Globalism vs. Culture

[EternalForest]

I am a big fan of pop culture. I love to explore what is mainstream, what is underground, what is traditional, and what is seen as progressive in any given culture, and how that differs from others. I can go on deep rabbit holes such as the music culture of NYC in the 1990s, the film culture of Hollywood in the 1970s, or even use the Internet Wayback Machine to view old internet culture. These deep dives put me in a very specific time and place, and every era has a certain energy to it. We're in a very special time where we can explore all these cultures with just the click of the mouse. I don't think many people realize how powerful the internet truly is, used productively. Being as passionate as I am about this, I wanted to make some comments on the recent blog post: "The Big Picture of Global Politics"

Globalism is a positive thing in many ways, but it isn't without its sacrifices, namely the homogenization of culture. Appealing to all audiences ends up appealing to no one. This is why if you ask people what the most powerful experience they had with art or culture was, it probably wasn't the #1 single or the highest grossing film or a New York Times Bestseller or a tourist attraction (although it sometimes could be). It was more likely a song from a niche subgenre that not many know about but they strongly resonated with, a strange film they found browsing by accident, an old book that their Grandmother had on her dusty bookshelf, or a vacation to small village in France with its own little quirks.

Homogenized art lacks a strong creative voice. If you study all the greatest creative movements across all mediums, you'll find that they were all very insular, in the sense that it was a small group that influenced each other and did something really unique and special. Globalism has no culture. It has no context or history. Preserving American culture is important, not because it defines any one person's identity or we should cling to it, but because we should inherently strive to protect the purity of individual perspectives. We have to be able to have these cultures in place, and be able to use them to unify us, but at the same time I think keeping cultures pure is a positive thing as well. In the best case scenario, cultures can co-mingle and create new cultures. But this is of course considering that corporate interests don't get involved.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that anyone, regardless of their ethnicity, gender or background, should be able to participate in any culture they wish. All that's required is that they keep the mindset of that culture intact. Because at its core, outside of time, place and context, culture is an energy. It's a mindset. It's something very specific yet extremely powerful. And it's best left alone, so it can allow itself to flourish. Pop/global culture is good, but it's only one culture, and I hope that one day it is not the only one...

Edited October 9, 2019 by EternalForest

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, EternalForest said:

If you study all the greatest creative movements across all mediums, you'll find that they were all very insular, in the sense that it was a small group that influenced each other and did something really unique and special.

The opposite is true. The greatest creativity comes from blending of various cultures. Diversity leads to creativity. Insular communities are incestuous and narrow. It's like inter-breeding within your own family. Your genetic diversity will be low.

It has been shown that major cities are far more creatively productive than small villages. Why? Because of the diverse cross-pollination of cultures, people, and ideas. Preventing the rise of big cities by isolating everyone into mono-cultural villages is regressive and anti-evolutionary. The rise of consciousness requires higher orders of complexity, diversity, and unity.

Diversity does not mean destroying individual cultures. It just means appreciating their diversity, allowing it to flourish and cross-pollinate.

The blending of American and Chinese culture will produce something much greater than isolating American and Chinese cultures into their own corners.

Quote

Globalism has no culture. It has no context or history.

Yes it does. It's a unified global culture which appreciates and respects individual sub-cultures. It's just not the old culture you're used to. It's a new meta-culture.

It's not different than unifying a bunch of cities into one country. The cities still maintain their individuality but also function better together under one banner. This creates peace between cities where there would otherwise be war. Without a unification NYC might want to nuke LA.

Likewise, without a global unification one culture will want to dominate and destroy others.

Quote

Preserving American culture is important, not because it defines any one person's identity or we should cling to it, but because we should inherently strive to protect the purity of individual perspectives.

You're making a case for nationalism, which is a very dangerous ideology.

Globalism respects all cultures without needing one culture to be the best. Of course there are some trade-offs when unifying any set of diverse things, but overall the costs are worth it. Under globalism you are allowed to practice your favorite religion, eat your favorite food, wear your favorite clothes, have your favorite kind of sex, without being harassed for it.

Every culture grows, evolves, and dies. So you can't preserve them no more than you can preserve 80's technology.

[RobertZ]

Great thought about art in subcultures—and impact.  I don't know much about art. However, I hear and observe that appreciation and positive response is elusive. I am guess people navigate limited acceptance in various ways, like enjoying their own work and communicating for a particular purpose.

[remember]

@EternalForest in some aspects you are contradicting yourself, as a lot of american culture you describe exists only because of mingling of culture. also the cultural missionary of exactly hollywood made everything more monotonous than it was before. so in some sense what you are so proudly pointing out as special is what generated mainstream culture. in sense of art there can be a global culture while still preserving authenticity as long as authenticity is allowed to take place in sense of something called critical regionalism in architecture, i don‘t know if there is a term like critical culturalism for what you describe - but in a lot of cases it turns out to be as critical individualism.

so in that sense there are two forces that influence each other and feed each other one that strives for individual/group expression and one that strives to adapt and integrate - the process is not reversible.

Edited October 9, 2019 by remember

[Forestluv]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a unified global culture which appreciates and respects individual sub-cultures. It's just not the old culture you're used to. It's a new meta-culture.

It's not different than unifying a bunch of cities into one country. The cities still maintain their individuality but also function better together under one banner. This creates peace between cities where there would otherwise be war. Without a unification NYC might want to nuke LA.

Likewise, without a global unification one culture will want to dominate and destroy others.

Along those lines, cities within a country seem to have aspects of unity as well as division. There are subculture identities at conflict within a country. For example, southern city subculture may identify with heritage and be attached to the confederate flag and civil war statues - while northern subculture sees this as appalling and promote boycotting some southern cities. As well, subculture identities are often in conflict for the more expansive country identity. We now see this with subculture competition for what is "America". A good example would be with the controversy of black athletes kneeling during the national anthem. One subculture identity was that "America" is about respect for the American flag and all the soldiers who died to protect that flag. Another subculture identity disagrees and says "America" is about protest and fighting for what is right, such as equality.

I would say that some of the "glue" holding subcultures together within an American identity is an appreciation of American subcultures and multicultural mixing. Many northern Americans love to visit those southern cities for the subculture. The food, music, architecture of subcultures in New Orleans and Charleston, SC is amazing. And multicultural fusion of subculture music is beautiful.  . . Some more glue connecting American subcultures as America is an over-arching American ego that we are the strongest and the best. Part of the American identity is relative to other country identities. For example, an American identity might be that America is more civilized than barbaric 3rd world countries or that America is wealthier, more successful and powerful than third world countries. 

If we expand into a global consciousness, I can see some glue holding subculture/countries together - such as emergence of new phenomena due to integration of subculture components. Perhaps a technological emergence that is greater than the sum of it's parts. Yet, wouldn't relative global identity glue be missing? What is the global identity relative to?  What is the next higher level? There wouldn't be a global identity of Earthlings relative to Venus, Mars or Aliens. There wouldn't be an Earthling ego unified against those pesky Martians. The closest I can imagine is the threat of climate change destruction. Here, there can be a global human identity that forms relative to an existential threat like climate change.

[Odysseus]

@EternalForest Reading your statement I immediately thought of Warhol's pop-art Marilyn Diptych. Is it linked to American culture? Yes, obviously it depicts Marilyn Monroe, one of the major American pop-icons of our time. It's painted and massively reproduced by Warhol (and others) and I guess, probably a huge number of people around the globe have stumbled upon some of his work at least once. If I would call my (german) parents now they could probably tell me something about movies with Marilyn Monroe and the Warhol coffee mugs they bought in the past. I would argue it's globalized art. 

Regardless of the setting (Hollywood of the 50/60's, upcoming religion around celebrities, mass media etc.) and the (arguably) aesthetically pleasing appearance of the diptych it has a variety of meanings IMO. If I look at it and try to blend out the context I know about Monroe's life, I always wonder about her facial expression. Her gaze is seductive and tired at the same time, her mouth is something between snarling and smiling. Although images of Monroe were everywhere, she wasn't graspable through the images. She is an American pop-icon, but the diptych isn't bond to tell an American story. It can tell a variety of stories about beauty, confidence, vulnerability or just being human. 

What I want to ask is, what makes art homogenized in your opinion? It's appeal to everyone? I guess pop-art e.g. appeals to a lot of people. Is it bad or empty? I don't think so. 

I think especially the art that touches you in your core of being, art that needs no context and no history, is the 'best' art. If we perceive an object all cultural boundaries attached to it break down as soon as we realize its interconnectedness to our very existence. Therefore we have to learn to see (again?) :-)

Edited October 10, 2019 by Odysseus

[remember]

coffee mugs lol

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yet, wouldn't relative global identity glue be missing? What is the global identity relative to?  What is the next higher level? There wouldn't be a global identity of Earthlings relative to Venus, Mars or Aliens. There wouldn't be an Earthling ego unified against those pesky Martians.

A human species identity is certainly present and will only get stronger as we transcend our national identities.

If aliens became a commonly recognized thing, humans would develop a much stronger human species identity which would contrast itself against the aliens. Then at some point there would need to be unification of the alien and human identities. The humans and aliens would start to have sex with each other, and so on. At first this would be hated and even outlawed. But then it would become normal and even desirable.

The movie Avatar touches on this issue.

[EternalForest]

@This is the end American and Chinese culture are becoming more similar than they seem. China is becoming more like the US every decade as they move into Stage Orange.

[Apparition of Jack]

@Leo Gura I can't wait to land me an alien girlfriend

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Apparition of Jack said:

@Leo Gura I can't wait to land me an alien girlfriend

You just want that third tit

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You just want that third tit

TMI, but when I was 11, I used to sneak and watch the VHS of Total Recall when my parents were away and I'd fast-forward to the part with the alien with the three breasts. That was sex-ed for me back in the year 2000.

[Forestluv]

Once you go alien you never go sapien. . . 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Emerald said:

I'd fast-forward to the part with the alien with the three breasts.

Hahaha

[EternalForest]

@Leo Gura

Blending of cultures is a good thing, but preservation is still important. The essence of the thing must be saved, if even for the purpose of future fusions. It's kind of like cooking. To make something new you still all those basic ingredients. Though just a bowl of white rice by itself might get boring if you ate it every day, at the same time that white rice needs to exist in its purest form to be used in making something new. It's important for rice to stay boring so we can use it make new things more exciting. If the rice itself became too exciting or novel it wouldn't be rice anymore.

What's wrong with doing both? Striving to create new cultures through the blending of existing cultures, but also keeping an archive or specific area "traditional". My city does something like this with the Art Museum (containing classic pieces spanning thousands of years) and the Contemporary Art Museum, which features the most cutting edge pieces. This system is a nice compromise which could be applied at a more meta, cultural level.

Of course a major city will have MORE creative activity, but are they going to have the SPECIFIC, and very niche appeal that the culture of a small village may have? Likely not. Preserving the languages of small tribes is valuable, thousands of people dedicate their lives to archiving this stuff. 

Quote

Diversity does not mean destroying individual cultures. It just means appreciating their diversity, allowing it to flourish and cross-pollinate. The blending of American and Chinese culture will produce something much greater than isolating American and Chinese cultures into their own corners.

In theory, yes, that should happen. And I'd venture to say that even in practice, it's entirely possible to happen. All I'm saying is that, in practice, many times, the essence of the original culture is lost in the process of fusion, and that's my worry. It's history we're talking about here. And a lot is lost in that game of telephone.

Quote

It's not different than unifying a bunch of cities into one country. The cities still maintain their individuality but also function better together under one banner. This creates peace between cities where there would otherwise be war. Without a unification NYC might want to nuke LA.

This is a good point. I definitely agree that on a functional level like this, unification is valuable.

Quote

You're making a case for nationalism, which is a very dangerous ideology. Globalism respects all cultures without needing one culture to be the best. 

Nationalism? I'm not claiming any one culture is "best". The US isn't "better" than China, for example. What's best is subjective. I just find it valuable to always have a "copy of the original file around". Sort of like how you try not to have too much influence over an experiment you're running. You want to let it run its course. That's not to say you couldn't use that original file to create a new one though.

Quote

Every culture grows, evolves, and dies. So you can't preserve them no more than you can preserve 80's technology.

I'm confused now, a minute ago you said globalism doesn't need one culture to be best, but now you're using 80's technology as a metaphor for how culture "improves over time". Question is, in what sense? In terms of medical, equality, and tech maybe, but in other ways certainly not...it's not binary.

[EternalForest]

@Odysseus Art that needs no introduction to be great is certainly a great thing in of itself. What I'm referring to is more of the importance of the contexts, circumstances and processes out of which that art was created to not be lost, as that's an essential part of what makes it what it is. I want to preserve an original snapshot that contains the essence of every culture for posterity. Context isn't necessary for enjoyment, but it is necessary for full appreciation. But as you put quite eloquently, it's always open to any and every interpretation  

As far as what I mean by homogenization, I don't believe in the pretentious notion that the most popular art is the most shallow. I've seen plenty of shallow underground art and plenty of deep, introspective and profound mainstream works in every medium. Homogenized in the sense I'm using it is more synonymous with "corporatized"

[AleksM]

@Leo Gura

A little offtopic, for the sake of mindfucks. Humans are already a product of the hybridization of multiple alien species. There are studies about this. 

It goes even further... some people are aware that they have hybrid children with Greys. I personally know someone who meets his hybrid children in the astral plane. Bridget Nielsen on youtube has a lot of content about hybrid children. 

 

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Once you go alien you never go sapien. . . 

That's totally true... It's three-breasted aliens or nothing for me.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, AleksM said:

Humans are already a product of the hybridization of multiple alien species. There are studies about this. 

It goes even further... some people are aware that they have hybrid children with Greys

Well, I can't speak to that because I have no direct experience of such things and those are some bold claims.

[remember]

@EternalForest  what you describe is in a sense already nostalgia because i bet with you some small villages have massiveley changed over time but still are stuck in some aspects in other centuries, general-worldly. don`t confuse the outer appearence for what is happening underneath, nostalgia sometimes also means that the value system is still backwards and very self biased, of course not always, some small cities or villages manage to preserve nostalgic values in a way where they still adapt to a sense of general openness towards the "strange" coming in, but some are not open enough. i doubt that cowboy culture is something to be preserved in the nostalgia of weapon ownership - when cowboy turns rambo or platoon or whatever movie of that kind i didn`t see, it`s maybe the wrong kind of nostalgia.

in that sense of course preservation of culture is a source and culture is something that can be preserved in form of books and language and different media to be available, and you can create selected archives of such, but what you maybe overlook is that every travel into old culture of oneself is a work of archeology into oneself, or archeology into culture and always archeology into the past. not everything to be preserved not everything to be revived. regarding the usa i really still sometimes miss the reevocation of native american culture in its more original form instead of the hybrid but i also can see that a lot of people try to walk that road and i can see the formal language of it in recent years appearing also in european diy and decorative fashion because it has some really beautiful aspects to it and merges good with the actually unfortunately already very comercialized hippie revival in the decorative product area. it`s still something that should be grown besides it`s comercial sell out, then in the areas of revocation and historical surrounding.

i also find the whole space future styles very controversial, how they are lived out in fashion, as like in the panthon aera it`s very difficult to achieve these looks without plastic, the futuristic style was plastic for such a long time that it`s difficult to get it out of peoples heads, with the nice clean surface look and the smooch seamless freestyle form best of all transparent ore rainbow metallic - a waste problem mostly and comparable to the cleanliness of atomic waste, on a much smaller skale, if it`s not recycled plastic. but who says the future looks like that? maybe the future looks more like a self tinkered toaster (search for that it`s funny). our time is a time where we have to be archeologes and if there are really things to preserve, yes they should be preserved, it`s not always culture what claims to be culture or history. it`s easy to preserve such things on a medium it`s difficult to preserve it in people over generations, if there is so much more of the world to discover. or maybe it`s the opposite some things get preserved for too long, often not what is really preservable, because we are already in twentyfirst century. future starts now. it has always been a travel into the past to make sense of it.

Edited October 11, 2019 by remember