What is Western Culture?

[Michael]

What is Western Culture?

I see this term used a lot these days - indeed, I use it quite a bit myself. But what does the expression mean? What constitutes 'western culture'?

Obviously, the term includes the enlightenment liberal tradition of representative democracy as well as the market principle in the allocation of resources. But what else? What makes France and USA both western?

Or to put the question another way, is Japan western? Is Poland? How about Portugal? Turkey? Israel? Russia? Are these nations western? Why or why not?

I'm rather undecided about my how to answer my own question here - which is why I think it is a good discussion topic. :)

[wphelan]

Wow, big topic. I like it. What's not western culture? Is it easier to start by pointing out what is clearly non-western? Or is that just as difficult? Is China western?

[partofme]

John Wayne?

[partofme]

It's hard to say really. I always thought of it as art and culture of Europe and countries made up mostly of those who immigrated from Europe. That almost makes it seem sort of racist in a way. During the cold war the west was sort of though of as those that where allies that viewed The Soviet Union as a enemy or at least that is how I thought it was implied then.

[Dominick]

Let's not kid ourselves. Essentially it still means white-Caucasian.

[Donkey]

I have a hard time pin-pointing real fundamental cultural differences (as opposed to customs etc.), but I will say that the interaction that I've had with a few different Chinese (from China) people left me feeling that we did have actual deep differences on how we saw the world. Not sure what they were though.

[Michael]

Let's not kid ourselves. Essentially it still means white-Caucasian.
By your definition the Russians, Poles and Israelis are western, while the Japanese and Koreans are certainly not.

I think your distinction is too trite. Yes, there's probably a racial component hidden in with "western culture" (because all cultures seem to be inherently racist to begin with), but I don't think it is the dominant or most most important one.

Or rather, I believe that racism is no more a component of western culture as racism is a component of any culture. Or to put it perfectly blunt, if western culture is racist, it is because all cultures are racist.

[Michael]

It's hard to say really. I always thought of it as art and culture of Europe and countries made up mostly of those who immigrated from Europe. That almost makes it seem sort of racist in a way. During the cold war the west was sort of though of as those that where allies that viewed The Soviet Union as a enemy or at least that is how I thought it was implied then.
I think US geostrategic ambitions ought not to be the definition of western culture. Cold War battlelines were drawn by US political interests, not actual reality of culture. Indeed, according to the US Cold War battlelines, Pakistan and Indonesia are definitely western, while Poland and Czecho are absolutely not.

Personally, I think the Czechs and the Poles are a lot closer to being "western" than anything in Pakistan or Indonesia.

[Dominick]

By your definition the Russians, Poles and Israelis are western, while the Japanese and Koreans are certainly not.

I think your distinction is too trite. Yes, there's probably a racial component hidden in with "western culture" (because all cultures seem to be inherently racist to begin with), but I don't think it is the dominant or most most important one.

Or rather, I believe that racism is no more a component of western culture as racism is a component of any culture. Or to put it perfectly blunt, if western culture is racist, it is because all cultures are racist.
It's not my definition. It's what is really meant when it is used. While 'Western' is a purely geographical denomination, Australia and New Zealand are included which doesn't make sense if it's taken literally.

But I see there's already -and again- an intra-Western problem. Japan and Korea are considered 'Far East' around here while Poland is always included as is Russia up until the Ural. So who's actaully included when the term is used ?

[Michael]

It's not my definition. It's what is really meant when it is used. While 'Western' is a purely geographical denomination, Australia and New Zealand are included which doesn't make sense if it's taken literally.

But I see there's already -and again- an intra-Western problem. Japan and Korea are considered 'Far East' around here while Poland is always included as is Russia up until the Ural. So who's actaully included when the term is used ?
This thread is specifically about "western culture", not generic usage of the term for geographic purposes.

[Michael]

I have a hard time pin-pointing real fundamental cultural differences (as opposed to customs etc.), but I will say that the interaction that I've had with a few different Chinese (from China) people left me feeling that we did have actual deep differences on how we saw the world. Not sure what they were though.
That's precisely what this thread is meant to address. An exploration of what is 'western culture'.

[Michael]

I have a hard time pin-pointing real fundamental cultural differences (as opposed to customs etc.), but I will say that the interaction that I've had with a few different Chinese (from China) people left me feeling that we did have actual deep differences on how we saw the world. Not sure what they were though.
China is a good example to start with. We can define 'western culture' by understanding clearly what it is not.

I think China is a clear-cut example of a country-culture that is NOT western at all. The two key elements that I've already suggested as being 'integral' to western culture are both missing here (representative democracy and market economy). I think that makes a pretty clear distinction.

I'm not proposing this as the definition of 'western culture', only assuming it to be one of the principal elements of it.

I suppose India is the next one to work with. They do have the representative democratic system and a pseudo-market economy, so they appear to qualify on the surface. Does anyone here think India is dominated by western culture? If not, why not?

I think we might be able to build a working definition of 'western culture' if we approach the topic this way. :)

[dilettante]

I'd put the following as primary attributes of "Western culture":

-An emphasis on the individual rather than on the collective
-An emphasis on rational and/or scientific knowledge
-A religious tradition stressing personal god(s), rather than impersonal natural of spiritual forces
-Nationalism

...that's all that I can think of over breakfast.

I think "Western culture" is unalterably tied to Europe; it's components are either the product of Europeans or of European-spawned nations/settlements elsewhere in the world.
However, I'd be hesitant to call it "racist." Western culture is (or, at least, has become) perfectly willing to accept non-Europeans who wish to embrace it, as witnessed by S. Korea, Japan, and the large African population in the United States and Europe.

I'm not sure it would be helpful to look at the nations of today and divide them into Western/not-Western. In the last century, previously "Western" practices and artifacts have been adopted by (or forced upon) most of the world, blurring whatever lines might have existed. The distinction might be more clear if we look farther back.

[Donkey]

I would be hesitant to tie real culture to the economic and political vehicles of the society. They strike me as merely cosmetic differences (although some cultures might work with certain types better, I suppose, because of the way they are). I also don't think it's necessarily a matter of race. I would say, that at least in the United States, the difference between white and black for instance is pretty shallow.

I would be inclined advocate starting where Dilettante is looking: at the perception of the individual.

Now I would say something about "eastern" cultures being Confucian, but I'm under informed on that philosophy and generally find it kind of confucin.

[Americano]

Let's not kid ourselves. Essentially it still means white-Caucasian.

Can't argue with that.

[Michael]

Can't argue with that.
As I noted above, such a definition means that Russians are unequivically 'western' and the Japanese are not.

Personally, I consider Japan far closer to 'western culture' than Russia. Likewise, such an argument asserts that American blacks can't be part of western culture.

Ergo, I reject that "skin-color' argument.

[phungus420]

To my mind, "Western Culture" is the culture that developed from the enlightenment. Because the enlightenment was spawned in Europe, and later solidified by the American and French revolutions, this culture is derived from Europe, and tends to lend itself to a Eurocentric worldview. However some Eastern Societies have adopted western culture. Japan and Korea being the most notable examples.

The main atributes of Western Culture are:
-Historical link to the Enlightnment
-Emphasis on the Individual
-Emphasis of property rights
-Emphasis on representative government
-Emphasis on logic
-Secularism
-Emphasis on technological advancement

[Donkey]

There is a trite saying that western philosophy tries to attain knowledge by filling the head, and that eastern philosophy tries to attain it by emptying it.

[Donkey]

As I noted above, such a definition means that Russians are unequivically 'western' and the Japanese are not.

Personally, I consider Japan far closer to 'western culture' than Russia. Likewise, such an argument asserts that American blacks can't be part of western culture.

Ergo, I reject that "skin-color' argument.
I confess I haven't been to Japan or interacted that much with Japanese, but I doubt that I would agree that the Japanese are "western." As I said before, I think the economic and political vehicles are more cosmetic, though that will probably be a sticking point ;).

I think it would be good to examine the society's approach to the method rather than the method itself.

[Michael]

I confess I haven't been to Japan or interacted that much with Japanese, but I doubt that I would agree that the Japanese are "western." (Indeed, I've long argued that Japan is not western). As I said before, I think the economic and political vehicles are more cosmetic, though that will probably be a sticking point ;).
I certainly agree that Japan is probably not 'western' but I didn't say it was. I only said it was probably more 'western' than Russia. And that point shows the fallacy of the skin-color argument.

I think it would be good to examine the society's approach to the method rather than the method itself.
Please explain.

[Michael]

To my mind, "Western Culture" is the culture that developed from the enlightenment. Because the enlightenment was spawned in Europe, and later solidified by the American and French revolutions, this culture is derived from Europe, and tends to lend itself to a Eurocentric worldview. However some Eastern Societies have adopted western culture. Japan and Korea being the most notable examples.

The main atributes of Western Culture are:
-Historical link to the Enlightnment
-Emphasis on the Individual
-Emphasis of property rights
-Emphasis on representative government
-Emphasis on logic
-Secularism
-Emphasis on technological advancement
That's a good list phungus! This is exactly where I wanted to go with this thread.

The emphasis on the individual (supreme in law) is a very good point and one that I think can be used to divide 'western' from 'non-western'.

[phungus420]

Anywhere in particular you want to go with this discussion? I'm at a loss of how or where to comment further, though I'm interested in the topic. It just sort of feels like everyone agrees.

[Michael]

Anywhere in particular you want to go with this discussion? I'm at a loss of how or where to comment further, though I'm interested in the topic. It just sort of feels like everyone agrees.
I think we have to examine your list in detail to see if that list can be used to determine if Japan, Poland, Israel, etc., are western or not.

We also have to keep an eye to make sure that the list will properly include all the nations that most certainly are western (USA, UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, etc).

For example, secularism is a tricky point. UK is certainly 'western' by any measure, yet they have an established church. USA is also 'western' by every measure and they have religion mixing with the state to a degree that is much closer to 3rd world theocracies than most western nations.

Alternatively, if we find that say Ghana had a level of atheism that was equal to say France, would that mean Ghana was 'western'?

And the USSR was famously 'secular' as well. Does that mean that USSR was 'western'?

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for here. A definition of western that is useful for actual analysis.

[Michael]

I guess we should start by analyzing the basic elements of our proposed definition first. :)

* * *

I stumbled upon this little article - which I don't recommend that anyone actually bother to read. The first two paragraphs are what caught and held my interest - after that the article deteriorates rapidly and then just gets worse. However, the first two paragraphs are wonderful - and I think have significant value to our discussion topic here. :)

Wherever the Western vision of political order has gained a foothold, we find freedom of expression: not merely the freedom to disagree with others publicly about matters of faith and morality but also the freedom to satirize solemnity and to ridicule nonsense, including solemnity and nonsense of the sacred kind. This freedom of conscience requires secular government. But what makes secular government legitimate?

That question is the starting point of Western political philosophy, the consensus among modern thinkers being that sovereignty and law are made legitimate by the consent of those who must obey them. They show this consent in two ways: by a real or implied “social contract,” whereby each person agrees with every other to the principles of government; and by a political process through which each person participates in the making and enacting of the law. The right and duty of participation is what we mean, or ought to mean, by “citizenship,” and the distinction between political and religious communities can be summed up in the view that political communities are composed of citizens and religious communities of subjects—of those who have “submitted.” If we want a simple definition of the West as it is today, the concept of citizenship is a good starting point. That is what millions of migrants are roaming the world in search of: an order that confers security and freedom in exchange for consent.
Emphasis added. Article (http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_the-west.html)

Once again, secularism is asserted as a core feature of western society.

So does anyone have any ideas about how we can reconcile this "secular government" as a necessary condition of 'western' with the fact that UK maintains an 'established' Church (I believe Denmark and Sweden may have a similar 'establishment' situation). Similarly with the USA and their unusually strong Christian religious culture in government. Certainly the UK and USA do have officially secular governments and they both must be considered part of 'western society' by any definition.

But it must also be admitted that official and formal secularism was a major policy feature of both the USSR and the PRC - neither of which ought to be considered 'western' in any way.

On this basis, I'm thinking that secularism is pretty much useless for defining western culture, given the continued official secularism of both Russia and China makes the point moot. Certainly official secularism is a very important part of western society, but as the example of Russia and China shows, it is not nearly enough.

[Dominick]

Anywhere in particular you want to go with this discussion? I'm at a loss of how or where to comment further, though I'm interested in the topic. It just sort of feels like everyone agrees.
I don't. As usual :)

Secularism : everybody will intuitively include the Vatican in a definition of the West. Nothing much secular about it though. One might as well include Mecca. And religion is an unavoidable historical aspect of even the most secular European countries. Huge chunks of the legislation are based upon Christian ideas. Abortion is a big issue in many Western countries while in a truly secular environment it would simple be considered a medical process (which it is). The same for euthanasia.

Emphasis on property rights : that's a fundamental characteristic of any aristocracy and that is also the origin of that emphasis in the West. The accumulated property of an Aztec king-priest-god was as well protected as that of any banker in the West today, if not better.

Emphasis on the Enlightenment: well, yes, if one accepts its suspension during the entire colonial period, and during both World Wars. Unless of course the ideas of the Enlightenment do not count for brown people.

Emphasis on representative government
It's easy to forget how utterly recent this is. In most Western countries women only acquired it in the 20th century, in many there was a requirement of riches equally well into the 20th century, I don't have to dwell on the case for descendants of African slaves and some immigrants still don't have it to this very day.
And entirely apart from that : someone someday will have to explain to me exactly how a bunch of billionaires and lawyers are representative of butchers, bakers and welders.

Emphasis on logic:
Sure, on Western logic. Not on Kung'Fu Tze'an or Buddhistic logic.

Emphasis on technological advancement
That is a an aspect of every single human culture from the dawn of mankind except for some spells of religious fundamentalism here and there and now and then. They weren't all equally succesful but it was rarely rejected.

[Dominick]

Actually, if there is one defining characteristic about the 'West', it's its foundation in Christian theology. That more than anything defines both the cultural and geographical boundaries.
Geographically it includes the Eurasian continent up until the Ural which makes perfect sense. That part of Russia is definitely European and thus Western. The Cold War divide isn't all that relevant in the big picture.
It also includes the Northern American continent without having to dwell on particularities of specific branches or influences of this religion. Equally New Zealand and Australia fit in easily.

It is defining in that the idea from Christian theology that man, and specifically white man, has a license to use and abuse the full extent of the planet at will has dominated the entire Western era. That idea has led to the -false- belief in superiority of said group.
That idea is the origin of the attrition of indigenous people all over the globe and also of the total disregard for ecology and other species that so typifies Western culture. Being 'green' is very recent and in many cases merely window dressing and marketing.

So, for better or worse, I put that Western culture is essentially Christian culture.

Note to Christians : yes, Christianity brought positive aspects too but the aforementioned idea is pivotal.

[Michael]

I don't. As usual :)

Secularism : everybody will intuitively include the Vatican in a definition of the West. Nothing much secular about it though. One might as well include Mecca. And religion is an unavoidable historical aspect of even the most secular European countries. Huge chunks of the legislation are based upon Christian ideas. Abortion is a big issue in many Western countries while in a truly secular environment it would simple be considered a medical process (which it is). The same for euthanasia.

Emphasis on property rights : that's a fundamental characteristic of any aristocracy and that is also the origin of that emphasis in the West. The accumulated property of an Aztec king-priest-god was as well protected as that of any banker in the West today, if not better.

Emphasis on the Enlightenment: well, yes, if one accepts its suspension during the entire colonial period, and during both World Wars. Unless of course the ideas of the Enlightenment do not count for brown people.

Emphasis on representative government
It's easy to forget how utterly recent this is. In most Western countries women only acquired it in the 20th century, in many there was a requirement of riches equally well into the 20th century, I don't have to dwell on the case for descendants of African slaves and some immigrants still don't have it to this very day.
And entirely apart from that : someone someday will have to explain to me exactly how a bunch of billionaires and lawyers are representative of butchers, bakers and welders.

Emphasis on logic:
Sure, on Western logic. Not on Kung'Fu Tze'an or Buddhistic logic.

Emphasis on technological advancement
That is a an aspect of every single human culture from the dawn of mankind except for some spells of religious fundamentalism here and there and now and then. They weren't all equally succesful but it was rarely rejected.
I agree with most of your points except regarding property rights. That one really is different. To use your example, the Aztec-god-priest-king may have had property rights (just like medieval kings), but no one else did. The key to the 'western' model of property rights is that they acrue to anyone and everyone who holds property. That phenomena seems to be rather unique to western culture.

[Michael]

Actually, if there is one defining characteristic about the 'West', it's its foundation in Christian theology. That more than anything defines both the cultural and geographical boundaries.
Geographically it includes the Eurasian continent up until the Ural which makes perfect sense. That part of Russia is definitely European and thus Western. The Cold War divide isn't all that relevant in the big picture.
It also includes the Northern American continent without having to dwell on particularities of specific branches or influences of this religion. Equally New Zealand and Australia fit in easily.

It is defining in that the idea from Christian theology that man, and specifically white man, has a license to use and abuse the full extent of the planet at will has dominated the entire Western era. That idea has led to the -false- belief in superiority of said group.
That idea is the origin of the attrition of indigenous people all over the globe and also of the total disregard for ecology and other species that so typifies Western culture. Being 'green' is very recent and in many cases merely window dressing and marketing.

So, for better or worse, I put that Western culture is essentially Christian culture.

Note to Christians : yes, Christianity brought positive aspects too but the aforementioned idea is pivotal.
Again, an excellent argument.

As I noted above, I find secularism to be very problematic 'definition' of western culture as it is not unique to western culture. And certainly Christianity is a powerful component of western society, culture and history - that's difficult to dispute.

However, I'm not ready to agree that Christianity is the best definition of Western culture. For example, South America is almost totally Christian, but perhaps not entirely western (debatable). Or how about Nigeria - it is about 40% Christian. Nigeria certainly isn't part of 'western culture'. And likewise this Christian definition precludes Israel from the 'west' and also Japan.

I'm also troubled by the inclusion of Russia (European Russia) as a definitive part of 'western culture'. European yes, but 'western'? I think you are perhaps drawing the west with too large a brush. Bulgaria doesn't seem very 'western' at all.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Christianity obviously is a 'sufficient' condition for westernism, it doesn't appear to be entirely necessary.

I suppose that just 'begs the question', can any one thing be a 'necessary and sufficient' condition for westernism?

[Dominick]

I agree with most of your points except regarding property rights. That one really is different. To use your example, the Aztec-god-priest-king may have had property rights (just like medieval kings), but no one else did. The key to the 'western' model of property rights is that they acrue to anyone and everyone who holds property. That phenomena seems to be rather unique to western culture.
It's not entirely correct to say that no one else had. The whole supporting elite that confirms the position of any monarch is guaranteed the same as that monarch. And fundamentally that isn't different in any hierarchic society. Those that support the hierarchy are guaranteed some rights (although it would be much more appropriate to speak of privileges rather than rights but that's another discussion), while those that do not have no actual rights whatsoever, regardless of what the paperwork says. Property is no different in this respect. Just try opposing a government that wants to build a railroad on your land or a corporation that is convinced there might be uranium there. The exception of eminent domain and similar byroads nullify the claim of an unalienable right just as it is the case with any right.

Again, an excellent argument.

As I noted above, I find secularism to be very problematic 'definition' of western culture as it is not unique to western culture. And certainly Christianity is a powerful component of western society, culture and history - that's difficult to dispute.

However, I'm not ready to agree that Christianity is the best definition of Western culture. For example, South America is almost totally Christian, but perhaps not entirely western (debatable). Or how about Nigeria - it is about 40% Christian. Nigeria certainly isn't part of 'western culture'. And likewise this Christian definition precludes Israel from the 'west' and also Japan.
I had actually considered including a paragraph on South America as an argument pro. South America has some Western characteristics, and those are precisely there because it was christianised. In fact, that goes for most of the world.
Nigeria you're quite right about, but in regions such as that (think of the Caribean too) the original animistic culture wasn't entirely replaced with a christian one -contrary to say Australia or New Zealand- and those have ended up with rather peculiar mixes.
Israel is such an exceptional place I don't think it's necessary to consider in any possible broad categorization.


I'm also troubled by the inclusion of Russia (European Russia) as a definitive part of 'western culture'. European yes, but 'western'? I think you are perhaps drawing the west with too large a brush. Bulgaria doesn't seem very 'western' at all.
What's so special about the countries of the former Warsaw pact ? They've been held in check for 50-60 years but after Glasnost and Perestrojka their old character re-emerged immediately and that is in fact heavily influenced by Christianity albeit the Byzantian branch. Russia e.g. is a very religious -and superstitious- place. In czarist days Russia was a favourite holiday destination for Europeans (those that could afford it of course). Also, nowadays, quite a few Western Europeans are migrating into that region with very little adaptation problems. The languages are related, the history is intertwined, the political denominations are similar, etcetera.
I think excluding them from the Western character before establishing that very character is putting the horse behind the cart.


I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Christianity obviously is a 'sufficient' condition for westernism, it doesn't appear to be entirely necessary.
Are you saying the West would still be the West if Christianity had never existed ? I might be misreading this.


I suppose that just 'begs the question', can any one thing be a 'necessary and sufficient' condition for westernism?
Maybe if it's a broad enough concept.

[Donkey]

In my experience South American "Latino" culture is decidedly western. Sure, it differs in some way, which is that which makes it "Latino" of course.

I specify Latino culture, because there are other cultures in South America. I would say that the city of Buenos Aires, and probably other parts of Argentina have a culture that is very distinct. It is very European, so that of course falls into the western culture even more so.

The mountains and plains of South America are your standard "Latino" I think, in many ways. Depending on where you are, there can be a lot of indigenous influence, mainly Quechua, such as in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. These peoples self identify as different to a certain extent. I think the mountain cultures are slowly being eroded and mixed with the Spanish Catholic culture, as well as westernized, as globalization sets in. This is a 500 year process though...

It is in the jungle, somewhat on the western side of the Andes, but mostly in the Amazon basin where things get different. There are of course the "sin-contacto" tribes that have essentially nothing of Western culture. Then there are the myriad of tribes and ethnicities (Shuar, Guarani, Quechua, etc. etc.) that inhabit the waterways of the jungle. They hold tightly to their culture and their identity. They are, to a certain extent (at least in Ecuador) brought into the political fold, and it isn't rare to see a "Dale Correa!" sign in a house hours and hours into the jungle. Their own local politics have taken on Western names, and they use western days of the week (which is entertaining because you'll here someone railing along in Shuar and then they'll use Spanish days of the week and and units of time), but I think that to a greater extent they are just nominal applications to a more communitarian political structure which is relatively organic.

They are to a greater extent pacified (though they still proudly talk about one tribe or another's reputation as warriors and whatnot), but I think that for the most part it is safe to say that their culture is relatively intact and not western.

(Lest there be any pretension of the "noble savage," the culture of the jungle can be pretty ugly. It is severly misogynistic and abusive, much beyond the latino "machismo" and I'm not at all sure that the good gets anywhere near outweighing the bad.)

[Greendruid]

I've been fascinated as an anthropologist to eavesdrop on this most pertinent topic. However, I think that this validates the point that Russia may not in fact be western:

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20090211

I should point out that the context of this comic (which is a regular one that I read) is that the main character is a male chauvinist pig and sexaholic quite on purpose and heard that researchers would be studying sex in space. He decided to offer his "services" after being turned down by NASA

I see no point at which I can enter into this discussion without completely rewiring it to suit my needs so I'll continue to watch and see what you all come up with.

[Michael]

I've been fascinated as an anthropologist to eavesdrop on this most pertinent topic. However, I think that this validates the point that Russia may not in fact be western:

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20090211

I should point out that the context of this comic (which is a regular one that I read) is that the main character is a male chauvinist pig and sexaholic quite on purpose and heard that researchers would be studying sex in space. He decided to offer his "services" after being turned down by NASA
But if it is a western comic, that just shows that westerers perceive Russia as not-western.

If it was a Russian comic, that would make that point.

I see no point at which I can enter into this discussion without completely rewiring it to suit my needs so I'll continue to watch and see what you all come up with.
Put up or shut up!

Go ahead, rewire the thread to suit your needs. It would interest us. This topic has been beaten to death by several of us here in the past.

[Dominick]

In my experience South American "Latino" culture is decidedly western. Sure, it differs in some way, which is that which makes it "Latino" of course.

I specify Latino culture, because there are other cultures in South America. I would say that the city of Buenos Aires, and probably other parts of Argentina have a culture that is very distinct. It is very European, so that of course falls into the western culture even more so.

The mountains and plains of South America are your standard "Latino" I think, in many ways. Depending on where you are, there can be a lot of indigenous influence, mainly Quechua, such as in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. These peoples self identify as different to a certain extent. I think the mountain cultures are slowly being eroded and mixed with the Spanish Catholic culture, as well as westernized, as globalization sets in. This is a 500 year process though...

It is in the jungle, somewhat on the western side of the Andes, but mostly in the Amazon basin where things get different. There are of course the "sin-contacto" tribes that have essentially nothing of Western culture. Then there are the myriad of tribes and ethnicities (Shuar, Guarani, Quechua, etc. etc.) that inhabit the waterways of the jungle. They hold tightly to their culture and their identity. They are, to a certain extent (at least in Ecuador) brought into the political fold, and it isn't rare to see a "Dale Correa!" sign in a house hours and hours into the jungle. Their own local politics have taken on Western names, and they use western days of the week (which is entertaining because you'll here someone railing along in Shuar and then they'll use Spanish days of the week and and units of time), but I think that to a greater extent they are just nominal applications to a more communitarian political structure which is relatively organic.

They are to a greater extent pacified (though they still proudly talk about one tribe or another's reputation as warriors and whatnot), but I think that for the most part it is safe to say that their culture is relatively intact and not western.

(Lest there be any pretension of the "noble savage," the culture of the jungle can be pretty ugly. It is severly misogynistic and abusive, much beyond the latino "machismo" and I'm not at all sure that the good gets anywhere near outweighing the bad.)
That's pretty much what I meant to say, only you did it far better :) Excellent synthesis of an entire continent :thumbsup: *

* Actual smiley about to be implemented.

[Dominick]

I've been fascinated as an anthropologist to eavesdrop on this most pertinent topic. However, I think that this validates the point that Russia may not in fact be western:

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20090211
Call me thick but I don't get the point of the comic ? :shrug:

I see no point at which I can enter into this discussion without completely rewiring it to suit my needs so I'll continue to watch and see what you all come up with.
I second Michael's remark here.


:popcorn:

[Michael]

In the meantime, I've just had a thought about one concept that does appear to be a key element of 'western' culture (as opposed to 'modern' culture).

That is, originating with Socrates, we have a substantial critique being made about society, social norms, religious ideas, government, authority and justice.

Yes it is true that this did lead to Socrates' death (as is common in most times and places), but ultimately, the words lived on to inspire a particular characteristic of 'western' society - the readiness to subject everything to constant critique and analysis. This is one of the defining characteristics of western intellectual history - direct critiques of 'esteemed' doctrines and agitation for better or more effective systems (social, cultural, economic, political, etc.).

This is characteristically different than Chinese intellectual culture (for example) the way their greatest thinkers tend to 'interpret' or 'add comments' to the words/thoughts of earlier great thinkers (Confusius, Sun Tzu, etc.) and do not criticize them at all.

I'm not familiar enough with the golden era of Islamic scholarship (10th to 15th century) to comment on their disposition to critique or praise.

This might be a significant marker of 'western' cultural distinction - the acceptance of critique and dissent. Other cultures just don't seem to accept critique and dissent in the same way.

Any thoughts on this? This just occured to me on a cold & sunny Sunday morning... (inspired by reading an article about Nietzsche no less!) :)

[SMadsen]

How far back is one willing to go with the supposed definition of Western culture?

I've noticed quite a few things having been mentioned that only hold true within specific periods of time. Representative democracy being one, of course, but also concepts like property rights, rationalism and Christianity.

For example, as Dominick also pointed out, it wasn't long ago that feudal autocracies were in abundant supply throughout Europe (provided Western culture is defined as being Eurocentric) where neither property rights nor individual rights were in a particularly noticable supply. Christianity is also a rather recent event and perhaps it was instead religions such as referred to today as pagan religions that prepared the soil for present day Western culture? Which leads to rationalism that was perhaps the most recent event after having been tied in with religions and other vassalistic dogmas for as long as recorded history shows.

Is there a particular thread to be followed throughout most of history or can Western culture only be defined from the onset of certain events?

[SMadsen]

In the meantime, I've just had a thought about one concept that does appear to be a key element of 'western' culture (as opposed to 'modern' culture).

That is, originating with Socrates, we have a substantial critique being made about society, social norms, religious ideas, government, authority and justice.

Yes it is true that this did lead to Socrates' death (as is common in most times and places), but ultimately, the words lived on to inspire a particular characteristic of 'western' society - the readiness to subject everything to constant critique and analysis. This is one of the defining characteristics of western intellectual history - direct critiques of 'esteemed' doctrines and agitation for better or more effective systems (social, cultural, economic, political, etc.).

This is characteristically different than Chinese intellectual culture (for example) the way their greatest thinkers tend to 'interpret' or 'add comments' to the words/thoughts of earlier great thinkers (Confusius, Sun Tzu, etc.) and do not criticize them at all.

I'm not familiar enough with the golden era of Islamic scholarship (10th to 15th century) to comment on their disposition to critique or praise.

This might be a significant marker of 'western' cultural distinction - the acceptance of critique and dissent. Other cultures just don't seem to accept critique and dissent in the same way.

Any thoughts on this? This just occured to me on a cold & sunny Sunday morning... (inspired by reading an article about Nietzsche no less!) :)
A very valid point, I think. However, it may not have been acceptance as we usually understand the concept of acceptance today. The non-existence of acceptance was until very recently widely emphasized by severe penalty for criticizing the status quo (and still is in certain places while still being characterized as Western), so I doubt that acceptance has been adopted as the colloquial term for it. Rather, I would define it as the conscious or subconscious notion that someone else can be wrong.

You mentioned that Chinese thinkers tended to add to former thinkers, whereas Western thinkers have a habit of criticizing and, if need be, sink rather than salvage the ideas of other thinkers. That, I think, may have something to do with a common acceptance, not of the ideas or the thinkers themselves, but of the possibility that others are wrong.

[SMadsen]

^ In short, I think skepticism lies deeply rooted in the Western culture.

[Michael]

^ In short, I think skepticism lies deeply rooted in the Western culture.
Yes, that was the point I was making. Not that western culture accepts criticism or takes it well (no culture actually does that). Just the inclination to question/critique authority seems to be ingrained to the western culture in a way that it seems like it might be a 'unique' property.

I think it is important for our task of 'defining' western culture to look for unique properties like this one - since as we've seen already, many of the most commonly given characteristics of western culture are in no way unique or special to western culture (and often appear as key components of non-western cultures).

[Donkey]

I would like to make an addendum to my previous post: there is also a significant population of African descendants in Latin America, mainly on the coasts or in the Caribbean. There is a province in Colombia where the population is almost entirely (more than 90 percent) black. I would say that they are about as "different" from your standard "Latino" culture as your average black person here in the states. Probably still basically "western," but with their own significant subcultural history (one of slavery of course) and cultural contributions (e.g. Music...). I would say that African ethnicity is much more blended in to the rest of the population (especially in the Caribbean) than here in the states too.

[Greendruid]

My comments were not meant to be a thread-killer but the tide seemed to be stemmed shortly after.

A good chunk of my life has been dedicated to studying Culture in a professional capacity. Ironically for anthropologists, whether they are socio-cultural anthropologists, linguists, physical anthropologists or archaeologists, the one element that ties us together (Culture) is surprisingly the one element that very few of us can agree upon a definition for. This is the major reason I stayed out of this thread in any meaningful way at first because it was honestly a bit of an experiment on my part that presented itself.

There is an old joke that if you get a group of ten of the most brilliant and influential anthropologists in one room they'd emerge with ten different definitions of the word Culture. The same is true of anthropologists regardless of their own origins in Europe or North America or South America or Africa or anywhere it seems. We just can't agree on what it is.

Culture is, to me, an amorphous abstract that is the best means of adaptation that humans have at their disposal. However, I do not believe Culture to be uniquely human. What makes human culture different is that we, as a species, are utterly dependent on it. Not only is it our best tool of adaptation but it is our essential tool of adaptation. Horrifying experiments were done on orphans in the late 19th/early 20th century to see what would happen if children were raised in a zoo-like setting limiting their cultural contact with other humans. The results, in a nutshell, were non-humans. We are the cultural ape and we cannot be anything but. Without Culture, we are not human. Our difference from other animals and their limited but interesting examples of cultural behaviours is one of degree rather than kind.

That being said, what I've defined here is Culture with a capital "C". It is the abstract amorphous thing that defines us as a species. Under the auspices of this word can be gathered such diverse things as shelter, clothing, any object you can point to that is made by people (called material culture), but also lying, economies (sorry, linked those unintentionally), politics, induced states of trance, meditation, music, and so forth. The particular and specific products of each of these tangible and intangible things that make up a group of people's way or flavour of this abstract is a culture (lower case "c"). This is what the OP tries to address but you have all stumbled into the abstract at various points too tedious for me to piece out at this time. This is not a bad thing, I'm just trying to point out that we can't talk about cultures without talking about Culture.

One of the things that makes Culture so annoying to anyone that looks from the outside in at anthropology or sociology is that its amorphousness is both entirely intentional and a functional component of its perpetuation as a tool of adaptation. In order for a behaviour to be classified as cultural it generally has to be transmitted extragenetically from one generation to the next. While this doesn't require language, it is often facilitated greatly through language.


And therein lies one of the two reasons that Culture and cultures are amorphous. Anyone who played the game of “Telephone” as a child knows that transmitting anything through language is an inexact exercise. Remove language and you have an even tougher time replicating the behaviour both as the originator intended it and as the receiver interprets it. The layers of meaning of the behaviour can be grossly misshapen with and without language from one generation to the next, especially when two people don't agree on this. This hints at the second dimension of amorphousness, time.


Over time cultures change. They have to. Investigating the mechanisms of culture change has been the pursuit of every top-notch anthropologist worth their salt since the inception of the discipline. Cultures are built to be changed and when this change is resisted, the culture either changes anyway through the very act of resistance or it dies. The interesting thing about Culture as an abstract is that it provides its own means of change through behaviours. We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater when we change culture. Just because we no longer execute criminals in Canada for heinous crimes doesn't mean they go wholly unpunished. Just because the Maya no longer practice human sacrifice to their gods doesn't mean they no longer worship their gods or that their gods no longer exist. The very shapelessness of culture, the very fact that it can't ever be totally pinned down, summarised or placed into a box and labelled is both confounding and self-perpetuating at the same time. It is what keeps the abstract … abstract.


So, what then is Western culture? I think this is too broad of a question and that it has to be framed in temporal restrictions. SMadsen made this point very late in the threads and demonstrated that elements that people have identified as belonging to Western culture only apply to certain time periods and even only to certain parts of Western culture. The irony is that many of the things in a list of what elements bear out in Western culture, even if they are long-standing and well-established elements present in a vast majority of the groups included appear elsewhere in one form or another in places you've never heard of amongst groups so small and different in so many other ways it would be pointless to even consider them part of Western culture. What I'm saying is that I don't think many of the things we've identified in this thread are actually unique. What may be argued to be unique is the combination of these elements at a particular time in history.


Let's look at how the experts study culture. Culture is usually broken down into the following broad categories of study:


Religion
Language and Communication
Identity Formation
Family and Kinship
Socialisation
Subsistence Systems
Sexuality and Gender
Politics and Power
Collectivity and Group Cohesion (including legal systems)
Medicine and Perceptions of the Body


These are the most typical ones you will find in any introductory text on the subject. I chose the ones from my own introduction course. In order to proceed on defining what Western culture is I propose that we need to first of all agree on the above list of areas of study about culture and come up with elements that fit into each. We then need to evaluate these based on their merits and applicability to a particular time period, I would propose “the present” as a vague time period that we can debate the usefulness of. I would say that no more than 50 years would be useful to truly categorise a culture. Beyond this you run the risk of including things so vastly out-dated that people at either end of that period would be unrecognisable to each other. This does not mean we have to discard discussion of earlier elements, we simply have to recognise the modern versions or descendants (if any) of earlier elements.


My only warning on this, if some of you are agreed to undertake this course of action, is that we should not get too specific in our language use on some of these. For instance, it suffices to say that a discussion of Christianity's influence in most of these spheres is imminent but that the elements we decide upon should be parsed more vaguely, such as monotheism rather than belief in one God, or religious freedom rather than liberty from the bonds of God's commandments.


Just one more comment that may or may not be helpful. Culture as a tool is probably very old. I would peg it beyond the origin of Homo sapiens and, if we're talking about a hominid reliance on it as I have characterised it in the outset of this post, I would have to say it's at least 2 million years old. In its pre-human form it is probably much older and I would go so far as to say that some of its characteristics date back to the Miocene split of the apes at 20 million years ago. That being said, this long-established tool in our arsenal of adaptations (which is a very limited list for hominids in general and humans in particular) has always had another peculiarity to it that I would cite as the sole reason for every glorious discovery and every horrifying conflict in recorded and unrecorded history. Culture keeps itself intact and has the curious effect of arousing protectionist attitudes in its practitioners at all costs. It is a fundamental tool of our survival and, as such, when it is threatened through the disruption of our particular flavour or brand of it (cultures) we move to protect it. So vehement a reaction, cultural survival is the root cause of every major world conflict you can point to today and I would argue every such conflict before. We are probably hard-wired to create groups of “us versus them” so much so that our versions of cultures are often the winning version of the day in regards to whatever element you're identifying. This does not spell “better” and should never be mistaken for “superior”. I'm making a Darwinian argument in one sense that, for each culture, the elements present often represents what works best in the particular cultural milieu and context that exists for those people at that time. Culture has a way of selecting out things that don't work en masse. The things that are really at the core of popular rejection have laws created against them.


There is the distinct possibility that any of you who have participated up until this point now think I've lost my mind in asking to do this but I think that a proper treatment of the OP requires this. Culture is not only amorphous, it's fucking big! In a strange and wonderful twist of fate, it is the only reason we are here to talk about it.

[Sucre]

I'd put the following as primary attributes of "Western culture":

-An emphasis on the individual rather than on the collective
-An emphasis on rational and/or scientific knowledge
-A religious tradition stressing personal god(s), rather than impersonal natural of spiritual forces
-Nationalism

...that's all that I can think of over breakfast.

I think "Western culture" is unalterably tied to Europe; it's components are either the product of Europeans or of European-spawned nations/settlements elsewhere in the world.
However, I'd be hesitant to call it "racist." Western culture is (or, at least, has become) perfectly willing to accept non-Europeans who wish to embrace it, as witnessed by S. Korea, Japan, and the large African population in the United States and Europe.

I'm not sure it would be helpful to look at the nations of today and divide them into Western/not-Western. In the last century, previously "Western" practices and artifacts have been adopted by (or forced upon) most of the world, blurring whatever lines might have existed. The distinction might be more clear if we look farther back.
Why nationalism ?

Is nationalism more "western" than oriental ?

[Sucre]

As I see it, not too complicated.

First it's the religious roots - Christianism v. all the religions in the Orient - From Islam to Buddhism

Second it's the cultural/ intellectual thread linking
the greco-roman antique
the Renaissance
the Enlightment
... and what they have in common or they borrowed from the precedent.

The Enlightment is the closest to us and quite preponderant in our thoughts. Its key ideas are :
- Individualism
leading to :
- Democracy in politics
- Liberalism in economy
And last but not least
- Trust in Science and its processes

The last component of westernism is aggressivity - a certain "masculanity" if you want, which is why Alexandre the Great was "western" as much as Colombus or Cortes, Napoleon and the European colonial powers of the 19th century.

These invaders are the reason why westernism is not geographically limited and has influenced the orient, including the Japanese and the Chinese more than they have influenced us.

[Michael]

There is the distinct possibility that any of you who have participated up until this point now think I've lost my mind in asking to do this but I think that a proper treatment of the OP requires this. Culture is not only amorphous, it's fucking big! In a strange and wonderful twist of fate, it is the only reason we are here to talk about it.
Awesome post Greendruid! I'm just mulling it over in (over heated) mind right now. I definitely have some things to say, but I'll wait another day or two before addressing this complex issue.

[Donkey]

That's a mother of a post. I think I'll probably do a re-read here in a second.

[Michael]

Religion
Language and Communication
Identity Formation
Family and Kinship
Socialisation
Subsistence Systems
Sexuality and Gender
Politics and Power
Collectivity and Group Cohesion (including legal systems)
Medicine and Perceptions of the Body
Okay, here's my thoughts on each of these cultural elements - as briefly as possible! :)

1. Religion - Western culture has long been dominated by Christianity (or monotheism), though I think religious tolerance is a more characteristic element of contemporary western culture than monotheism per se. Secularism is also a key characteristic of Western culture. The concept of 'separation of church and state' seems to be a cultural ideal as much as a political rule.

2. Language & Communications - Western culture appears to place a high value on the written word (written contracts have more authority than unwritten ones, laws are required to be codified and publicized in order to be valid, legal sanctions exist against lying or slander in written documents, etc.). Western culture is often stored/transmitted via books and/or various forms of visual imagery.

3. Identity Formation - I think Western culture is unique in placing a very high value on individualism. People are always identified as individuals and legally treated as such.

4. Family & Kinship - is officially much less important focus in Western society than individualism (though it still very powerful - ie. crony capitalism, dynastic politics and dynasty celebrities).

5. Socialization - not really sure what to say here. In Western culture it seems to be done primarily through the education system (age cohorts under the supervision of adults).

6. Subsistance systems - this is where Western culture is fairly strong as it depends upon a combination of private land, market trading and advanced technology that is usually called "capitalist" - the result is an economy characterized by a vast surplus of available goods.

7. Sexuality & Gender - I think that the patriarchical system is characteristic of Western culture, but this is clearly in flux - contemporary Western culture is in the process of becoming less patriarchal over time, though that process has really only just begun recently.

8. Politics & Power - I think that western style representative democracy is an important element here, along with enlightenment principles of liberalism. Power naturally flows to those who control the most resources. The power structure is formally fluid.

9. Collectivity and Group Cohesion - This is a bit of a weakspot it seems. So much of Western culture appears to be centered around the individual, but the traditional family is still present and functional. I suppose it might be important to note here that Western culture is also characterized by lots of voluntary (and/or professional and/or commercial and/or charity and/or recreational) associations and that these often take a significant place in any given individual's life - often rivaling the role of the family for adult individuals.

10. Medicine and Perceptions of the Body - I think Western culture is particularly noted for the idea that individuals 'control' their own bodies and that these bodies are generally held to be 'private' (the body is not a resource that belongs to the state or family). Individual permission is usually required in order to touch another body (or apologies if inadvertantly touched). As for the Western cultural approach to medicine, it seems to be characterized by an inherent assumption that the body is a rationally functioning organism that can be repaired or manipulated by science (and that this is sometimes necessary).

So that's my take on the ten points you laid out. Everyone is welcome to add to or critique any of my replies to each of the ten points. :)

There is the distinct possibility that any of you who have participated up until this point now think I've lost my mind in asking to do this but I think that a proper treatment of the OP requires this. Culture is not only amorphous, it's fucking big! In a strange and wonderful twist of fate, it is the only reason we are here to talk about it.
It was exactly this kind of thing that I was proposing when I created the thread. :D

I expected a long tedious process to establish a working definition - your formalized approach looks like a great shortcut! :)

[SMadsen]

Excellent post, Greendruid.

If opportunity arises, and I realize it's not within the scope of this thread, I'd like to hear what you mean by a limited arsenal of adaptations. Since a limit is only drawn in relation to two or more extents, it implies a kind of a surplus in the arsenal of other organisms than homonids. But other than that, I'll subscribe to pretty much every detail in your post.

[Greendruid]

Excellent post, Greendruid.

If opportunity arises, and I realize it's not within the scope of this thread, I'd like to hear what you mean by a limited arsenal of adaptations. Since a limit is only drawn in relation to two or more extents, it implies a kind of a surplus in the arsenal of other organisms than homonids. But other than that, I'll subscribe to pretty much every detail in your post.

By a "limited arsenal of adaptations" I meant that as organisms, humans, and hominids in general, have been selected for their intelligence rather than other tools of adaptation. We in particular are so utterly dependent on culture that we cannot conceive of existing without it. This is still only one adaptation but the imbalance of importance placed upon it is so great that it dwarfs our other adaptations in their functional ability to adjust to our environment. For example, sweating has a limited capability to cool the body in hot temperatures, shivering has a limited capacity to warm the body in cold temperatures. Most other mammals can survive in much colder and hotter extremes than humans without culture. We cannot. We require adjustments, most obviously in the cold environments, most obviously by means of clothing, a heat source and shelter. These are all results of culture.

Humans, and hominids in general, have a very generalised set of traits with a fairly weak body as mammals go. We use our intelligence to mitigate dangers and risks to our bodies instead of taking the physical punishment of the environment firsthand. Our teeth are even pretty weeny when it comes to diet. Because we use intelligence and culture to process our food (cook, chop, cut) before it even gets to our mouths, our teeth don't really have to be all that formidable as tools.

[SMadsen]

Greendruid, thanks for the elaboration.

Normally, when I hear mention of limited adaptation skills, it's usually in terms of specialization. The typical example is of course that of the great panda that, although it has little problems with things like climatic extremes, is limited in adaptation skills when it comes to food. Add to that a K strategy and it's considered to possess a pretty limited arsenal of adaptations.

We are specialized in terms of intellect but opportunists in terms of food, so, on one hand, I fully agree with the limited range of human adaptation skills, - it does indeed lie within the ingenuity of the human brain. On the other hand, the range of any kind of organism is limited due to the cost of selective traits. If it's not intellect weighing in over other kinds of skills then it's a limited range of other skills that carries the main means of survival. In other words, we are not more limited in terms of adaptation skills than a panda, an eartwig or a wart hog. Ok, maybe a wart hog then :)

Anyhow, I apologize for digressing.

[ICD Press]

Call for Applications

******

Dear Professors, Friends and Colleagues,


On behalf of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, I am writing to bring to your attention the following major programs hosted by us in partnership with other leading organizations. Each Program will bring together young professionals, students and scholars, governmental and diplomatic officials, civil society practitioners, private sector representatives, journalists, and other interested stakeholders from across the world for a program of lectures, workshops, group discussions and cultural excursions featuring leading figures from the fields of politics, the arts, academia, media, and business.

We are currently accepting applications for these events (below), and I would be grateful if you could share this announcement by forwarding the information below to anyone you think may be interested in attending. I would also be delighted to welcome you as a participant in Berlin.

The Language of Art & Music
"A Three Piece Puzzle: The Relationship between Culture, International Relations and Globalization"
(Berlin, International Conference, August 18th - 21st 2011)
www.icd-languageofartandmusic.org (http://www.icd-languageofartandmusic.org/)

Art as Cultural Diplomacy: A Forum for Young Leaders
(Berlin, Weeklong Seminar, August 15th - 21st, 2011)
www.icd-artasculturaldiplomacy.org (http://www.icd-artasculturaldiplomacy.org/)

Thank you for your attention and for your cooperation in sharing the news of our upcoming events. If you do not wish to receive emails from the ICD in future, please send us an email to info@culturaldiplomacy.org (info@culturaldiplomacy.org) indicating this.

We look forward to seeing you in Berlin.

With warmest regards,

Mark Donfried
Director & Founder
Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD)
Ku´damm Karree (3rd Floor/Hochhaus)
Kurfürstendamm 207-8 Berlin, Germany-10719
Phone: 00.49(0)30.2360-7680
www.culturaldiplomacy.org (http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/)
info@culturaldiplomacy.org

[nanacat]

Let's not kid ourselves. Essentially it still means white-Caucasian.

I agree. Dead white males. And it's not as if I detest Western Culture--I don't. But there's a whole world out there--Asian voices, African voices, Arabic voices. We in the west rarely hear about them unless we really go out of our way to.

[Donkey]

To my mind, "Western Culture" is the culture that developed from the enlightenment. Because the enlightenment was spawned in Europe, and later solidified by the American and French revolutions, this culture is derived from Europe, and tends to lend itself to a Eurocentric worldview. However some Eastern Societies have adopted western culture. Japan and Korea being the most notable examples.

The main atributes of Western Culture are:
-Historical link to the Enlightnment
-Emphasis on the Individual
-Emphasis of property rights
-Emphasis on representative government
-Emphasis on logic
-Secularism
-Emphasis on technological advancement
I've been thinking this over, and it seems like this is the best damn post in this thread.

I would narrow the list even further, though, if we are really trying to distill what makes it what it is:

-Emphasis on the Individual
-Emphasis of property rights

And I MIIIIGHT include this one... but I'm not totally convinced:

-Emphasis on representative government

[Michael]

-Emphasis on the Individual
-Emphasis of property rights

These are, generally and legally speaking, one and the same.

Btw, the rights of property long predate the rights of individuals. Originally, the only rights individuals had were as an extension of property rights.

[Michael]

I've been thinking this over, and it seems like this is the best damn post in this thread.

I would narrow the list even further, though, if we are really trying to distill what makes it what it is:

-Emphasis on the Individual
-Emphasis of property rights

And I MIIIIGHT include this one... but I'm not totally convinced:

-Emphasis on representative government

I think the 'secularism' point is an important and defining element of western society. It is also a key defining element of the enlightenment.

I wouldn't point to an 'emphasis on representative government' given that the model is bullshit/fake democracy. The real emphasis is on democracy - representative government is just a practical comprimise. And the democratic principle is of course predicated entirely on individual rights - one can't any kind of democracy without the establishment of individual rights.

[ICD Press]

Call for Applications
The London International Human Rights Congress 2011
"Immigration & Integration in an Age of Austerity: Challenges and Opportunities"
(London, November 22nd - 25th, 2011)

******

Dear Professors, Friends and Colleagues,


On behalf of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, I am writing to bring to your attention the following major program hosted by us in partnership with other leading organizations. The program will bring together governmental and diplomatic officials, civil society practitioners, private sector representatives, journalists, young professionals, students and scholars and other interested stakeholders from across the world for a program of lectures, workshops, group discussions and cultural excursions featuring leading figures from the fields of politics, civil society, academia, and the media.

We are currently accepting applications for the event and I would be grateful if you could share this announcement by forwarding the information below to anyone you think may be interested in attending.

Thank you for your attention and for your cooperation in sharing the news of our upcoming events.

If you do not wish to receive emails from the ICD in future, please send us an email to info@culturaldiplomacy.org (info@culturaldiplomacy.org) indicating this.

With warmest regards,

Mark Donfried
Director & Founder
Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD)
Ku´damm Karree (3rd Floor/Hochhaus)
Kurfürstendamm 207-8 Berlin, Germany-10719
Phone: 00.49(0)30.2360-7680
www.culturaldiplomacy.org (http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/)
info@culturaldiplomacy.org (info@culturaldiplomacy.org)

------------ Please forward the announcement found below --------Thank you --------------

The London International Human Rights Congress 2011
"Immigration & Integration in an Age of Austerity: Challenges and Opportunities"
(London, November 22nd - 25th, 2011)
www.lihrc.org (http://www.lihrc.org/)

Dear Sir/ Madam,

The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is currently accepting applications for the event outlined above, which will take place in London during November 2011. The program will bring together governmental and diplomatic officials, civil society practitioners, private sector representatives, journalists, young professionals, students and scholars and other interested stakeholders from across the world for a program of lectures, workshops, group discussions and cultural excursions featuring leading figures from the fields of politics, civil society, academia, and the media.

The London International Human Rights Congress 2011
"Immigration & Integration in an Age of Austerity: Challenges and Opportunities"
(London, November 22nd - 25th, 2011)
www.lihrc.org (http://www.lihrc.org/)

The London International Human Rights Congress is an international Conference held annually by the ICD and other leading organizations in a different global capital city. The aim of the conference this year is to reflect on the operation and application of Human Rights with particular focus on Immigration and Integration. The program will consist of lectures, seminars, debates and panel discussions that will feature leading figures from international politics & diplomacy, academia, civil society, and the private sector.



Since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the dignity and respect afforded to the protection of Human Rights across the Globe has faced an unprecedented amount of challenges. In our Globalised and Multicultural world rights relating to Immigration and Integration are those which are both most important in terms of International Relations, and those most at risk. It is during times like these that the International Human Rights framework is tested in a way like never before. Raising new questions such as how far should National Financial or Economic failings be allowed to influence the Universality of access to fundamental rights? The London International Human Rights Congress will discuss the challenges and opportunities which arise in the quest to protect Human Rights in the 21st Century.



Conference Participants »

The conference is open to applications from diplomatic and political representatives, civil society practitioners, young professionals, students and scholars, private sector figures, journalists, and other interested stakeholders in international relations from across the world.


To apply please visit:
http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/gphr/index.php?en_bihrc-2011_application-form (http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/gphr/index.php?en_bihrc-2011_application-form)

******

The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy
www.culturaldiplomacy.org (http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/)

The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is an international, not-for-profit, non-governmental organization with headquarters in Berlin, Germany. The goal of the ICD is to promote global peace and stability by strengthening and supporting intercultural relations at all levels. Over the past decade the ICD has grown to become one of Europe’s largest independent cultural exchange organizations, hosting programs that facilitate interaction among individuals of all cultural, academic, and professional backgrounds, from across the world.

Previous Events

Previous events held by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy include the International Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy (Berlin, May 11th-15th 2011 – www.icd-internationalsymposium.org (http://www.icd-internationalsymposium.org/)), which hosted The Hon. Lucinda Creighton - Minister of European Affairs of Ireland; The Hon. Michael Chertoff - Former United States Secretary of Homeland Security; The Hon. Rexhep Meidani - Former President of Albania; The Hon. Senator Tim Hutchinson - Former United States Senator from Arkansas; The Hon. Judge Theodor Meron - Former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; The Hon. Yasar Yakis - Former Foreign Minister of Turkey

In March 2011 the ICD hosted the Berlin International Economics Congress 2011 (Berlin, March 9th - 12th 2011 – www.biec.de (http://www.biec.de/) ), which hosted The Hon. Nahas Angula - Prime minister of Namibia; The Hon. Jean-Paul Adam - Foreign Minister of the Republic of Seychelles; The Hon. Alberto Jose Guevara Obregon - Minister of Finance of Nicaragua; The Hon. Al Imam Al Sadig Al Mahdi - Former Prime minister of Sudan; The Hon. Akua Sena Dansua - Minister for Tourism of Ghana; and The Hon. Edmund Bartlett - Minister of Tourism of Jamaica.

Please address any additional queries to info@culturaldiplomacy.org (info@culturaldiplomacy.org)

We look forward to seeing you in London.

Mark Donfried
Director & Founder

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD)
Ku´damm Karree (3rd Floor/Hochhaus)
Kurfürstendamm 207-8 Berlin, Germany-10719
Phone: 00.49.(0)30.2360-7680
Fax: 00.49.(0)30.2360-76811
www.culturaldiplomacy.org (http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/)
info@culturaldiplomacy.org (info@culturaldiplomacy.org)