On Cultural Fluidity

"I discovered many islands inhabited by numerous people," wrote Columbus to King Ferdinand. "I took possession of all of them for our most fortunate King by making public proclamation and unfurling his standard, no one making any resistance.” He also adds “they are destitute of arms, which are entirely unknown to them, and for which they are not adapted; not on account of any bodily deformity, for they are well made, but because they are timid and full of terror.” He also calls them "guileless and honest", traits implied to be negative.

Certainly, a clash of cultures on many accounts. One culture heavily militarized and based on the subjugation of people and exploitation of resources, and the other peaceful, honest, and living by mutual aid. Some may point to the domination of indigenous peoples by Spaniards as evidence of the inherent inferiority of indigenous cultures, but then that would posit the practices of war, violence, and exploitation as the marks of elevated culture. Which means, people who adopt that perspective can't possibly be against war or violence committed by any people anywhere at any time, since it would--according to that belief--be a natural expression of very fine culture. On a much smaller scale, far from the realm of grand geopolitics, it would provide the logical framework by which people operate within their own society: less community support, more assertion and achieving goals by force, physical and otherwise. Clearly, not a terribly attractive environment to exist in, and perhaps exactly the kind of environment that would create fertile ground for severe social ailments such as mass shootings and the like.

Furthermore, this outlook completely negates the ways in which indigenous cultures may have later influenced European cultures, a few of which include:

Not to over-romanticize a particular culture or claim that a culture wasn't without its own set of issues, or to make the claim that any one culture is superior to any other. Any argument made along such lines regardless of the culture(s) in question is by definition biased and most certainly myopic, but one of our strengths as a species is our ability to learn from across both space and time. In fact, there is well-documented historical precedent of how crucial that is to human progress. What would have become of the Arabs of the middle ages had they not embarked on translating as many ancient Greek and Roman texts they could get their hands on? We know for certain the European renaissance would not have happened. We also know for certain that translating those texts did not suddenly transform those Arabs or later Europeans into carbon copies of ancient Greeks. Similarly today, any attempt at learning from the past will not lead to a turning of the clock, but may help us formulate the cultural DNA of the future built around a merger with aspects of our present.

We must let go of the idea of cultural development operating along some kind of linear trajectory. Culture is always amorphous and transformative, and it is in our interest for it to always be that way, like the air around us, any attempt to fence it in is futile. But even the quality of our air is subject to the effects of our actions; planting trees purifies the air, while burning coal pollutes it. We have within our means the tools by which to foster positive cultural attributes--wherever or whenever their sources may stem from--or negative ones. But it seems to me that culture today is treated as valuable only if it has the potential to become a tradeable commodity (it may be why cuisine is possibly one of the most "imported" cultural practices around the world, and it may also be why the two most surviving cultural practice from the indigenous Americas are smoking tobacco and eating chocolate--although terribly bastardized and abused once European industrialists got involved). Otherwise, culture is often considered yet another battle ground of petty national dominance, a damn shame in a world with the potential to be far more porous and fluid than it's ever been before.

The Importance of Culture

Slavoj Zizek says he worries most when the extreme Left works together with the extreme Right. I tend to agree with him but with a caveat; it depends on the dominant inclination of the culture at the time. Meaning: if the culture at large is generally right-leaning, then chances are any alliance between left and right to topple whatever oppressive system is in place will only result in a right-dominant system (like say, what unfolded in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution for example). That is, assuming I agree with the right/left dichotomy as a descriptor of sociopolitical leanings today which I don't, because I think it is outdated and no longer applies. Things are far more complex now and dividing members of society so clearly into one of two obvious boxes just doesn't fly. But generally speaking, it does seem like the dominant cultural milieu of most societies around the world today is stained by qualities one might generally attribute to the right. It is most certainly the case within the United States, a country where people on both the general Right as well as the general Left seem to share a venn diagram of discontent. This would typically be a good indication of a society's readiness for igniting positive change. The problem however is that American culture at large is today dominated by incredibly conservative leanings. Even many of those who tend to think of themselves as "on the Left", are in fact very conservative by global or even historical standards. Therefore, any attempt at political reform (or adoption of new technology, or any other new thing injected into society) is likely to find itself adapted along lines acceptable to the culture's conservativeness. The world we desire for our children and our children's children must first be worked towards through culture.

More on that next time.

Ganzeer
Houston, TX
October 30, 2024