Just drinking coffee this morning, and something popped in my mind about when two distinct cultures come together, and mix… Something spectacular seems to happen.
We saw what happened after Spain was invaded by the Moors, and though eventually were expelled, the Spanish almost immediately expanded across the Americas, and began an age of influencing. With America, we see Europeans had taken North America, but then encountered Mexico, and again a scuffle in the beginning occured, but eventually, something completely novel occured. For the longest time, Los Angeles became the epicenter for influencing the entire country, and even the world… As they say: As goes California, so goes the nation.
So I was wondering if there was anything more to this observation than meets the eye. And what about the UK, and Europe - should we expect something novel to come from a large influx of immigrants there?
The UK has had immigration from around the world for successive generations. The effects have been and are debated across the Internet largely along partisan political lines.
Yes good point, it is something the political sphere has adopted as one of it’s own, however I’d like to avoid passing this topic off to that school of thought, exclusively, and see if there’s a philosophical angle here. If possible.
I suppose in the grand scheme of things, the UK hasn’t really collided in a long time, more like it’s being sprinkled, but even in the ancient books of religion, we see the tower of babyl was a novel spectacle, and that only occured after a multi-cultural collision. Then too, the egyptian pyramids were built only after King Narmer unified the formerly separate cultures of Upper and Lower Egypt into one empire around 3150 BCE. We see the Roman empire as a massive unification of various cultures and ethnic groups as well, but the Roman tradition didn’t begin there, it was preceded by the unification of dozens of distinct civilizations and tribal cultures across the Italian peninsula. Before the Classical period of the great philosophers of Greece, there too was a network of seperate, distinguished cultures that existed autonomously.
My question here doesn’t revolve around political power, but rather, around the artistic, architectual, scientific, and philosophical speedyness that seems to occur from such blending… Something clearly happens. Yes, there may also be a power factor involved, but I’m curious about all the novelties which include not only physical elements, but even new ideas and philosophies… It almost seems magical taking a step back, and looking at the big picture.
…I wonder if something undiscovered is happening with this. In a multicultural unification, do the opposing cultures knock off the bad, jagged attributes of the others, and likewise the other way around? Thus creating some kind of doctoral fix for one another, while simultaneously celebrating the good things together in a kind of cross cultural affirmation?
If the idea I have described here can be translated as synergy, and synergy is described as “a situation where the whole is greater than the simple sum of its parts” (a), such as 2+2=5, then how closely can we say this topic is related to emergence (b)? And how is that?
Or does it simply create an enshittification of everything, as the lowest common denominators of each culture become emblematic of its values and aesthetics?
The problem with these sorts of questions is that they are, perhaps, somewhat old-fashioned. What is the matrix by which we judge the result? Based on what measurements and standards? I’m not sure it can be done. You can say that, subject to a right-wing, white-trash view of culture, Britain is now entirely terrible, or apply a more postmodern lens and regard diversity, together with the absence of a dominant cultural perspective, as a source of richness, plurality, and aesthetic vitality.
I live in Australia, and we’re currently seeing a wave of fearful anti-immigration sentiment gaining traction off the back of developments in the US and UK. Personally, despite some challenges, I prefer the present era to the one I grew up in during the 1970s and 1980s, which, to me, was culturally more banal, less interesting, and more rapacious.
What about the good effects that indigenous peoples have had on the world? Even on the colonialists, themselves?
The point of this is more in line with noticing a kind of enlightenment gained after two cultures share with one another, to the eventual point that the two become one.
…What would go against the essence of this idea, would be to focus on what seperates people, or previous wrongs that were done… To me, that’s the road to nowhere.
What if the metric was based on “novel” or “not novel”..? The Avant-garde? What about progress in academics, intellectual advancement, enlightened ideas, the arts? Usually people would agree that increases in these areas just plain feel good to all people … There really isn’t any perspective that I’m aware of where someone loathes these kinds of things as if they’re repulsive somehow. Or if there is that perspective, I surely haven’t noticed it.
@Johnnywas, I noticed you liked an earlier post that I strongly disagree with focusing on. I was curious if you or someone willing, could enlighten me on what benefit anyone in the world would gain by focusing on past wrongs? From my experience, focusing on such things only stunts any kind of future progress. Like an anchor, it ties people down to the ghosts of the past. Why remain there?
Questioner pointed out that your OP implied that the colonialisation of the New World was a uniform good. Few people would agree with that. They made the point clearly without any personal animosity
Actually the OP doesn’t discuss anything about colonialization being a uniform good, but rather, that ‘eventually’, over time, something novel happened.
But I do understand the populist political trends that currently exist, and the zeal involved in their perceived importance.
I guess what I’m thinking of when I say that progress is a “feel good” for pretty much everyone, is actually a lot like what we’re doing right here and now -sharing intellectual ideas with one another. This forum itself is a lot like a museum or an art gallery, or even like playing music in that we are sharing tidbits of ourselves with one another as a group. We all gain very much from it.
…This same idea, when applied to multiple cultures, would have a similar kind of feel to it, when people are actually being intellectually honest with one another, like we are, and not stuck to the divisive traditions, politics, or the ghosts of yesterday. It’s all about progressing, because that’s what’s useful, and forgetting about the useless things from yesterday, that trapped us in repetition. IMO
It’s the root of everything novel… This is the avant-garde.
I’m afraid we disagree. But there’s more to this! Another thing I see, is the difference between mutual “acculturation”, and forced assimilation. Like in any marriage, the bond must be mutual in order for the creation of a healthy relationship and family.
Could there be any similarities between a man and woman having 4 children (1+1=6), and the synergy we see in cultural collisions, where acculturation becomes the driving force between two or more cultures, allowing a strange sort of emergence to occur, creating a far more dynamic, advanced culture in the end?
Perhaps finding the key to acculturation is the key to a new, better, novel culture. Something maybe worth looking at.
I guess I’d question what we are calling progress, and why. To be a “progressive”, for instance, is to instantly acquire a group of opponents who acrimoniously reject much of what progressives stand for. Similarly, to advocate for multiculturalism in Australia right now is to immediately involve a growing and often hostile opposition that wants to end immigration and seems hostile toward difference. Many people believe the world is currently in deep trouble, with tribalism and sectarianism seething, and some would say liberalism has contributed to this fragmentation and cultural confusion. Others might argue it is due to untrammelled capitalism and corporatisation. And so it goes…
Even on this site there are acrimonious disagreements and lasting resentments rooted in the belief that one set of ideas is fundamentally misguided or anathema to another.
I’m not saying I hold any of the above views, and I’m also not saying that hostile disagreement is always wrong.
I’d take a look at Japan’s highly distinctive cultural tradition.
The islands and mountains have acted as a shield against foreign invasions. This enabled the people to absorb foreign cultural elements in a slow, gradual, and voluntary manner. Different regions could compete with each other, which lead to an enrichment or specialization of things that we today recognize as traditional Japanese culture.
Moreover, during the 17th–19th centuries the authorities forced isolation against foreign influence, which allowed some indigenous arts to flourish.
Well, yes, the colonizers would prefer that we just “move on.” But that does not address hundreds of years of deceit, oppression and cultural genocide.
“We remember” is a central theme in Indigenous advocacy.
For example, here in Canada, we have Truth and Reconciliation - which addresses the systemic harms and intergenerational trauma caused by the Indian Residential School system.
It is about a nation taking responsibility for past harms, and creating conditions in which all citizens can thrive.