sapiens evolved a larger brain capacity that influenced its choices, interactions, and practices, ultimately leading to the creation of culture. Although this is pure speculation, the evolution of culture may have occurred in an interactive process with the evolution of the brain, reaching its present size and shape between 100,000 and 35,000 years ago. What is less contestable is that, ever since then, cultural development has manifested in many forms around the world. This diversification of cultures, particularly in expressive elements, which are the most noticeable aspects of culture, has tended to be the focus of research and debates on culture, notably in questions about the sources of cultural differences.
It may seem superfluous to point out that cultural traits are not innate to individuals. Individuals are born into a socio-cultural context in which they acquire culture through socialisation. This does not mean that personal, individual, or genetic traits (such as openness, conscientiousness, and extroversion) do not influence behaviour. However, they do so at the individual level. The main shortcoming of theories that attempt to explain social and cultural phenomena by analysing the distribution of genetic and/or psychological traits in a population is that they overlook or downplay the fundamental fact that culture is a collective (social) reality that exists prior to the birth of individuals. All people are born within an existing culture and adopt behaviour and practices based on that culture’s values, rules and norms. Individually, they may play a role in creating culture and even in changing the dominant culture, but their ability and chances to do so depend on the societal context. Hence, cultural change requires explanations that account for the complexities of human interactions within social and biophysical realities, including political-economic systems, the distribution of power, and the biophysical environment shaped by human activity. Societies, culture and cultural change are not simply the sum of individual characteristics, choices or changes. That societies do not exist or are nothing but groups of (selfish) individuals is an ideological view that has been cultivated by the most powerful to justify inequality and authoritarian rule.
What explains the diversity of cultures? Why and how do cultures change and evolve? Here, I propose four primary sources of culture, cultural diversity, and cultural change: biophysical conditions, human creativity, political-economic systems, and power and agency. Each has a distinct inherent logic, but they also interact with and influence one another.
First, it is plausible that differences in biophysical conditions have played a significant role in the development of cultural diversity. Cultures did not simply emerge out of thin air or from the imagination of people. They sprang from particular geographical and material (resource) contexts, in which groups of people (clans, tribes) developed different ways and means to meet their basic needs (clothing, housing, food). Thus, cultural values, rules, roles, norms, customs, and artefacts (tools) served a crucial rationale: the group’s survival in a particular context and environment. Relative isolation contributed to the development of diverse cultures, including languages, as illustrated by Papua New Guinea, which is home to more than 850 languages (accounting for more than 10% of the world’s 7,000 languages). India, a large subcontinent, also exhibits a wide diversity of ethnic groups and languages. However, this does not mean that differences in biophysical conditions produced different cultures. Culture, as defined above, is a human construct. The cultural traits that evolve within a particular environment depend primarily on the people living in that environment and their choices, interactions, and practices, which are set within a social (group) context.
Thus, although one would expect societies to change their cultures when faced with changes in the biophysical environment on which they depend, this has not always (or perhaps hardly ever) been the case. Historians and analysts of premodern societies have revealed that these societies did not necessarily use natural resources sustainably. They often led to significant environmental destruction, including deforestation, desertification, and the extinction of numerous animal species.[8] The failure to adapt culture to changing biophysical environmental conditions is among the primary factors contributing to its collapse or demise.[9] The reasons for this failure lie in the political, economic, and social contexts, as discussed below.
A second, perhaps most important, source of culture is human creativity. Creativity is arguably the most characteristic human capability, rooted in the capacity for rational thinking, intuition, feelings, and wherever ideas and inspiration come from. Early human societies’ tools and means developed to meet their needs depended on the biophysical environment and human inventiveness. Ideas, curiosity, trial and error, necessity, and serendipity may have contributed to the development of tools and techniques, including adzes, spears, hunting methods, and fire. All these factors involve the ability to perceive the potential in or of things, but they are also influenced by intuition and emotion. Creativity is not merely an individual but also a collective capability, with individuals feeding off one another. Ideas or models are discussed in groups and may be modified, improved, or rejected.
Individuals’ creative potential (talents) differ, as demonstrated by the remarkable achievements of some artists, composers, musicians, architects, authors, inventors, and scientists. This is where the traditional interpretation of culture linked to the fine arts, music, and literature, among other things (comprising the notion of civilisation), comes into play. Many countries or cultures showcase their most notable achievements, whether in architecture (the pyramids, temples, cathedrals, or modern buildings, among others), artworks (sculptures, paintings), poetry and literature (classic and/or modern), or other forms, arousing wonder and admiration from across the world. Applied to tools and technology, cultures differed in the level of sophistication of the technologies they invented and created (from the invention of the wheel, stone, bronze, and iron tools and weaponry to the plough and others). They also differed in the development of other cultural products, such as writing, mathematics, astronomy, science, philosophy, and belief systems. While all cultures developed in different contexts, meeting their members’ basic human needs in various ways, they also varied in the extent to which they enabled the development of individual and collective creativity.
However, even in the most advanced “civilisations,” the creative potential of most individuals never gets a chance to be developed. Creativity requires conducive conditions to flourish, although the nature of these conditions may differ among individuals. While some great artists created their best works in poverty and misery, others lived in comfort provided by kings or other financial sponsors. Many of the most admired cultural artefacts, such as pyramids, palaces, and temples, have been produced exploiting large groups of people (including slaves). The socio-political context has always circumscribed the development of individuals’ creative potential, as well as its recruitment and exploitation. Whose creativity gets a chance to be developed, how, under what conditions, and for what purposes depend foremost on the political-economic system in which people live and on power and agency. This brings us to the third source of culture: political-economic systems and relations.
While there is a virtual consensus that culture is a human (social) construct, how and why cultures have been, and still are, constructed remain questions on which there is little agreement. As noted above, although the science of (cultural) anthropology goes back to the 19th century and the field of cultural studies emerged in the 20th century, these have generated more controversy than a body of widely agreed-upon knowledge. Yet, crucial questions remain about who makes or shapes culture and to what end(s). Answering such questions requires examining societal structures, notably political-economic systems and the associated distribution of power.
All human groups and societies have developed systems of production on which they depend to meet their needs, ranging from hunting and gathering to agriculture and industry. One of the most fundamental Marxist insights is that a prevailing mode of production is intertwined with particular social and political relations (including the distribution of power). People have, or are assigned, different positions and roles in production and are awarded a share in the consumption of goods and services depending on the distribution of (the various forms of) power in the group or society to which they belong. While, to some extent, inequality of power, especially of personal power (based on individual traits like physical strength, personality, abilities, talents, and charisma) is natural, the distribution of political and economic power depends in large part on the prevailing system of production, including the state of technology (the forces of production), which create particular social positions and relations. Hunter-gatherer societies created quite different positions, roles, and power structures compared to agricultural societies, in which control over land became the primary source of production and power, leading to more inegalitarian, hierarchical, and patriarchal societies. With the emergence of industry, new social classes, social relations, and power structures evolved based on control over the industrial means of production.
The relevance of political-economic systems to the production of culture is reflected in the distinct cultural elements associated with those systems. Early cave drawings depict hunting scenes, including sketches of people, animals, tools, and likely experiences, as well as practices, techniques, and beliefs that may have contributed to successful hunting. While we can only speculate about their meaning, language (concepts and stories) likely played a significant role in communicating such ideas among members of these societies. It seems likely that knowledge about the local environment, food and water sources, animal behaviour, and weather patterns, among other things, considered crucial to the survival and well-being of the group, was held foremost by elders and contributed to their high status. Places, animals, and resources believed to be most important for the group’s survival became dominant values, perhaps held in high regard and considered sacred. Rituals, rules, and norms were based on these values and beliefs and were taken very seriously. Thus, material and non-material cultural differences reflected differences in the geographical and environmental conditions (including resources) on which groups’ survival depended.
In agricultural societies, culture reflected the centrality of crops and animal husbandry as primary means of subsistence. Knowledge, rules and rituals guided the cycles of planting and harvesting, reflecting the crucial importance of the seasons and weather. Differences in geographical, environmental and climatic conditions were significant and provided a basis for cultural differences. In some cultures, certain animals were held sacred, reflecting their importance to the survival of their people. Houses, clothing, food, tools, and most other products were produced from local resources, fostering a culture of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Stability, durability, cooperation, reliability, predictability, and traditions were essential values at the heart of life in families, villages, and kingdoms. Religious and secular authorities cultivated and upheld these beliefs and values to maintain social order and harmony while justifying and consolidating their positions, powers, and privileges. Spirits and/or gods were thought to rule over nature. They could be prayed to, and sacrifices made to curry favour or ward off threats and evil.
All that changed with the emergence of industrial societies, capitalism, and the development of science and technology, which boosted production and consumption, innovation, and trade. Agricultural societies, villages, extended families, and cultures were torn apart by land reforms (“enclosures”), migration toward (urban) centres of industry, and the imposition of industrial requirements (discipline, working hours, deskilling, and the adaptation of labour to machines). People became dependent on “the market” to meet their basic needs (housing, clothing, food and virtually everything else). Industry and capitalism require the continuous expansion of consumption, creating an ever-larger array of goods and services that are promoted as “must-haves”. Consumerism, individualism, and the pursuit of wealth became the primary values, eroding the traditional values of village and family life. It no longer matters where things are produced or consumed, or how needs and wants are met, as long as people earn or have enough money. Hence, money became the dominant value by which all other values were measured.
In this context, the role and growing importance of technology (or technoscience) deserve special mention. Rulers have always relied on physical power (armed forces) as the ultimate backstop to remain in control. Superior weaponry (technology) has often made a crucial difference in conflicts and wars. Thus, superior military technology became a high-priority objective for many rulers. In the economic sphere, the introduction of industrial technology required a major cultural transformation to instil work discipline (especially long hours of repetitive, mind-numbing work), to work and live by the clock, to separate work and family life, and to adapt to city life (with its vices and attractions). However, the imperative of continuous economic growth (inherent to both industrialism and capitalism) also led to a growing reliance on science and technology for innovation and increasing productivity, creating a demand for more educated workers. Education became a crucial pathway for social mobility and a foundation for social stratification. The growth of production also necessitated the continuous expansion of markets, facilitated by marketing and advertising, thereby creating the prevailing consumer culture. Consumer culture has gone global, facilitated by the rapid development of information and communication technology (ICT). It has become an important determinant of the way of life, as evidenced by the billions of people who have become virtual slaves to their mobile phones and social media. The power to influence, manipulate, shape, and control human behaviour through media and technology has assumed frightening proportions, especially given its concentration in the hands of political and economic elites.[10]
It is important to emphasise that political-economic systems do not determine culture. The view that political-economic systems shape culture has often been characterised (and dismissed) as (Marxist) materialistic determinism. However, apart from the fact that Marx’s theory assigned a key role to class struggle as a basis for changing the political-economic system, he also recognised that change was always contingent on history and context: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”[11] Political-economic systems largely circumscribe the development of culture, but the actual creation of culture is carried out by real people, especially those with power, and their choices. Therefore, a society’s particular cultural superstructure is not determined by its political-economic system but is rather shaped by power and agency.
Rulers or elites have long figured out that exercising power in the sphere of ideas, especially those that tap into feelings, is much more effective than using brute physical force. Religions or other belief systems have played a significant role in explaining why the world is what it is and in legitimating societies’ (unequal) social and political order (including kings, priests, and slavery). Such beliefs formed the basis for the creation of rules, norms, customs, rituals, and other cultural practices that varied across societies. However, in all societies, some people play a more significant role in this respect than others, based on differences in personal power, the (political-institutional) positions they inherit or acquire, and other power resources they can draw on. The failure of collective decision-making to alter a society’s ways of thinking, institutions, and practices (culture) in response to environmental (including resource) changes and degradation has been a crucial factor in the collapse or demise of societies.
Although many of the changes wrought by industrialisation and capitalism (including urbanisation) were not planned or deliberate, others were, notably in the economic realm (production methods, command lines, working hours, workplace rules, and work discipline). As noted above, capitalism necessitates the continuous expansion of production and consumption, facilitated by scientific and technological advancements. Increasingly, human creativity has been recruited, controlled, and exploited (through intellectual property rights) to serve these capitalist imperatives. This applies to the hard sciences and technologies, as well as to the creation of soft knowledge (not necessarily science-based), including ideologies and public opinion. The PR industry, think tanks, the media, academics, intellectuals, and political pundits all play a role in shaping the dominant political-ideological theories and culture that support and legitimise socio-economic relationships, institutions, classes, and inequality in wealth and income.
To conclude, until the modern era, cultures tended to remain relatively stable. Political-economic systems were upheld by the social (class) systems they generated and by the dominant cultures they produced. Technological innovation and change were slow, as evidenced by the prolonged transition from hunter-gatherer societies to predominantly agricultural societies.[12] Notwithstanding the rise (and fall) of empires and great civilisations, most of the world remained culturally highly diverse, shaped by differences in local or regional biophysical conditions and production systems. Cultures were taken for granted and regarded as natural or prescribed by the Gods.
The rise of capitalism, the Enlightenment, science, and industrial technology marked a relatively fast rate of change in production systems, social (class) relations, and culture. Steadily progressing from the 16th century, these developments in Europe gained momentum during the 19th century, resulting in the creation of nation-states, the dominance of capitalist classes, colonialism, unprecedented economic growth and technological development, international rivalry, conflict, and wars, as well as the forging of national cultures and nationalism. National cultures became dominant at the expense of local and regional diversity and were deliberately exported worldwide.
However, some countries have been significantly more powerful and effective in extending their political and economic rule and cultures across the world. Increasingly, the political-economic forces that shape culture have assumed a global dimension, dominated by capitalist classes in the United States and Europe. The implications for cultural diversity and the potential emergence of a global culture will be explored next.
Cultural globalisation and its discontents
Throughout history, many societies and cultures have been influenced and changed by external contacts and forces (for instance, by trade and conquest). However, these factors became increasingly significant globally from the 15th century, with the rise of European colonialism. Political-economic colonialism was accompanied by cultural colonialism to the point that many indigenous cultures were brought to (the brink of) extinction. Some of these cultures have shown resilience to this onslaught and are undergoing a process of revitalisation. At the same time, many indigenous and national cultures have adopted (many) elements of foreign cultures, arguably to the point that they have become what can be referred to as hybrid cultures.[13]
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of capitalism and neoliberalism to global hegemony, economic globalisation (supported by global institutions) accelerated, absorbing nearly all countries. While most advanced in finance and trade, globalisation also extended to the cultural realm. Dominated by Western (especially American) culture, this has led to the emergence of a form of global culture, notably based on consumerism and entertainment, which Benjamin Barber has referred to as McWorld.[14] When one finds oneself in a shopping mall anywhere in the world, it is difficult to discern the local or national culture of the place. Around the world, people covet the same kinds of consumer goods and technologies, including cars, televisions, mobile phones and numerous other products. The global media present Western lifestyles as desirable and as the primary goal of development.
Whether this process leads to the emergence of a truly global culture encompassing all four dimensions of culture identified above (ideational, institutional, communicative, and expressive elements) remains an open question. As yet, it appears that cultural globalisation is most advanced in the communicative and expressive spheres, notably the material forms associated with consumerism and entertainment, but less so in the ideational and institutional areas, despite the UN and WTO, and the near-universal adoption of capitalism, human rights declarations, and international environmental agreements, among others. On the one hand, continuous economic growth and scientific and technological development have become globally dominant values, widely seen as desirable and unstoppable. On the other hand, cultural globalisation also provoked strong counterreactions (labelled Jihad by Barber), driven by the perceived threats and insults emanating from McWorld to traditional (religious) belief systems. In many so-called developing countries, there has been a growing sentiment against Western values, such as democracy and human rights, which are perceived as tools hypocritically used to pursue or impose Western political and economic interests. Although such sentiments may be fuelled by authoritarian regimes that see the idea of democracy as a direct threat to their rule and interests, they have also been inspired by postcolonial thinkers and writers, including Franz Fanon and Edward Said, who analysed how Western ideas have colonised the minds of subjugated peoples, in particular those of the westernised elites. Such ideas contributed to the revival of traditional and indigenous cultures, including their languages, even in Western countries.
Notwithstanding the overwhelming power of cultural (as well as economic) globalisation and the appeal of modern lifestyles, there is little evidence that social support for existing (national, ethnic, and indigenous) cultures is waning. If anything, nationalism, cultural assertiveness and ethnic conflicts have grown. Nation-states and national cultures are relatively recent creations, often forged from a particular but already dominant ethnic group. However, although nation-states have become the universally accepted building blocks of the international order, the territorial integrity of many states remains insecure, threatened by ethnonationalist separatist movements that aspire to create their own, more or less culturally homogeneous nation-states.[15] Supported by the United Nations-endorsed principle of self-determination, these movements continue to contest the legitimacy of existing nation-states, from the United Kingdom (Scotland) and Spain (Catalonia) to China (Tibet and the Uyghurs) and many other countries worldwide. At the same time, we also see a resurgence of nationalist movements advocating for existing nation-states, often in reaction to the growing immigration from ethnic groups that are perceived to be a threat to national cultures. This volatile mix, frequently exploited and fuelled by right-wing groups, poses a significant social integration challenge to many governments that, if not well-handled, can get out of hand and lead to an escalation of conflict, violence, and the commission of large-scale (elite or even state-sponsored) atrocities.
The ambiguities associated with culture lie at the heart of the enduring challenge of social integration and disintegration that humans and human societies face. Culture unites and divides. It remains crucial to the formation and preservation of groups and societies, but is increasingly fluid and difficult to delineate. Perhaps more than ever, cultural differences and change have become a source of conflict, both within societies and internationally. Despite economic and cultural globalisation, socio-cultural divisions continue to be a source of tension. This raises the question of why many people remain strongly attached to their culture and to what extent cultural differences are (still) important. Answering this question requires looking at the role and function(s) that culture has fulfilled and arguably continues to fulfil.
Is cultural diversity still important?
As noted above, culture is perhaps the most distinctive feature of humans and human societies. As a non-specialised and social species, humans depend on others (adults) to survive. They must undergo a lengthy process to learn how to function within the group or society in which they are born or raised and to become fully integrated members. Culture, therefore, is essential for both individuals and the groups or societies in which they are raised. What may be questioned, however, is whether the (large) diversity of cultures that have evolved over the course of history remains important. This question may sound outrageous, as every ethnic group or society wants to preserve its own culture, which means de facto preserving the diversity of all cultures. Also, cultural diversity, like biological diversity, is commonly regarded as inherently valuable, especially in intellectual circles. However, given the numerous conflicts and considerable harm that cultural differences have played a role in throughout history and continue to do so, there are good reasons to question the need for, and the importance assigned to, cultural diversity.
Why was, or is, cultural diversity important? Rather than simply stating that it is inherently valuable, which ends the debate, I think we can identify three main arguments: first, historically, cultures were based on local experiences and knowledge that were crucial to survival; second, the social integration function of culture can work only with relatively small and homogeneous groups; third, cultures (including sub-cultures) play a significant role in satisfying the basic psychological human needs of identity and meaning by emphasising difference.
First, as discussed above, human cultures historically arose and evolved in particular local or regional environments and conditions that influenced the ways societies met and could meet their basic material needs. Local and regional conditions, experiences, and knowledge continued to be important in the transition to agricultural production systems. Local knowledge of soils, vegetation, climate, and resources played a crucial role in successfully growing and improving crops, as well as in the domestication of animals. Villages and smaller communities shared a common economic basis that required cooperation and shaped local and regional cultures. These could still be considered real communities in the sense that most people knew one another personally, though this does not necessarily imply that they liked one another. However, given their mutual (inter-) dependence, based on a fairly delineated biophysical (resource) environment, they had strong reasons to maintain the established social order, even if it involved accepting local or regional rulers.
With the expansion of economic relations across larger areas, especially with the rise of capitalism and industrialism and the associated processes of urbanisation and the social disintegration of rural communities, traditional cultures no longer provided adequate ties to bind the emerging social realities. Increasingly, people depended on large-scale production systems, wage labour, and markets to meet their material needs. Emerging industries required infrastructure (roads, canals, ports, and railroads) to supply raw materials and energy, and to transport their goods to markets. States became increasingly important in providing this infrastructure, protecting property rights, and adopting laws and regulations to facilitate capitalism. Industrial capitalism formed the material basis for the development of national states and cultures. Political-economic elites and governments have set out to forge national cultures, among other things, by adopting national symbols (such as national flags, anthems, and monuments), a national language, teaching national history, promoting national arts, and instituting national public holidays and remembrance days, as well as, of course, national citizenship. Local and regional cultures were overlaid with national cultures that served the development of industrial capitalism and the rise of the capitalist class, transforming people into national citizens who were increasingly dependent on national economies.
More recently, with the global dispersal of production systems, supply chains, and information and communication technologies (ICT), and the convergence of consumption patterns, the link between (diverse) cultures and geographically and politically delineated areas has been virtually severed. Economic globalisation is accompanied by cultural globalisation, and it does not require cultural diversity. The economic imperatives associated with competing in a global capitalist system shape and dominate the institutions and policies of national governments. The global culture of McWorld, characterised by materialism, the belief in infinite economic growth, technological progress, and control over nature, supersedes national and local cultures. It does not matter where and how things are produced. Although cultural differences still exist (“varieties of capitalism”), these are seen as relevant mainly in the context of the extent to which they promote economic growth, for instance, by supporting an ethic of hard work and acceptance of authority and discipline (“Asian values”). National culture is also used for competitive (“branding”) purposes to promote exports, attract tourists, and investments. Thus, cultural diversity has lost much of its original (local, regional and even national) rationale and meaning. Instead, local and national cultures are increasingly mixed with a forged (and politically dominant) global culture.
A second reason cultural diversity may be regarded as important is that the social integration function of culture can operate only within relatively small, culturally homogeneous groups. For much of human history, kinship (extended families, clans) provided the glue that held people together. Still, empathy and feelings of connectedness remain most potent within the more immediate kinship circles and tend to weaken towards larger groups. Hence, it provides a fairly limited basis for the social integration of larger groups. This is where culture steps in, providing a bond among group members that leads them to view themselves as a more or less cohesive unit, sharing common values and beliefs, institutions, history, language, symbols, and cultural heritage. The newly forged national cultures that accompanied the development of capitalism and national states created what can be referred to as “imagined communities”.[16] Although such communities may share several objective characteristics (such as living in the same area, speaking the same language, and sharing the same religion), they are too large for their members to have kinship (“blood”) ties or to know one another personally. Yet they provide a sense of community akin to kinship. Thus, what a community is depends largely on whether people see themselves as such.
Ethnic groups are often regarded as having a more objective basis for a community. The concept of ethnicity combines the idea of kinship and culture, bridging the gap between clans and (nation-) states. Ethnicity is associated with a shared sense of origin, ancestry, history, language, customs and other cultural elements held in common by a group. It has largely displaced the heavily tainted term race in scientific discourse, which is now commonly regarded as a social construct that has no basis in biological reality. Research across the world population has found that genetic diversity between human populations across the world is very small,[17] confirming the view that there is no biological basis for the racist views that have long prevailed. That does not mean that (ancestral) genetic differences are unimportant. They can be significant with regard to dispositions and the treatment of diseases, for instance.[18]
However, the claim that ethnicity is based on “blood ties” (or the same gene pool) is questionable, as it is rooted in myth rather than evolutionary reality. Ultimately, all humans stem from the same gene pool. Scientists have found that, between 800,000 and 900,000 years ago, our human ancestors underwent a severe evolutionary bottleneck, during which their population plummeted to approximately 1,280 breeding individuals. But even going back not so far in history, the idea that genetically, ethnic groups have a distinct shared gene pool that makes them kin, setting them off against other groups, is hardly tenable. The exponential nature of ancestry implies that going back 5 centuries or 20 generations, each person has some 11 million ancestors.[19] Migration and intermarriage between groups led to the dilution and mixing of genes and kin, accounting for most genetic variation among individuals. Thus, the idea that ethnicity provides a stronger and more objective bond between individuals is not grounded in biological reality. Historically, ethnic groups have varied and overlapped in different respects. They may have lived in the same area for a long time, speak the same language or different ones, adhere to the same or different religions, dress the same or differently, and so on. In brief, they may have more in common than differences.[20] It is the mythical narratives about a group’s origins and ancestry, its shared history and experiences, and particular deeds or accusations (of abuses and killings) that are often used by some to fuel animosity and incite atrocities. Thus, like nationalism, ethnicity is based foremost on the idea or sense of community.
There may be a limit to how far or wide this expanding sense of community may be pushed. As noted in the preceding section, the forging of nation-states and national cultures has not gone without fierce opposition from existing ethnic groups, some of which still clamour for independence. In many parts of the world, where nations comprise diverse ethnic groups, ethnicity appears to hold stronger appeal as a basis for social integration than existing nation-states and national cultures, thereby threatening their existence. Although, as noted above, the concept of ethnicity as a form of kinship is contestable, this does not preclude people from ascribing importance to it. Yet, many nation-states and national cultures have been reasonably effective in forging a sense of (imagined) community, as reflected in the manifestations of nationalism from sports fields to the political arena. Although it has been argued that people are expanding their empathetic capability or propensity to include ever-larger groups, eventually encompassing the whole of humanity [21], this has not yet been reflected in the political and social realities around the world.
This does not mean that cultural or ethnic diversity inevitably entails conflict or war. Many, if not most, sources of suffering, oppression, and exploitation lie in the political-economic realm. Much of the conflict between and within ethnic groups or tribes can be traced to disputes over resources, exploitative practices, long-term injustices and oppression- in other words, to political-economic factors and relationships. Blaming ethnic groups for social, economic, and political injustices and suffering is a practice that has a long history. Dominant elites often use it to divert attention from the political-economic systems and the agency and power underlying these problems. However, where the elites are identified (or self-identify) as an ethnic group different from the oppressed and exploited, it is this combination of factors and experiences that creates a potentially explosive mix, as illustrated in the case of the Rwandan massacre.
For these reasons, one should be wary of emphasising the importance of ethnic or cultural differences between people and groups for political purposes. The emphasis on ethnicity as a more legitimate basis for social and political integration than the notion of national communities has, in practice, functioned primarily as a driver of social and political disintegration. Few states are ethnically homogeneous, and ethnicity (ethnonationalism) has been (and still is) a divisive force that has led to many conflicts, violence, and human suffering, not in the least because existing (nation-) states consider it as a threat to their national integrity or even existence, and rightly so. This does not mean condoning practices aimed at suppressing or exterminating cultural diversity. But given the reality that most nation-states are multicultural and/or have developed hybrid cultures, there is nothing to be gained from emphasising ethnicity as the main or even only legitimate basis for social and political integration. A better approach, it seems, is to allow ethnic groups to maintain their own cultures while emphasising what they have in common, given the reality of living in the same state or geographical area.
However, this view of ethnic or cultural diversity is perhaps too rational. There is another reason people are strongly attached to their culture and willing to do almost anything to protect it. Cultures, including subcultures, play a significant role in satisfying basic psychological needs for identity, belonging, and meaning.
Culture is often regarded as essential for meeting basic psychological needs, including a sense of belonging and identity. People need to be accepted and see themselves as members of the groups that are important to them. This was a matter of life and death in premodern societies, as individuals depended materially on their group or tribe to survive. In modern societies, characterised by urbanisation, individualisation, fragmentation, detachment of extended families, dependence on labour for income, and dependence on the market for obtaining the necessities of life, the groups on which people depend have become less clear and fixed. Identity has increasingly become a matter of individual choice and construction rather than being acquired and ascribed by one’s family or community,[22] even though that does not mean that one’s social position in society has become unimportant. However, loosening social ties in modern societies makes it more difficult to meet these basic needs. Many (especially young) people suffer from uncertainty and anxiety about who they are.[23] They are deprived of a sense of connectedness, meaning and purpose, which can lead to withdrawal, anti-social behaviour, aggression and self-harm. However, it also makes them vulnerable to manipulation by individuals and organisations seeking to recruit members for their causes, including cults, social movements, and political groupings. It hardly needs to be pointed out that emotive factors play a major role in these matters. People do not join clubs and organisations purely for rational (utility) reasons but also, or even mainly, to meet their social needs and gain a sense of belonging, acceptance, recognition, and common purpose. The more complex and confusing societies and the world become, the more attractive the (highly) simplified portrayal of reality offered by particular groups becomes.
Because most people depend on work for income and survival, their occupational roles and positions have traditionally been important sources of identity. While these roles were relatively few and clearly defined and fixed in premodern societies, they became much more varied with the process of specialisation in modern industrial societies. In contemporary pluralist societies, people may identify with a range of different groups that align with multiple self-defined interests. Identification with a nation or ethnic group may be among these, but it is not necessarily the most important. This diversity of loyalties and fragmented identities need not be problematic. Many people have roots in and links with several groups, including different nationalities, and may be perfectly happy with that. Thus, the need for a sense of belonging and identity can be met in various ways, including membership in multiple subcultures. The extent to which humans need larger groups to meet their basic psychosocial needs is debatable. Most of these needs can be met in relatively small groups (families, clans, villages), as has been the case throughout much of human history. In the electronic age, virtual communities arguably play a crucial role in meeting the need for identity and belonging, particularly for many young people. There is no compelling reason, in modern societies, for people to emphasise their nationality or ethnicity as the most essential cultural component of their identity. People do not need (ethnic) nationalism to give meaning to their lives.
However, as the prevalence of ethnic conflicts worldwide demonstrates, cultures and cultural differences can elicit strong emotions. Culture taps into feelings of affinity, love, empathy, security, threat, and fear, as well as likes and dislikes. People raised in a particular culture often take their own culture for granted and become aware of it only when confronted with different cultures. Inevitably, these differences generate feelings. These may be positive, for instance, regarding artistic achievements, architecture, or overall sophistication. However, in other respects, the feelings aroused may be negative, especially related to beliefs, values, norms, practices, and behaviour considered wrong or offensive in one’s culture. This emotional aspect of culture is arguably the most intractable and poses the most significant risk of arousing conflict and hatred, causing the commission of mindless atrocities between ethnic groups. This does not mean that all cultural differences inevitably lead to conflict—many do not and are received positively and celebrated (like culinary traditions). But some differences can arouse strong negative feelings, especially if combined with a history of suppression, oppression and exploitation, discrimination, inequality, and violent conflict.
This sensitivity to cultural differences also plays out globally, as discussed above. Resentment against cultural globalisation (sometimes referred to as Americanisation) is not confined to radical groups. In many countries, concerns have arisen about the erosion of national or ethnic cultures because of American dominance in the media and the entertainment and publishing industries, among other things. Ironically, these reactions mirror the issues and concerns that arose from the earlier process by which, in many countries, national cultures were forged from and imposed upon an often large diversity of ethnic cultures, which is still causing resentment and a source of demands for self-determination by many regional movements, even in many European countries where nation-states were first created. Given the importance of culture, and especially language, as a source of collective and individual identity, it is understandable that people seek to protect their culture from perceived threats.
The non-recognition or denial of this emotional aspect generated by cultural differences, and their potential to arouse negative feelings, is a significant source of tension and conflict. Invariably, when one group attempts to impose its culture on another, it leads to hostile reactions. This has been amply demonstrated around the world, including in colonised countries and countries where minority groups are oppressed and/or forced to assimilate (including the Uyghurs and Tibetans in China). But it also manifests itself when multiculturalism is misguidedly promoted as a positive way to enhance social harmony, notably in the ideational and institutional realms if values, views and norms clash and/or when a language is forced down the throat of people. Rather than contributing to harmony, such efforts tend to provoke strong resentment, dislike, intolerance, or even hatred. The emotional dimension of culture and cultural differences is fertile ground for political exploitation, as seen in many European countries.
Thus, it is better to de-emphasise the importance of cultural differences to maintain or promote social harmony in societies and the world at large. Different cultures must be respected and allowed to coexist, but not forced or imposed upon one another. Inevitably, such efforts provoke negative emotional responses, fuelling antagonism and aggression. “Live and let live” has always been a wiser and more popular motto for maintaining social and cultural peace. Unfortunately, such an approach may be hard to adopt if cultural differences are perceived to overlap with a history of oppression, exploitation, and violent conflict. Additionally, it does not prevent people from imposing their values and norms on others. Increasingly, the globalised media play a key role in these culture wars, fuelling social and political polarisation between and within countries. Rather than contributing to social integration, culture has become a significant battleground.
However, beneath these high-profile culture wars, political-economic forces continue to shape culture in ways that are potentially far more perilous to humanity’s future. Increasingly, the future of culture is shaped by the development of science and technology that threatens to create a completely artificial world, substituting for nature, including human nature.
The death of nature? The culture of futurism
Since the 1980s, it has become fashionable to proclaim the end of nature.[24] On the one hand, this view was based on the growing evidence of human impact on natural cycles and processes, which led to significant environmental disturbances and problems. On the other hand, this was considered to require more, rather than less, human intervention to control these processes and mitigate these problems, placing humans squarely in the driver’s seat of nature. Nature was no longer seen as an autonomous force but had to be managed. Postmodern theories also contributed to such views, as they rejected the existence of nature as an objective reality, arguing that nature is a concept constructed by humans that can have very different meanings. There is no such thing as society, and there is no nature.
The idea that human actions have a significant impact on natural cycles is now widely recognised, as reflected in the adoption of the term Anthropocene to denote a new geological era marked by the long-term, demonstrable effects of humans on Earth’s geology. However, whether this means the end or death of nature is highly contestable. No matter how powerful human technologies become, it is sheer arrogance and hubris to think humans can control the biophysical world. Almost every technology invented and adopted by humans has had unforeseen (and unforeseeable) “side effects”, some relatively minor, others highly significant and problematic. The complexity and immensity of the biophysical world, and the reductionist nature of most scientific efforts, imply that human knowledge is always partial, fragmented, and tentative. If anything, the postmodernist view should incite modesty about knowledge claims rather than be taken to imply that there is no biophysical reality, whatever we think we know.
Yet, this does not stop the forces behind the development of science and technology from claiming that humans can overcome any limitation imposed by nature and create their own world and future. Nature-based agriculture is replaced by advanced food production technologies operating under complete human control, making it (assumedly) invulnerable to the vicissitudes of the weather, pests and diseases. Medical technologies aim to prevent attacks on human health, including continuous monitoring of bodily functions and the use of AI-based, individualised treatment when anything threatens to go wrong. Daily life is lived in a human-designed and controlled environment (urban, work, domestic, virtual), in which nature is assigned managed spaces to keep it under human control (from lawns and parks to “green” buildings and TV documentaries). The greater the environmental damage caused by human technologies, the stronger the calls for more effective technologies. It seems inevitable that geoengineering will be adopted as the only technology (of last resort)capable of staving off the inexorable process of extreme global heating. Similarly, AI will continue to be developed and applied by the most powerful to manage an increasingly complex and unmanageable world, despite fear-mongering about AI becoming an autonomous non-human agent that may seek to exterminate humanity. Meanwhile, the human colonisation of space is considered desirable or necessary, just in case.
Thus, a culture of futurism is being forged by those with a stake in the development of science and technology, including capitalist interests, big tech, the military-industrial complex, most scientists and scientific bodies, governments, science journalists, and popularisers. Combined with the belief in capitalism as the driving force of innovation and the producer of ever-higher living standards, faith in technological progress (techno-religion) remains a core element of the globally dominant ideology. Almost everywhere, these beliefs and values are institutionally enshrined and guide policies, practices and behaviour. The most typical artefact of this culture is the mobile phone, which keeps people tethered to the virtual world wherever they are.
Techno-religion also implies a belief in the perfectibility of humans themselves. Human nature is either considered nonexistent or completely malleable. Biophysically, this means that the “imperfections” of the human body, which lead to degeneration and death, can or should be seen as challenges to overcome. All diseases will be prevented or cured, and the elixir of life will be discovered or created, ultimately leading to eternal life. As all mental and psychological problems and limitations are seen as the products of the brain, these also can be overcome with technological interventions, drugs, implants or other means. Thus, the end of nature also implies the end of human nature, with (some) humans becoming a new kind of created species. This raises the question of who or what would determine the future of humanity if the newly created species gained control.[25]
It is primarily in science fiction that the risks and frightening scenarios for humanity are depicted, often for entertainment. It hardly needs mentioning that, in line with many of these scenarios, these developments offer the prospect of totalitarian rule by those who think that they control the most powerful technologies, not just to monitor thinking but also to keep people happy and entertained, assisted or manipulated by AI and robots. Less “happy” scenarios depict a future in which things have gone horribly wrong, societies have collapsed, masses of people have died, and human culture matches the requirements of bare survival in a bleak and savage world. In such a world, assuming that groups of humans survive, culture will again serve its original function: the group’s survival. Ironically, this implies the re-emergence of significant cultural diversity.
In my view, both scenarios are nightmares. Yet, both are pretty plausible, even if one cannot know which scenario will eventuate. Perhaps some variant combining the two is most likely. It does not look like the belief in techno-religion is on the way out. The dominant powers, vested in the prevailing political-economic system, will continue to push back, with ever-more sophisticated technological means, against the ever-shrinking environmental space (including resources) brought about by ongoing development and ecological unravelling. But at some stage, the natural systems (including the climate system) will break down and, probably fairly rapidly, shift to a new state that will be inhospitable to human life and collapse human systems. Perhaps the first to collapse is the highly unsustainable globalised industrial-agricultural system. The problems caused by a drastically reduced food supply are likely to put immense pressure on political systems; if these collapse, they will also bring down the existing (globalised) economic system, which is little more than a house of cards propped up by political systems. Social disintegration will follow in their wake.
Such a scenario is not unavoidable. Political and economic systems can be altered; different cultures can be forged depending on who holds the most power; and societies can prepare for and adapt to a changing climate and shrinking environmental space. However, time is not on our side, and the longer these changes take to occur, the more likely it is that a doomsday scenario will eventuate. In the final section, I reflect on the type of cultural change necessary to prevent such a development.
Cultural change to save the world?
As societies and the world drift toward environmental collapse and socio-political disintegration, what kind of cultural change, if any, might emerge from this changing reality and help mitigate or prevent disaster, and possibly even the demise of humanity? Suppose cultures reflect the material conditions on which societies depend for their survival. In that case, one would expect that changes in these conditions will also generate cultural changes and adaptations aimed at securing the survival of societies. Yet, as noted above, vested interests and entrenched powers (agency and power) impede such changes, contributing to cultural inertia and rigidity. Nonetheless, this does not prevent individuals and groups from advocating for and pursuing cultural change based on what they deem desirable or necessary. Despite cultural globalisation and the erosion of pre-existing cultures, the world is far from culturally homogeneous. If anything, traditional and national cultures are experiencing a resurgence.
However, reverting to pre-existing or traditional national cultures, even if this were possible, will not prevent environmental collapse. The argument that “we” can or must learn from indigenous cultures to move toward sustainability rests on unrealistic assumptions. First, as discussed above, the notion that indigenous peoples lived in harmony with nature and one another is unsupported by historical evidence. Conflict over territory and resources has been as common among human tribes and societies as among many other species, arguably because territoriality is a hard-wired feature of human nature. What made these societies more or less sustainable was their relatively small population in relation to the land and other available resources. The idea that people in the past lived in harmony with one another and with nature is more a matter of romantic fiction than of evidence.
Second, it is unclear what returning to indigenous cultures would mean, even if embraced by non-indigenous peoples. Traditional values, knowledge, beliefs, rules, and norms reflected the material conditions in which indigenous people lived, which were aligned with the then-prevailing production and consumption patterns and state of technology. It is doubtful that many advocates for traditional cultures would want to return to the material lifestyles that prevailed in pre-industrial times, even if that were possible. Most indigenous peoples have embraced (many) aspects of modern societies, technologies, and culture, have developed hybrid cultures, and would have difficulty returning to the way of life that prevailed 500 or even 200 years ago. Also, deriving guidance and relevance from traditional cultures for living in present and future conditions is problematic. Applying indigenous cultural principles to, for instance, life in cities often encounters incongruity between settings, and deriving rules for modern technologies such as cars, computers, and mobile phones is likely far from straightforward and arguably inappropriate.
Third, and most importantly, all cultures must be adapted to recognise the material (biophysical) reality of humanity’s dependence on the same planet. There is an urgent need to develop a global (eco-cosmopolitan) culture based on this reality, as premodern societies did to adapt their cultures to local and regional conditions. As it seems unlikely that many people will want to return to premodern ways of living (even if possible), the question is what kind of life and society could be considered desirable and environmentally sustainable. What values, views, institutions, practices and behaviours (culture) should guide the fundamental transformation of existing political, economic, and social systems? How self-reliant or interdependent can and do societies want to be? Initially, these are questions that every country or society must answer. Given the reality of global environmental limits, the unequal distribution and use of environmental space across countries, the degree of interdependence created, and the existing socio-economic inequalities between and within countries, these questions must also be seen and addressed in the international context.
Adapting cultures to changing material conditions on which societies depend for their well-being and survival must be grounded in global, local, and national realities. We now have a better understanding of the planetary boundaries within which production, consumption, and technological development must remain to ensure the Earth remains habitable for humans and other species. This knowledge should guide the integration of environmental principles, limits, and imperatives into human thinking, behaviour, practices, and institutions across societies and cultures worldwide. This collective task must be undertaken at all levels to adapt societies, and the world at large, to the rapidly deteriorating material conditions on which human and other life depend. Given the political reality of the global state system, states hold the key (power) to undertaking and coordinating that task. Only states have the legitimate power to (preferably democratically) develop and adopt national-level plans and goals to steer countries towards a more sustainable future. Only states can legitimately enter into agreements with other states that accept a fair distribution of environmental space within recognised global limits. However, given their crucial roles and powers, they will undertake these tasks only if guided by a culture that transcends national and local parochialism and emphasises humanity’s shared values and interests. If adopted, such an approach could constitute a step toward developing an eco-cosmopolitan culture grounded in the biophysical reality of humanity’s dependence on this planet.
True, moving in that direction is hampered by the classic “chicken-and-egg” conundrum. States must play a key role in the transition to an eco-cosmopolitan culture, but achieving this requires cultural change. As long as the dominant political-economic interests hold states in their grip, there is little to no chance that they will be guided by an eco-cosmopolitan culture. Similarly, as long as societies are held in the grip of those interests and distracted by “culture wars” that fuel division and conflict, thereby diverting attention from the underlying forces that control culture, they will remain blind to the necessary change. Breaking these vicious circles may be challenging, but it is not impossible. However, given the political reality of the international state system, this is unlikely to happen from the top down. States remain the most crucial institutions for cultural transformation. First, cultural leaders across the arts, education, science, religion, universities, and other areas of cultural production must cease fighting over cultural issues that distract from the systemic sources of the existential threats facing humanity. Societies need to overcome their cultural divisions and engage in collective deliberation to identify shared values and interests essential to safeguarding their common future. Second, to facilitate such a process, collective (societal) action needs to focus on political-institutional change that aligns the functions and powers of the state with a newly forged (eco-cosmopolitan) culture.
A body representative of a country’s entire population, however culturally diverse, that uses the principles and processes of deliberative democracy should be able to reach agreement on the most important values and interests shared by the country’s citizens. Although these may differ somewhat from country to country, such agreements will likely overlap as many relate to basic human needs and shared humanity (human propensities). Such social contracts would provide the basis for the development of a common framework of goals (national plans) that respect global ecological limits and the country’s use of global environmental space (which can be below or above what can be considered equitable, a matter to be informed by science and decided by international agreement). Subject to the sovereign power of such institutions, states and governments would be responsible for implementing such plans. Thus, pragmatic nationalism, aimed at advancing sustainable and desirable goals in a national context, combined with global equity principles, could guide societies towards adopting an eco-cosmopolitan culture. Such an approach would be compatible with the retention of cultural diversity that meets the human need for belonging and bonding (identity) at both the national and subnational levels.
However, creating such a representative body of citizens, let alone assigning it sovereign power, is challenging. Yet, it is hard to see how a change in the dominant culture can be achieved without fundamental political-institutional change that transfers power from sectional and short-term interests to the people as a whole. How that could be done is a question I have discussed under the heading Power to the People: Implementing Popular Sovereignty.
References
[1] It has been argued that this sense of superiority is a universal feature of human societies. For instance, the Yanomami hunters and horticulturalists from the Orinoco believe that all people (other than themselves) are inferior. Azar Gat and Alexander Yakobson, Nations. The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 32.
[2] Ibid., 36.
[3] Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1998 ed. (London: Simon & Schuster: Touchstone Books, 1996).
[4] Ibid., 41.
[5] Although this quotation is based on second-hand sources. See https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/04/23/good-idea/
[6] Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Pandaemonium. Ethnicity in International Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), Chapter 5; Tore Janson, Speak. A Short History of Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
[7] Frans de Waal, Primates and Philosophers. How Morality Evolved (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006); Frans de Waal, “What Animals Can Teach Us About Politics,” The Guardian, 12 March 2019.
[8] Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History (London: Bloomsbury, 2014).
[9] Jared M. Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (New York: Viking, 2005); Joseph A. Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2005).
[10] Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (London: Profile Books Ltd, 2019).
[11] Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon,” in Karl Marx. Selected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1852; 1969 ed.), 398.
[12] The label “agricultural revolution” is a misnomer as the transition was neither short nor sudden nor led by a revolutionary group or class. Although the shift in production was highly significant, it occurred gradually, probably over many hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
[13] Jan Nederveen Pieterse, Globalization and Culture Global Mélange, 2nd ed. (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2020).
[14] Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad Vs McWorld. How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World (New York: Ballantine Books, 1995).
[15] Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism. The Quest for Understanding (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994); Gat and Yakobson, Nations. The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism; Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging. Journeys into the New Nationalism (Toronto: Penguin, 1994); Moynihan, Pandaemonium. Ethnicity in International Politics.
[16] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso Books, 1983; 2016).
[17] Ethnicity, Race, and Genetics Working Group, “The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics,” American Journal of Human Genetics 77 (2005).
[18] Akinyemi Oni-Orisan, et al., “Embracing Genetic Diversity to Improve Black Health,” The New England Journal of Medicine 384 (2021); Talia Krainc and Augustin Fuentes, “Genetic Ancestry in Precision Medicine Is Reshaping the Race Debate,” PNAS 119 (2022).
[19] Race, “The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics.”
[20] For instance, as Ignatieff notes, outsiders are struck not by the differences between Serbs and Croats but by how similar they appear. He uses Freud’s expression of the “narcissism of minor difference” to refer to the exaggeration of the importance of differences between ethnic groups. Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging. Journeys into the New Nationalism, 6.
[21] Jeremy Rifkin, The Emphatic Civilization. The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis (New York: Penguin, 2009).
[22] Ulrich Beck, Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage Publications, 1992), 128.
[23] American society has been at the forefront of this development. See Kenneth Keniston, The Uncommitted. Alienated Youth in American Society (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1965).
[24] Bill McKibben, The End of Nature (London: Penguin Books, 1990); Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature. Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983); Paul Kevin Wapner, “The Changing Nature of Nature: Environmental Politics in the Anthropocene,” Global Environmental Politics 14 (2014); Erik Swyngedouw, “Depoliticized Environments: The End of Nature, Climate Change and the Post-Political Condition,” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 69 (2011).
[25] For a discussion of the moral implications of such scenarios, which are linked foremost to genetic engineering, see Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (London: Profile Books, 2003).