How the West was Won

[Ernie]

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/h ... t-was-won/

How the West was Won.

A very interesting read. What do you like? What do you differ with?

[Ken]

Jared Diamond already did it better with "Guns, Germs, and Steel"

Which is the real answer for why the west was ascendent by the 19th and 20th Centuries.

[Ernie]

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/h ... t-was-won/

How the West was Won.

A very interesting read.

I enjoyed reading it from the perspective of a person who is attempting to keep a subculture alive in the middle of a very dominant western/universal host culture.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Thanks for the read Ernie.

I have an aversion to writers/pundits who talk a lot about "Western Civilization" or "Western Culture." In my experience, many of my brothers in the evangelical church have been led astray into caring more for the kingdom(s) of this world than the Kingdom of Heaven because they listened to politically-conservative pundits who were dead-set on defending Western values, but used the language of religion to convince my brothers that they were defending the values of Christians. It is an old story of syncretism. Hitler and his propagandists made excellent use of this technique. I think that the infatuation with "western culture" is a form of syncretism that is the most insidious danger to the church in America today. The main reason I am anabaptist is because this tradition, when it is honored, has some built immunity to that type of syncretism (although this defense is not guaranteed).

That's just me getting my biases out on the table. My thoughts on the actual write-up:

I don't like the thesis of a "universal culture". I find it incredible arrogant and overly-simplistic. He is pretending to be more nuanced than the overly-simplistic article that he is replying to. But he himself falls into the same trap of over-simplifying things. He seems to have an almost religious belief in this metaphysical universal "good" that culture tends to naturally fall into over time. Coca-Cola, modern gender norms, etc. are, in his argument, not specific cultural expressions. They are just "the best thing". He believes in the inevitability of certain cultural movements not because they are more powerful, but because they are "universal". There's the implication that this "universality" is justified... like it is a universal morally correct orientation... like this universal culture is justice itself. This sounds a lot like the deification of the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" that Objectivists, Libertarians, and Neoliberals talk about, where this "Invisible Hand" is basically god.

In reality, not everyone likes Coca-Cola or western (or "universal") gender norms. Some people find Coca-Cola disgusting, and besides, Dr. Pepper is better by every universal metric . That's a bit glib, but really... I think Dr. Pepper really IS better, but Coca-Cola IS more dominant... that's not because Coca-Cola is universally the "better" thing; it's because Coca-Cola has a much bigger ability to advertise itself deeper and wider than Dr. Pepper.
Most people agree that Coca-Cola tastes better with real sugar cane, but the dominant form of Coca-Cola in America is made with high-fructose corn syrup instead. Why? It's not better (most people agree). By his reasoning, shouldn't Sugar-Coke be the "universal" thing that overtakes Corn Syrup-Coke? He is missing somethin, and he does not care at all to investigate or interrogate what he is missing... he just follows his observations to a point that would support his hypothesis, and then his investigation goes no further.
And this is the big thing he is missing. Advertising, military/state intervention, bribery, or other means of pushing products or cultural norms (whether persuasive or coercive) are forces of power, and those powers force culture onto the world. He points to the fact that these cultural norms are so "universal" that they just "naturally" happen unless "draconian censorship" prevents it... but he fails to see that Coca-Cola engages in draconian land-grabbing and stealing water from local communities; that modern western economic policy originated in the VERY draconian dictatorship of Pinochet; or that western "univeral" gender norms came about under the intense pressures of post-war economic rebuilding. They aren't here because "they just work". They are here because a situation demanded it, or, in many cases, powerful people with substantial interest used their power to influence culture and MAKE it happen. People don't drink yak's milk for "cultural" reasons... they drink Yak's milk because that's what they can produce in abundance where they are. Drinking yak's milk becomes a cultural icon AFTER the fact. This same line of reasoning can be used to examine why Coca-Cola, gender norms, or liberal democracy are dominant... there are instigating reasons for all these things. But he take a sort of ahistorical lens and just assumes that, since they exist, they were inevitable.

I think it's very arrogant to look at Western Culture, observe how it is so dominant, and then conclude that it is some kind of inevitable "universal" culture that has every right to dominate because it's just "what works" and therefore it's "right." What doesn't happen at all in his writings is to ask "WHY" these things are dominant. He refuses to interrogate them in this manner. He just observes that they are dominant, then sits back and says "Well, then I suppose these things are inevitable, and if they are inevitable, they must be Universal."
He complains that he is accused of being a crypto-conservative, and I can see why. This is the thing that drives me crazy in intellectual conservatism. They interrogate everything up to a point and then stop when it helps support their conclusion. They maintain a mindset that everything happens for a (metaphysical, unknowable) reason, and the point we have gotten to is the inevitable "best" thing, and therefore must be conserved. It's aggravating watching someone interrogate things on a philosophical level but then suddenly stopping at a point where it isn't that hard to go further.

I do think he has some very prescient points. His remarks about "universal" culture creating a very least-common denominator atomization is very observant. This isn't universal culture, though... it's a thing other people have observed. It's a mark of Liberalism, Individualism, Pluralism... take your pick. It's not "universal culture". It's a specific way of doing things that is the best way to reach a certain goal. It's not inevitable, it's not universal. It's just a product of liberalism and pluralism. The mindset that sees these things as some sort of transcendent universal godlike force of nature is seen in the Neoliberal ideologies of Reagan and Thatcher, and is talked about by people like Mark Fisher ("Capitalist Realism"). Liberalism is just ONE way of doing things. It is not THE way of doing things. It has tools that help it to dominate (Scott Alexander does identify some of these tools), but that does not make it inevitable or universal. It just means it is more powerful under certain circumstances.

[Robert]

I did not read it all, a bit too long for me this morning, but I will touch on a few things that I think were missed.

I think the Renaissance had a big effect along with the move for a fractured or less central governments. When the ruling body of church and state is weaker, more entrepreneurial actions happen. When there is no one dictating to the masses what the can do, they often find new and better ways to do things. When culture allows freer thought, new things develop, not always for the best. When competition is allowed, it will weed out the bad ideas over time. When big government or dictatorial religion is weakened, people tend to flourish.

[barnhart]

P+T, you may be correct in your critique of that thesis of how dominant culture comes to dominate. The case it is simply better, judged by acceptance is weak. What theory do offer in its place.

[Bootstrap]

A very interesting read. What do you like? What do you differ with?

This article seems to argue that Western culture = "universal culture" = superior culture, and I think it defines that more or less as:

- Openness to ideas and innovation
- Individual freedom and pluralism
- Economic and cultural competitiveness
- Scientific and technological progress

That’s a very modern, secular, and pragmatic definition of Western civilization. What strikes me is how much it leaves out:

- Christianity: No mention of Judeo-Christian ethics, the Bible, the Church, or Christian moral thought
- Greek philosophy: No discussion of Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism, or natural law traditions
- Rome: No mention of legal theory, constitutional thinking, or republicanism

If we think about the foundations of the American experiment and Western political institutions more broadly, it’s hard to ignore the influence of:

- Montesquieu
- The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers
- The Constitutional Convention

To me, Western civilization isn't just a culture that spreads well; it's a synthesis of:

- Jerusalem (biblical faith and ethics)
- Athens (reason and philosophy)
- Rome (law and civil order)

The American system was built on that foundation. That's what I usually think of as Western civilization. I see little of that in this article

What about the rest of you? How do you define Western civilization? How does that relate to the Kingdom of God and to us as Christians who live in America, for whom Western culture is simply the air we breathe, often without imagining there may be other cultures where Christians live quite differently?

[Bootstrap]

P+T, you may be correct in your critique of that thesis of how dominant culture comes to dominate. The case it is simply better, judged by acceptance is weak. What theory do offer in its place.

That's a good question.

American culture wasn’t really dominant until after WWII. Before that, it was European powers—especially Britain and France. In both cases, dominance wasn’t just about cultural ideas “winning” on their own merits. Economic and military power were at the heart of it. I think there's some mix of:

- Ideas that resonate or adapt well across contexts
- Cultural infrastructure (media, education, entertainment)
- Material power (military, economic, technological advantage)

So the dominant culture isn’t necessarily the most just, or the most true. Some of it is based on consumerism, empire, and military power.

So I wonder ...

- How should we evaluate cultural success as Christians?
- Do we risk confusing cultural dominance with moral or spiritual legitimacy?
- What part of "Judeo-Christianity" is in line with the Christianity we see in Jesus?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

A very interesting read. What do you like? What do you differ with?

This article seems to argue that Western culture = "universal culture" = superior culture...

To me, Western civilization isn't just a culture that spreads well; it's a synthesis of:

- Jerusalem (biblical faith and ethics)
- Athens (reason and philosophy)
- Rome (law and civil order)

That's what I usually think of as Western civilization. I see little of that in this article

The article doesn't mention those things because he is NOT arguing that. He is arguing that what most people think of as "western culture" is not. It is what he calls "universal culture" and it has overtaken Western culture as well as other cultures.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

P+T, you may be correct in your critique of that thesis of how dominant culture comes to dominate. The case it is simply better, judged by acceptance is weak. What theory do offer in its place.

If something is accepted, that doesn't automatically mean it is good or bad. Look at how many people accepted the Gospel in Jerusalem at Pentacost. And then look at what the common zeitgeist had accepted in Romans chapter 1.

The author dips into this briefly in the end by admitting that widespread heroin use would be widely accepted if not for strict regulation, challenging his assertion that widespread = better. But he doesn't follow this thread to it's full conclusion.