|
 In a world based on community, integration and communication, one of the main issues that is being faced right now is the sense of multiculturalism and national preservation on an international level. While countries especially in the third world and upcoming superpowers would like to have a piece of the power and security associated with westernization and a stable economy, those who already have it are turning back to their history for meaning. In gaining the power and stature that comes with their national class, the economic and military powers have lost a lot of what had made them a nation separate from everyone else: the culture and traditions that defined them as a people. The lesser and up-and-coming countries that strive to adapt to this strong web of commerce are slowly destroying their cultures in an attempt to imitate that which they admire. Paul Harrison, a travelled commentator, addresses the crisis of the loss of cultural identity in his article 'The Westernization of the World', and brings to light the ever-growing concern. Is the search for international community integration threatening national sense of heritage and multiculturalism?
The spreading of people and conquest of cultures is something that has always been a part of history. In order to establish themselves as powerful and structured societies, peoples would attack and assimilate or destroy weaker civilisations. Not much thought was put into what was being lost by destroying the weaker cultures; rarely did the conquerors stop to think what ethnic and social contributions they had to make. The exceptions, however, such as the Romans, grew to even larger proportions when they found they could benefit by integrating the culture's customs and ideologies into their own. The result, though, was a mish-mashed sense of identity: the Romans, for example, based also on Greek philosophy, integrated the smaller cultures like Sparta and Alexandria so much that even the small cultures lost much of what they had to separate themselves. Trends, indifference and 'grey-areas' in religion and politics contributed to an overall generalisation of the Empire; though they were still the Roman Empire, who were the Romans?
Harrison gives many examples of reasons and ways such smaller cultures were integrated. The most obvious one, of course, was power. As a country meant to establish itself all over the world as a superpower, it would colonise and force its ideologies on the native inhabitants. For example, England had a phrase 'the sun never sets on the British Empire', simply because of their proud establishment and influence over the world. They had colonised peoples in all the continents at the time even into the twentieth century, simply as a means of expanding their control and position in the ever-growing world. Power, was of course, control and influence, and therefore unfortunately humiliation and purposeful breakdown of the society being influenced upon. 'Colonial rule was an experience in racial humiliation', Harrison quotes philosopher Franz Fanon (79). Therefore in an attempt to 'compel the [oppressor] to acknowledge that [they] are human' or, equal, they would cast of their own customs and traditions in an attempt to prove themselves at the same level and therefore as British as the next man, 'distinguishable only by the tint of their skin' (78, 79). The oppressing country would also attempt to turn officials and respected natives into delegates, so to speak, in effect saying 'if you respect me, you respect what I respect'. They set up examples of they way the sceptical natives should be.
However in the modern day world control no longer is measured in land mass, but economic status. The larger superpowers had all established themselves as rather a class and group they fit into by being able to communicate on a common level, and therefore on common ground. The countries all tried to blend into one sort of idealised economic superiority; the influence begun by the Monarchy and now in the modern era, American prosperity. Harrison describes the ideology as 'reference-group behaviour', that is, 'when someone copies the habits and life-style of a social group he wishes to belong to, or to be classified with, and abandons those of his own group' (79). Aside from some religions, it is natural for a human being to want to become something better than they are at that time, and therefore strive to fit into that ideal.
Harrison notes that the Chinese adopted western reform when amazed by the technological warfare of cannons. 'learn the superior technology of the barbarians in order to control them', he quotes a Chinese administrator Wei Yuan (80). The reform had not necessarily begun with a political awe, but a desire for technological and military advancement. Therefore the mentality went as such: if the technology came so quickly to the nation of that ideology, 'it worked for them so it should would all the better for us'. China especially being based on national pride, achievement, international study and intellectual improvement, had come to the conclusion of its superiority. Finding a nation that had seemingly surpassed them technologically broke down their nationalistic web of strength and forced them to accept a more westernised way of thinking: unfortunately the impractical ideology of communism.
But what was it about the European way of thinking that had taken over the world? Historically it can be argued that it was the Europeans who truly lead the way by means of colonisation and cultural assimilation. Being in a colder, more harsh climate forced the natives of Europe to adapt to a range of natural circumstances in order to survive, and from there on. Since survival came more difficult to the Europeans they ended up being, technologically, some of the most advanced races in the world. Unfortunately this sense of superiority came along with it and they ended up destroying other less developed cultures entirely by means of warfare and plague. The Europeans, also arguably, had less a sense of honour and diplomacy than the Orient as well as less a sense of naturally inclined unity and curiosity than the native Americans and Africans. Therefore the cultures that had developed in different ways were not necessarily adapt to dealing with the straight-forward, harsh means of colonisation and warfare the Europeans brought and fell. Europe also unlike Asian, African and American races was used to assimilation: they had assimilated and negotiated with each other as the Romans had set up as practical, and the same warfare worked on the other cultures.
Nowadays the concept of 'westernization' no longer truly belongs to Europe, but to the United States. The United States is the perfect example of a de-culturalised society; too many ethnicities poured into one mould results in conflict. One culture not wanting to acknowledge the other as superior but not wanting to lose their identity results in a lack of identity; trying to accommodate each other in such a way that it affects everyone and no one at the same time. America is based entirely on what the outcome of an economic revolution and integration would be: a society of MTV generation based on economic gain, communication and desensitisation in a secure environment they can say they created without offending anyone. 'Go to almost any village… and you will find youths who scorn traditional dress and sport denims and T-shirts' notes Harrison (77). This neutrality is the common ground of integration that the international economic growth is based on, and though some countries and ethnicities claim to scorn it, they themselves are accepting the changes faster than those who are already there. France, in an attempt to retain its national identity, has set the fashion avant-garde for the rest of the world, but in order to achieve that status must also adhere to the international trends that dictate the market.
Currently in debate is the European Union and their plans to monopolise the market through the establishment of the monetary unit the Euro. Aside from the concern regarding individual monetary units ever competing in the main market to establish themselves, many people fear this is just the beginning of more cultural assimilation on an international level. The superpowers have attained their status by marketing products that adhere to common international demand and standards, eliminating distinguishing factors such as indigeniosity and originality other than a label 'made in Germany'. This has again lead to lack of diversity on a visual level. 'Every capital city in the world is getting to look like every other', Harrison says, recognising the mass production and trade that affects not only trends but practicality standards as well (77). With so many cultures being integrated into one another, one is bound to have the best solution to a problem and therefore the market dictates imitation and monopolisation on the behalf of the idealised solution. 'This mimicry extends to architecture, industrial technology, approaches to healthcare, education, and housing', notes Harrison (77). But some of what makes the world so culturally appealing is the multiple and different solutions that ethnically diverse societies have come up with. In adhering to only one solution, even if it is the best or most practical, that diversity is lost.
Generally what Harrison is trying to say is not something new to anyone's ears. In everyday life we constantly are confronted by people who struggle to retain cultural identity while attempting to integrate into a society different than their own simply because advancement and society dictate it so. In a world that is based solely on economies and faceless political-correctness there's no room anymore for diversity and originality if a nation intends to keep the pace. Westernization, Americanisation, colonisation; whatever one calls it, it's simply neutralisation of culture in the end.
|
What is CCS?
Books 
'Eriol Ennui' was posted by