Culture is a thorny topic. Culture is perhaps the most important characteristic of the human species, linked to its capability for abstract thinking, creativity, and the use of symbols. But while culture, in a generic sense, is commonly regarded as a positive phenomenon, and even an object of (self-) admiration, it has also been, and still is, a highly ambiguous and problematic element in human interactions. Cultural differences have long been a source of tensions, conflicts and wars.
The appreciation of culture is most common when it comes to works of art, music, literature and other products of human creativity. People admire rock paintings that are 30,000 years old, sculptures and 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 appreciation across the world, be it foremost among the “cultured classes”. At a more popular level, billions of people around the world enjoy and admire the musical products of world-famous “stars”, and blockbuster movies produced by Hollywood. These are just examples of how culture is widely valued as a generic 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 often used to distinguish between “us and them”, fuelling hatred, wars and the commitment 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. But 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 remain a major source of tension, conflict, and human suffering.
This raises several questions. First, what is culture? What is it about culture that makes it 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 if so, 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 arguably are too complex to answer. In the realm of human affairs, developing knowledge and understanding is much more difficult than in the realm of physical reality, arguably harder than “rocket science”. Nonetheless, this does not and should not stop people from trying to get their heads around such questions. After all, these issues affect many more people on a day-to-day basis 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 what the issues are. Second, I discuss what I see as the four most important sources of culture and cultural diversity. Third, this explanation is used as a basis for identifying the main 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 important characteristic of the human species, linked to its capability for abstract thinking, creativity, and “symboling.” Culture is arguably a feature that distinguishes humans from other species as humans rely foremost on symbols and communication (notably through language), rather than instinct or genetically determined behaviour, to survive. It is through culture that humans learn how to meet their basic needs and function in a group or society. 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, which is another highly ambiguous concept subject to different views and interpretations, not all flattering. But it is hard to deny that, in a general sense, culture is essential to all humans.
Yet, like all concepts, the term culture has and can be defined in different ways. In popular language, and the realm of 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 and norms, beliefs, customs, traditions, food cultures, architecture, tools, artefacts and many other things. Culture and civilisation are often seen as referring to the same things, be it 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), the term 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 aimed at understanding the rise and fall of civilisations.
The notion of civilisation as a good idea may be humorous or provocative, inviting us to think about what culture should be, but it does not shed much light on culture as an empirical concept. To study and understand culture, we need to clarify the things considered to be (main) elements of culture. While there may not be general agreement on this front, 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 aspects refer to the ways these common beliefs have been converted into rules, norms, and organisations. These guide day-to-day behaviour and practices. Communicative elements include a common (oral) language, writing, symbols, and any 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 by which culture is expressed, which include rituals, rites and ceremonies, customs and traditions, tools, utensils and artefacts, literature, music, dance, and play, among others. 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 passed on and/or perhaps 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. 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 time the earliest civilisations are generally considered to have emerged (some 10,000 years ago). This broader interpretation is important as it leads us to think about the fundamental roles and functions of culture (any culture) rather than focus (foremost) on their degree of sophistication or level of development. While the latter is important in that it greatly affects how people live, it can also lead us astray, diverting attention from the roles that culture plays in human societies.
Although the definition of culture provided above may seem reasonably clear, in practice, it is often difficult to sharply delineate between cultures. Knowledge, beliefs, and values may not be unique to a culture but shared by different cultures, and/or held on political, religious or other grounds. Despite the differences between French, German, English and other European cultures, they also share particular values and beliefs, for example, those that find their source in the Enlightenment (the belief in science and rationality, the existence of objective material reality, a belief in progress, and democracy). Yet, within cultures, there may be significant differences in views on what such things (such as democracy) mean or should mean. At the same time, religious beliefs (like Christianity and Islam) may be an intrinsic element of different cultures but 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 have common roots and can 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, spread with the invention of printing, and institutionalised in the process of nation-building.[6] Many cultures developed the same or similar tools and other artefacts, be it with different styles. Arguably, similarities and overlap between cultures have always existed and grown over time, giving the notion of cultural identity a degree of ambiguity.
But perhaps not surprisingly, it is the diversity of cultures rather than their similarities and overlap, or their generic quality linked to the human capability for abstract thinking, that has been the focus of much research. Since the 19th century, the field of cultural anthropology set out to undertake the scientific (comparative) study of cultures across the world, based on their own terms (referred to as “cultural relativism”). Drawing general conclusions from such studies is notoriously problematic given contextual differences and as researchers are prone to subjective (culturally and ideologically influenced) interpretation. 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 borrows concepts and approaches from the humanities and social science disciplines to explore a wide range of topics, often to expose the use of power in the construction of culture.
This leads to the next question: Where do culture and cultural diversity come from?
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 exist also among non-human primates, as de Waal has argued.[7] But, by comparison to other primates, Homo sapiens evolved a larger brain capacity that influenced its choices, interactions, and practices, 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 until it reached its present size and shape between 100,000 and 35,000 years ago. What is less contestable is that, ever since, cultural development manifested itself in many forms around the world. This diversification of cultures, notably in expressive elements, the most noticeable aspects of culture, has tended to be the focus of research and debates on culture, notably on questions about the sources of differences.
It may seem superfluous to point out that cultural traits are not innate to individuals. Individuals are born within a socio-cultural context within which they learn and acquire culture through the socialisation process. This does not mean that personal, individual, or genetic traits (such as openness, conscientiousness, and extroversion) do not influence behaviour. But they do so on an individual level. The main shortcoming of theories that try to explain social and cultural phenomena from the distribution of genetic and/or psychological traits in a population is that they ignore or downplay the simple fact that culture is a collective (social) reality that exists before individuals are born. All people are born within an existing culture and adopt behaviour and practices based on the values, rules and norms of that culture. As an individual, they may play a role in the creation of 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 related to the complexities of human interactions within the social and biophysical reality, including the political-economic systems, the distribution of power, and the biophysical environment influenced and modified by humans. 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 then explains the diversity of cultures? Why and how do cultures change and evolve? Here, I put forward what I see as four main sources of culture, cultural diversity, and cultural change: biophysical conditions, human creativity, political-economic systems, and power and agency. Each of these has a different inherent logic, but they also interact with and influence each other.
First, it is plausible that differences in biophysical conditions have played an important 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 survival of the group in a particular context and environment. Relative isolation contributed to the development of different cultures, including languages, as illustrated, for instance, by Papua New Guinea, which was the home of more than 850 languages (more than 10% of the world’s 7000 languages). India, a large sub-continent, also developed a large 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 and what cultural traits evolve within a particular environment depends foremost on the people living in that environment and their choices, interactions, and practices, set in 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 pre-modern societies have revealed that these societies did not necessarily use natural resources sustainably. They often brought about significant environmental destruction, including deforestation, desertification, and the extinction of many animal species.[8] The failure to adapt culture to changing biophysical environmental conditions can be seen as one of the main factors behind their collapse or demise.[9] The reasons for this failure lie in the political-economic and social context, as I will discuss further below.
A second, perhaps most important, source of culture, is human creativity. Creativity is arguably the most characteristic human capability, rooted not just in the capacity for rational thinking, but also in intuition, feelings, and wherever ideas and “inspiration” come from. What tools or means early human societies used to meet their needs depended not just on the biophysical environment, but foremost on human inventiveness. Ideas, curiosity, trial and error, necessity, and serendipity may all have played a role in the development of tools and means, including adzes, spears, hunting techniques, and the use of fire. All these factors involve the ability to see the potential in or of things but are also influenced by intuition and emotions. Creativity is not just an individual but also a collective capability, with individuals feeding off each other. Ideas or models get bounced around in groups and may be changed, improved, or rejected.
The creative potential (talents) of individuals differ, as demonstrated by the remarkable achievements of some artists, composers, musicians, architects, authors, inventors, and scientists, among others. 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 that they invented and created (from the invention of the wheel, stone, bronze and iron tools and weaponry, to the plough, and so on). They also differed in the development of other cultural products like writing, mathematics, astronomy, science and philosophy, and belief systems. While all cultures developed in different contexts, meeting the basic human needs of their members in a variety of 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 got a chance to be developed. Creativity requires conducive conditions to flourish, although what these are may differ between 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 by the exploitation of many people (including slaves). The development of the creative potential of individuals, and its recruitment and exploitation, has always been circumscribed by the socio-political context. Whose creativity gets a chance to be developed, how, under what conditions, and what for depends 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 virtual consensus on the idea that culture is a human (social) construct, how and why cultures have been, and still are, constructed are questions on which there is hardly any 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 knowledge. Yet, who makes or shapes culture and to what end(s) remain crucial questions. Answering such questions requires looking at societal structures, notably political-economic systems and the associated distribution of power.
Human groups and societies have always developed systems of production on which they depended to meet their needs, from hunting and gathering to agricultural and industrial systems. That a prevailing mode of production is intertwined with particular social and political relations (including the distribution of power) is one of the most fundamental Marxist insights. 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 personal 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 and gatherer societies created quite different positions, roles, and power structures compared to agricultural societies in which control over land became the main 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 different elements of culture associated with those systems. Early cave drawings depict hunting scenes sketching people, animals, tools, experiences, and probably practices, techniques, and beliefs that may have been considered conducive to successful hunting. While we can only speculate about their meaning, language (concepts, stories) probably played a significant role in communicating such ideas between the members of such 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 wellbeing of the group, was held foremost by elders and contributed to their high status. Places, animals, and resources that were considered to be most important for the survival of the group became dominant values, perhaps held sacred. Rituals, rules and norms were based on these values and beliefs and taken very seriously. Thus, cultural differences, both material and non-material, reflected the differences in the geographical and environmental conditions (including the resources) on which the survival of groups depended.
In agricultural societies, culture reflected the importance of crops and animal husbandry as the main means of survival. 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 very important and provided a basis for cultural differences. In some cultures, particular animals were held to be sacred, reflecting their importance to survival. Houses, clothes, food, tools and most products were produced from local resources, creating a culture of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Stability, durability, cooperation, reliability, predictability, and traditions, were important values, lying at the heart of life in families, villages, and kingdoms. These beliefs and values were cultivated and upheld by religious and secular authorities 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, with the aim of currying favour or warding off threats and evil.
All that changed with the emergence of industrial societies, capitalism, and the development of science and technology in the service of boosting production and consumption, innovation, and trade. Agricultural societies, villages, extended families, and cultures were torn apart by land reforms (“enclosures”), migration towards (urban) centres of industry, and the imposition of industrial requirements (discipline, working hours, deskilling, adapting labour to machines). People became dependent on “the market” for meeting 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 becoming rich, became the main values, eroding the traditional values associated with village and family life. It no longer matters where things are produced or consumed, and 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 are measured.
In this context, the role and growing importance of technology (or technoscience) deserves special mention. Rulers have always relied on physical power (armed force) as the ultimate backstop to remain in control. Superior weaponry (technology) has often made a crucial difference in conflicts and wars. Thus, having superior military technology became a high-value priority for many rulers. In the economic sphere, the introduction of industrial technology required a major cultural transformation to instil work discipline (especially working long hours of repetitive and mind-numbing work), working and living by the clock, the separation between work and family life, and adaptation 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 important as a pathway for social mobility and as a basis for social stratification. The growth of production also necessitated the continuous expansion of markets, facilitated by marketing and advertising, leading to the creation of the prevailing consumer culture. Assisted by the rapidly developing information and communication technology (ICT), consumer culture has gone global and has itself become an important determinant of the way of life, as reflected in the billions of people who have become virtual slaves of their mobile phones and the social media. The power to influence, manipulate, shape and control human behaviour through media and technology has taken on frightening proportions, especially because of its concentration in the hands of political-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 making of culture is done by real people, especially those with power, and the choices that they make. Therefore, the particular cultural super-structure of a society is not determined by the political-economic system but is influenced or 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 always played a significant role in explaining why the world is what it is, and in legitimating the (unequal) social and political order of societies (including kings, priests, and slavery). Such beliefs were the basis for the creation of rules, norms, customs, rituals and other cultural practices that differed from society to society. But in all societies, some people play a bigger role in this respect than others, based on differences in personal power, the (political-institutional) positions that they inherit or acquire, and other power resources that they can tap into. It is the failure of collective decision-making to change a society’s ways of thinking, institutions, and practices (culture) in the light of environmental (including resource) changes and degradation that has been a major cause of 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 requires the continuous expansion of production of consumption, aided by scientific and technological innovation. Increasingly, human creativity has been recruited, controlled and owned (intellectual property rights) to serve these capitalist imperatives. This applies not only to hard science and technologies but also to the creation of soft knowledge (not necessarily science-based), including ideologies and public opinions. The PR industry, think tanks, the media, academics, intellectuals, and political pundits play a major role in shaping the dominant political-ideological theories and culture that support and legitimate 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 that they generated and the dominant cultures that these produced. Technological innovation and change were slow, as reflected in the long transition process 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 very diverse, based on 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, in Europe, these developments 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, and the forging of national cultures and nationalism. National cultures became dominant at the expense of local and regional diversity and were deliberately exported across the world.
However, some countries have been much more powerful and effective in extending their political-economic rule and cultures across the world. Increasingly, the political-economic forces that influence or shape culture have taken on a global dimension, dominated by the capitalist classes in the United States and Europe. What this means for the diversity of cultures and possibly for the generation of a global culture will be explored next.
Cultural globalisation and its discontents
Although, throughout history, many societies and cultures have been influenced and changed by external contacts and forces (for instance, by trade and conquest), these factors became increasingly significant on a global scale 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 to be resilient against 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) got into high gear, absorbing almost all countries. While most advanced in the sphere of finance and trade, globalisation also extended to the cultural realm. Dominated by Western (especially American) culture, this led to the emergence of a form of global culture, notably based on consumerism and entertainment, that has been referred to by Benjamin Barber as McWorld.[14] Finding oneself in a shopping mall wherever in the world, it is hard to detect the existence of the local or national culture of the place where it is located. 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 hold up Western lifestyles as desirable and the main goal of development.
Whether this process leads to the development 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 other. 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), largely 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 Western tools that are hypocritically used to pursue or impose Western political-economic interests. Although such sentiments may be fuelled by authoritarian regimes who 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 behind cultural (as well as economic) globalisation and the appeal of modern lifestyles, as yet there is not much evidence that the support for existing (national, ethnic, and indigenous) cultures is waning. If anything, nationalism, cultural assertiveness and ethnic conflicts have been on the rise. Nation-states and national cultures are relatively recent creations, often forged from a particular but already dominant ethnic group. But even though (nation-) states became the universally accepted building blocks of the international order, the territorial integrity of many states remains insecure and under threat of ethnonationalist separatist movements that aspire to the creation of their own, more or less culturally homogenous nation-states.[15] Supported by the principle of self-determination enshrined by the United Nations, these movements continue to contest the legitimacy of existing nation-states, from the United Kingdom (Scotland) to Spain (Catalonia), to China (Tibet, the Uyghurs), and many other countries around the world. 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, often 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 commitment 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 facing humans and human societies. Culture unites and divides. It is crucial to the formation and preservation of groups and societies but increasingly fluid and hard to define and delineate. Perhaps more than ever, cultural differences and change have become a source of conflict, especially within societies, but also internationally. Despite economic and cultural globalisation, socio-cultural divisions continue to be a source of tensions. This raises the question of why many people remain strongly attached to their culture and whether or 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 need to go through a lengthy process to learn how to function within the group or society in which they are born or raised and to become fully-fledged 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 evolved in the course of history is still 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, especially in intellectual circles, cultural diversity, like biological diversity, is commonly regarded as inherently valuable. However, given the many conflicts and considerable harm in which cultural differences have played a role throughout history, and continue to do so, there are good reasons for questioning the need for and/or the importance assigned to cultural diversity.
So, 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, historically, as discussed above, human cultures arose and evolved in particular local or regional environments and conditions that affected the ways societies met and could meet their basic material human needs. Local/regional conditions, experiences and knowledge continued to be important with the transition to agricultural production systems. Local knowledge of soils, vegetation, climate, and resources played a key role in successfully growing and improving crops and the domestication of animals. Villages and smaller communities shared a common economic basis that required cooperation and that shaped local and regional cultures. These could still be referred to as real communities in the sense that most people knew each other personally, which does not necessarily imply that they liked each other. But 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 that involved acceptance of 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 social disintegration of rural communities, traditional cultures no longer provided adequate ties to bind the emerging social realities together. Increasingly, people depended on large-scale production systems, wage labour, and markets to meet their material needs. Emerging industries needed an infrastructure (roads, canals, ports, railroads) to supply them with raw materials and energy, and to bring 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 set out to cultivate national cultures, among others by adopting national symbols (national flags, anthems, 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. Thus, at this stage, cultural development served foremost the formation of national states and capitalism. But still, to the extent that most people became dependent on national economies, national cultures and political-economic systems were based foremost on the resources and biophysical conditions of geographically and politically delineated areas.
More recently, with the dispersal of production systems, supply chains, and information and communication technologies (ICT) across the world, 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 does not need 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, dominated by materialism, a belief in infinite economic growth, technological progress, and control over nature, trumps 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 and 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 why cultural diversity may be regarded as important is that the social integration function of culture can work only with relatively small and 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 are strongest in the more immediate circles of kinship and tend to become weaker towards larger groups. Hence, it provides a fairly limited basis for the social integration of larger groups. This is where culture steps in as it provides a bond between the members of a group that makes them look at 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 (like living in the same area, speaking the same language, and having the same religion), they are too large for their members to have kinship (“blood”) ties and/or to know each other personally. Yet, they provide a sense of community that rests on the idea of kinship. Thus, what is a community 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 being 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 with regard to dispositions and the treatment of diseases, for instance.[18]
However, the extent to which ethnicity is based on “blood ties” (or the same gene pool) is questionable, based on myth rather than on 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 went through a severe evolutionary bottleneck during which their population plummeted to about 1,280 breeding individuals. But even going back less further in history, the idea that genetically, ethnic groups have a distinct common 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 inter-marriages between groups meant the dilution and mixing of genes and kin, accounting for most of the genetic variations between individuals. Thus, the idea that ethnicity provides a stronger and more objective bond between individuals is not grounded in biological reality. Historically, ethnic groups may differ and overlap in different respects. They may have lived in the same area for a long time, they may 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 that they are different.[20] It is the mythical narratives about the origins and ancestry of a group, its shared history and experiences, and particular deeds or accusations (about 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 already existing ethnic groups, some of which still clamour for independence. In many parts of the world, where nations straddle different ethnic groups, ethnicity seems to hold stronger appeal as a basis for social integration than existing nation-states and national cultures, threatening their existence. Although, as noted above, the concept of ethnicity as a form of kinship is contestable, this does not prevent people from assigning it importance. Yet, many nation-states and national cultures have been fairly 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 in the process of expanding their empathetic capability or propensity to ever larger groups, eventually comprising the whole of humanity,[21] as yet, this is not reflected in the political and social reality around the world.
This does not mean that cultural or ethnic diversity inevitably implies conflicts and wars. Often, the real 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 conflicts over resources, exploitative practices, long-term injustices and oppression, in brief, 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, used oftentimes by dominant elites to divert attention from the political-economic systems and the agency and power that underlie 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 functioned foremost 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 to me, 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 why people are strongly attached to their culture and are willing to do almost anything to protect it. Cultures, including sub-cultures, play a significant role in satisfying the basic psychological human needs of identity, belonging, and meaning.
Culture is commonly considered to be crucial to meeting important 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. In pre-modern societies, this was a matter of life and death, as individuals depended materially on their group or tribe to survive. In modern societies, characterised by urbanisation, individualisation, fragmentation, detachment of extended families, and dependence on labour for income, and 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, the loosening of social ties in modern societies makes meeting these basic needs more difficult. 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. But it also makes them prone to manipulation by people and organisations that are trying 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 largely because they offer a sense of belonging and acceptance, recognition, and a purpose to which they commit themselves. The more complex and confusing societies and the world become the more attractive the (highly) simplified portrayal of reality offered by particular groups is.
As most people depend on work for their income and survival, their occupational role and position have traditionally been an important source 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 modern, 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 is not necessarily the most important. This diversity of loyalties and fragmented identities does not have to be problematic. Many people have roots in and links with a range of 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 a wide variety of ways, including membership of multiple sub-cultures. It is even debatable whether or to what extent humans need larger groups to meet their basic psychosocial needs. Most of these needs can be met in relatively small groups (by families, clans, villages), as they were throughout much of human history. Arguably, in the electronic age, virtual communities have come to play an important role in meeting the need for identity and belonging, especially for many young people. So, there is no compelling reason why, in modern societies, people must or should emphasise their nationality or ethnicity as the most important cultural component of their identity. People do not need (ethnic) nationalism to give meaning to their lives.
However, as the prevalence of ethnic conflicts around the world demonstrates, cultures and cultural differences can arouse strong emotions. Culture taps into feelings of affinity, love, empathy, security, threat and fear, like and dislike. Being raised in a particular culture, people take their culture for granted and only become aware of it when confronted with different cultures. Inevitably, these differences generate feelings. These may be positive, for instance, about artistic achievements, architecture, or the level of sophistication in general. But in other respects, the feelings aroused may be negative, especially related to beliefs, values, norms, practices and behaviour that are considered wrong or offensive in one’s culture. This emotional aspect of culture is arguably the most intractable and poses the greatest risk of arousing conflict and hatred, causing the commitment 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 at the global level, 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 want to protect their culture from what they perceive as threats.
It is the non-recognition or denial of this emotional aspect generated by cultural differences, and their potential to arouse negative feelings, that is itself a major source of tension and conflict. Invariably, when one group tries to impose its culture on another group, this 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. This emotional dimension of culture and cultural differences is of course fertile ground for political exploitation, as we have 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 exist side-by-side, but not be forced or imposed upon each other. Inevitably, such efforts provoke negative emotional responses, fuelling antagonism and aggression. Live and let live has always been a wiser popular motto for maintaining sociocultural peace. Unfortunately, such an approach may be difficult to adopt if cultural differences are (perceived to) overlap with (a history of) oppression, exploitation, and violent conflict. Also, it does not stop people from wanting to impose 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 major battleground.
However, underneath these high-profile culture wars, political-economic forces continue to forge culture in ways that are potentially far more dangerous to the future of humanity. Increasingly, the future of culture is shaped by the development of science and technology that threatens to create a completely artificial world that substitutes for nature, including human nature.
The death of nature? The culture of futurism
From the 1980s, it became fashionable to declare the end or death of nature.[24] On the one hand, this view was based on the growing evidence of the human impact on natural cycles and processes that led to major environmental disturbances and problems. On the other hand, this was considered to require even more rather than less human intervention aimed at controlling these processes and mitigating these problems, putting 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 mean very different things. Like there is no such thing as society, 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 for a new geological era marked by the demonstrable long-term impact of humans on the 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 that 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 science, 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 beat attacks on human health, including by continuously monitoring bodily functions and the use of AI-based individualised treatment if 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, in the near future, geo-engineering 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 the increasingly complex and unmanageable world, despite fearmongering about AI becoming an autonomous non-human agent that may want to exterminate humanity. Meanwhile, the human colonisation of space is held up as a desirable or necessary thing, just in case.
Thus, a culture of futurism is being forged by those who have a stake in the development of science and technology, including capitalist interests, big tech, the military-industrial complex, most scientists and scientific bodies, governments, and science journalists and popularisers. Combined with the belief in capitalism as the motor of innovation and the producer of ever-higher standards of living, faith in technological progress (techno-religion”) continues to be 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 or go.
Techno-religion also implies a belief in the perfectibility of humans themselves. Human nature is either considered to be non-existent or to be 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 decides the future of humans if the newly created species gains control.[25]
It is mainly in science fiction that the risks and scary scenarios for humanity are depicted, be it often as forms of 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 groups of humans survive, culture will again serve its original function of the survival of the group. Ironically, this is likely to imply the re-emergence of great cultural diversity.
In my view, both scenarios are nightmares. Yet, both are quite 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, having a vested interest 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 environmental 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 bring about a collapse of 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 which, if these collapse, also bring with them the collapse of the existing (globalised) economic system, which is not much 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 changed, different cultures can be forged depending on who has the most power, and societies can prepare themselves for, and adapt to, a changing climate and shrinking environmental space. However, time is not on our side, and the longer it takes for these changes to occur, the more likely it is that some kind of doomsday scenario will eventuate. In the final section, I reflect on what kind of cultural change is needed to stave off such a development.
Cultural change to save the world?
As societies, and the world as a whole, are drifting towards environmental collapse and socio-political disintegration, what kind of cultural change, if any, might evolve from this changing reality and help to mitigate or prevent disaster and possibly even the demise of humanity? If cultures reflect the material conditions on which societies depend for their survival, one expects that changes in those conditions will also generate cultural change and adaptation aimed at securing the survival of societies. Yet, as noted above, vested interests and entrenched powers (agency and power) stand in the way of such changes and contribute to cultural inertia and rigidly. Nonetheless, this does not stop people and groups from advocating and pursuing cultural change based on what they deem desirable or necessary. Despite cultural globalisation and the erosion of pre-existing cultures, as yet, 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 towards sustainability is based on unrealistic assumptions. First, as discussed above, the idea that indigenous peoples lived in harmony with nature and each other ignores historical evidence. Conflict over territory and resources has been as common between human tribes and societies as between many other species, arguably because territoriality is a hard-wired feature of human nature. What made these societies more or less sustainable was their small population relative to the land and other resources that were available to them. The idea that, in the past, people lived in harmony with each other, and nature is more romantic fiction than based on evidence.
Second, it is unclear what a return to indigenous cultures would mean, even if embraced by non-indigenous peoples. Traditional values, knowledge and beliefs, rules and norms reflected the material conditions in which indigenous people lived aligned with the then prevalent production and consumption patterns and state or technology. It is doubtful that many of the advocates for traditional cultures would want to return to the kind of 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, stumbles upon the incongruity of settings, and deriving rules for the use of modern technology like cars, computers, and mobile phones is likely to be far from straightforward and arguably inappropriate.
Third, and most important, all cultures need to 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 that reality, like there was for pre-modern societies to adapt their cultures to local and regional conditions. As it seems unlikely that many people will want to return to pre-modern ways of living (even if that were possible), the question is what kind of life and society could be considered desirable as well as 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 want societies to be? In the first instance, these are questions for every country or society to answer. But given the reality of global environmental limits, the unequal distribution and use of environmental space across countries, the degree of interdependence that has been created, and the existing socio-economic inequalities between and within countries, these questions also need to be seen and addressed in the international context.
Adapting cultures to changing material conditions on which societies depend for their well-being and survival has to be based on global as well as local and national realities. We now have a better understanding of the planetary boundaries within which production, consumption, and technological development must remain if the Earth is to remain liveable for humans and other species. This knowledge should guide the integration of environmental principles, limits and imperatives into human thinking, behaviour, practices and institutions in societies and cultures across the globe. This is a collective task that 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 aimed at steering 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. But given their crucial roles and powers, they will only undertake these tasks if they are guided by a culture that rises above national and local parochialism and that emphasises the common values and interests of humanity. If adopted, such an approach could constitute a step towards the development of an eco-cosmopolitan culture based on 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 move towards an eco-cosmopolitan culture but getting them to do so requires cultural change. As long as the dominant political-economic interests hold states in their grip, there is little if any 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 are distracted by “culture wars” that fuel division and conflict and avert attention from the underlying forces that control culture, they will remain blind to the change that is needed. Breaking these vicious circles may be a huge challenge but 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 a cultural transformation. First of all, it requires cultural leaders in all realms, from the arts, education, science, religion, universities, and all other areas of cultural production, to stop 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 a process of collective deliberation aimed at identifying common values and interests considered to be 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 the whole population of a country, however culturally diverse, using the principles and processes of deliberative democracy, should be able to reach an agreement on what are the most important values and interests shared by the citizens of a state or country. Although these may somewhat differ from country to country, there will likely be considerable overlap in such agreements as many of these matters relate to basic human needs and shared humanity (human propensities). Such agreements 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 instituions, states and governments would be responsible for the implementation of 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 the adoption of 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 the national and/or sub-national level.
However, creating such a representative body of citizens, let alone assigning it sovereign power is a tough task. 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 that I have discussed under the heading of Sovereign People’s Authorities.
References
[1] It has been argued that this feeling of superiority has been a universal feature of human societies. For instance, the Yanomami hunters and horticulturalists from the Orinoco are said to 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 or 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 seem to be. 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, linked foremost to genetic engineering, see Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (London: Profile Books, 2003).
Humanity on Trial 