A Strategy for Cultural Export

By Spencer, January 28, 2009

Subtle Power Transitions, part III: An analysis of the cultural evolution of the male psyche from warrior clan to nation-state and beyond

The project involved high ranking academics, some of which were members of councils answering directly to the White House Staff. Having produced a draft description of the project, I suddenly found myself under fire from such a prominent critic. His assertion was that it was against the conclusion of all leading researchers in the field to assume that increased exposure to Western culture or, for that matter, industrialization and informatics had transformative effect.

I immediately sensed that he belonged to the conservative crowd. Perhaps it was his fervent Orientalism:

"We are objective. They [Arabs] are impassionate."

In brief he saw no evidence that, for instance, the economic progress in the Gulf States led to reliable democratic reforms. I had encountered this attitude on numerous occasions. When I wrote an article about Arab Renaissance, long before anybody else than Arab scholars would use the term, commenters would write:

"Nobody believes in an Arab Renaissance."

Even when Newsweek brought optimistic coverage of the region, highlighting diversified economies, relaxed religious standards and emerging democratic elections, many chose to still focus on Islamic terrorism, on beheadings, on sharia law and on questionable conditions for fsereign workers. The Muhammed Cartoon Crisis didn't make it any easier.

Still, I was a student of history long before I became a journalist. I have read volumes about every major civilization on Earth, from Sumeria to The British Empire and beyond, into the arena of contemporary history, where - according to experts - history as such still does not exist.

My preferred genre is cultural history, because these authors tend to focus on social conditions, enginering and architecture, infrastructure and logistics, technology and development, mythology and rituals and legal codes, systems of governance and various dynasties, clans and classes of workers.

In other words, you get the complete spectrum of factors that comprise a society, without the interference of subjective views and political agendas dominating ordinary history books obsessing over warlords and determining events. This teaches you, above all else, that even the most sensational of events are transitory.

Going to journalist school and working as a journalist only reinforced this observation:

The trends that form the lives of the multitude are long, far longer than morely a couple of generations, which is at best the scope of journalists - and of many an academic in the age of journalism.

Exporting technology without culture

Today there is a lot of debate about whether or not China is ripe for change, change in the context meaning democratic reform.

The pressure from the rise of BRIC has long haunted the Occident, as it is taken as an ominous harbinger of the end of a unipolar world order in which USA dominates the world scene on all parameters - economic, scientific, cultural and military - and the era of democracy is contested by superpowers forged in a completely different process of development.

And it is a reasonable concern: Even if the industrialization of the developing regions formerly known as The Third World outwardly resembles the development in the West, there are significant differences.

First of all, it is a copy cat industrialization, where principles of automation and intensified division of labour is implemented in packages rather than through a protracted heuristic process. This also means that the addition to the global pool of knowledge is limited, because the element of trial and error is cut short.

It is, in a sense, development without experience.

The other difference is the European history of critical philosophy, which unarguably preceeded modernity and allegedly forged our cultural tradition. The general vote, the division of power and the habeas corpus sprang from the European enlightenment, and without it we might be organized in a system of very productive barbarism - or not be very organized nor productive at all.

The Lego Block Theory

The observation of the global pessimists is that a culture can easily develop industry, instructure and high technological capacity, including the really destructive ones, without making any effort to reform society politically and culturally in the image of the region that invented the technologies in first place.

According to this world view any technology and any political system and any cultural code are vastly different systems, fundamentally insulated from one another, but also universally applicable. Society can be constructed by applying any preferred system to another, sort of like Lego blocks.

You can, for instance, implement formal democratic institutions without implementing civil rights. We call this a banana republic. You can also implement market economy without implementing democracy. We call this China. Or you can implement democracy and market economy simultanously, creating a nation of vast social discrepancies like India or a government challenged byorganized crime and extremism like Russia.

In the scope of the Lego Block Theory you can construct any monstrous civilization out of whatever available materials.

The Tianmen Square Factor

Without arguing in favour of an organic theory of development or historical singularity, I would suggest that there are significant limitations to the Lego Block Theory.

No system is universally applicable, and in fact no system is applicable to another without a process of accomodation.

Furthermore, the negative side-effects of trying to combine non-applicable elements and of neglecting the implementation of certain, inconvenient elements, are conspicuous.

Finally, the social responses to systemic imbalances and political oppression suggest that there are revolutionary tendencies in any society, even those who sanction dissent with imprisonment, torture and dissent.

The Tianmen Square Factor, the very power of manifestations of protest, should make us contemplate the factors behind dissent, universal as well as culturally exported.

First of all the obvious: Increased globalization implicates intensified communication on all levels. There is a spill-over effect from any succesful culture. Just like some Europeans choose to become Muslims, revolting against the moral relativity and social isolation of the secular and materialistic West, Muslims leave the Middle East or protest in their own homelands, inspired by Western cultures.

The three factors of revolution

Secondly, we must assume that there is a universal capacity for dissent, rebellion and revolution in all men. Revolutionary tendencies seem to take control of a society, for good and for bad, when three specific row of factors are aligned: Income discrepancy, gross immorality of the elite and fierce oppression of dissent.

When all three factors are present, revolution will take place, but not necessarily if only two are present.

The revolutionary breaking point is reached, when a majority of people are predominantly dissatisfied, perceiving their ability to form a family and succesfully secure their offspring is impaired by authorities.

I recall an anecdote about Colonel Qadaffi from an American paper: It recounted an incident, when Qadaffi served as the bodyguard of the crown prince of the monarchy that preceded the Green Revolution. The son of Idris I allegedly lost about a million dollar gambling. That's when Qadaffi decided to coup.

I don't know if the story is true, but it is a great illustration of the experience of decadence and the impact on a mind already drawn towards revolutionary ideals.

Residual ideology in technology

Stanley Kubrick's renowned space epic, 2001, subtly suggests that mankind is not only enhanced by its tools, but shaped into a completely new being.

In other words, there is a is cultivating aspect of every act of applied science, even the deadliest weapons.

This should be obvious: Einstein complained that nuclear energy had changed everything, except the heart of man. But in hindsight, in the light of mankind surviving the long nuclear standoff between USA and USSR, perhaps Einstein was behind the curve on this one.

How would we have the faith to go on, if the dominant impulses in man was fear, anger and hate, leading to an ever downward spiral of retribution? How would we even exist today, if this was the case?

So, there is a very simple rationale for hope: Our very existence today, against all odds, proves the existence of a stronger force, and elan vital - or, if you will, universal love.

But even more importantly, and even less obvious: There is a residual element of ideology in technology.

Whenever we export a cell phone, we encourage someone to talk. They may simply be chatting, but even chatting is anti-authoritarian. You may say, somewhat along the lines of Murphy's Law, that all communication graduallyapproaches profanity.

China has just become the biggest user of Internet.

Not ready for change, but ever changing

So, while it is true that a hammer can be used to build a house, as well as to kill a man, not every product of human ingenuity.

It is often said that "guns don't kill people; people kill people", but this argument is slippery: Guns certainly do suggest that the user kill someone more than, for instance, a DVD with office clipart. I am sure you can kill a man with a DVD, but even in a world so full of tragic and absurd news, I have still to hear about that.

On a tactical level this observation suggests that we can actively shape the behaviour of people and their cultural preferences, beneath the censorship of whatever big brother in charge of a society, by examining what we export.

On a more strategic level it relates to the way we organize our cultural export, including the globalized public diplomacy and more formal diplomatic messages.

On a societal level it suggests that by designing, marketing and choosing specific gadgets we also help form the culture in which we live. A significant little invention is the finger print lock on a gun, to stay on the topic of "violence control", a term I prefer to "gun control".

And on the deepest, most philosophical level, the interaction between machine and man suggests that we may already be in the process of proufound changes, individually and as a culture, particularly due to the information age economy and the internet revolution.

But also the transformation of our transportation systems, the emergence of hybrid cars, the intelligent energy grid and green economy - all these things may work together not only to save our society by reducing CO2, but also in changing our core values, our cultural myths and the grand narratives that bind us together and shapes our consciousness.

The backlash from traditionalism

Some reports indicate that the Chinese people are ready for change, but the message from Beijing so far has been that they want nothing to do with change. They want status quo, because change is a threat to the Communist Party.

The simple question is: Will the implementation of free market and intensified communication and deeper relations to the West and to the outside world in general cause a regime change in China?

The question is absurd, if you accept the premise that our systems - essentially immaterial technologies - shape us. We cannot build or buy or use a tool without being slightly altered, and as a society the governing structure must change according to the requirements of the culture beneath it.

What is a more urgent question is: Will it change into something... democratic?

Our experience in Europe and America has been somewhat traumatic. In spite of enlightenment ideals, democratic constitutions and market economy, the world was recently thrown into a couple of devastating wars with scores of millions of victims. Western democracy had to fight a battle to the death in order to preserve democracy.

So, it is natural that we perceive or imagine all kinds of monstrous political systems rising within the context of industrialization and information technology.

And it is healthy not to take democracy for granted.

Still, there are some reasons enough were ready to fight against the counter-revolutionary movement of fascism. The fascist movement, including Nazism, were essentially traditionalist or paleo-conservative revolts against perceived decadence - the destruction of European and Asian clans society.

Likewise, Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorist branch of it, are last minute resorts of cultures in deep crisis. It is as far more an internal battle between reformist forces and traditionalist forces in a culture still dependent on the social infrastructure of clan society - sometimes projecting its aggression on the perceived source of disruption, the West.

The immunity defense of Ummah

Still, there are important differences between European fascism and Islamic fundamentalism. First of all, Islam is a universal religion, not a racist ideology. You can be Caucasian, Asian, African or Arab, Persian or Indian, and you will still be counted as a Muslim if you follow the creed.

That's obvious. Whether or not Islam is expansive, aggressive, evangelizing, is not as important as whether or not Islam has a function in the regions, where it is the predominant religion.

The aggresion of Islam is partly counter-active. In a sense Islam is a very passive religion, far less occupied with recruitment than manic Christianity. The violence is largely political, even if political grievances are translated into anger about religious insult.

Thus Muslims are enraged by the humiliation and slaughter of Palestinians, but the anger is focused on Sharon's infamous walk on the Temple Mount. The terrorist attacks against European targets were about our participation in the invastion of two countries in the Middle East, just as 9/11 was about the US military presence in the region. But religion is applied as a tool, a unifier and a system of interpretation making complex political issues understandable to a largely under-educated population.

Islam is not a virus, but rather the opposite: Islam serves as an immunity system in the Middle East, a region so devastated by the manipulations of former and current superpowers in the struggle for oil it almost serves as justification for the fundamentalist wave. It is like the Palestinian Intifada, which means a "shaking off", like a wild horse would an insensitive horseman.

According to Biblical lore, the ancient Semitic legends that unifies the members of the three major monotheistic religions against their will, Arabs descend from Ishmael, the first son of Abraham (Ibrahim). His brother was Isaac, who was allegedly subjected to attempted human sacrifice by his father, but rescured by an angel.

The really interesting part is that Genesis prophesies that Ishmael will become a tribe of 12 nations, just as the son of Isaac, Jacob, and that his descendants will be like wild horses living across the land. I have even met a Palestinian Muslim, who was aware of this odd passage in the Bible, quoting it and claiming it to be true, proud of their descendance and the characteristic as a rebellious people.

The end of history may not be democratic

The question to a modern, secular thinker is how to address, circumvent or, if necessary, combat the fundamentalism. So far both USA and Europe have struck out like Captain Ahab chasing the big white whale. I have often predicted that the more the West pursues an aggressive policy with the Islamic world, the worse they will fare. If persistent in error, the West will be wiped out and all the people of the world crippled along with it, while the Arab world will persevere.

It sounds unlikely, considering the nuclear arsenals of the West and the limited military capacity of the Middle East, but there are other things which may destroy a nation than military equipment. I use the Moby Dick parable to try to enlighten Westerners to the fact that Islam is an atavism, no different from other religions though as peculiar in its construction as any other religion. You simply cannot counter transnational and ethereal social systems in the same way you would a military force.

Likewise with China: She has existed as a mega-civilization and a power-house of invention for 5000 years. When Chairman Mao was asked whether or not he thought the French Revolution was historically significant, he famously replied:

"It is too early to tell."

That's called scope. If you deal with people who are habitual to long term planning, you better better acknowlege your own limitations in that regard, before you start looking for weaknesses in the opponent. One of the books behind the crazed era of neo-conservatism under President George W. Bush was Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man", arguing that with no serious ideological rivals democracy had won. Samuel Huntington's equally famous and infamous The Clash of Civilizations was partly written in response, warning about the existence of rival cultures.

Nations were formed by warriors

In order to understand international politics, you have to be fully aware of the basic principles of the male psyche: It is wired to struggle. It is as important an element of our existence as beautification is to women. We begin in an early age, playing war and provoking fights, later to practice it in ritualized forms like sports, games and studies, until it is second nature and useful for professional ambitions on the individual level and for the national economy on the aggregate.

We are archaic beings in a modernized environment, but our main impetus is the same. This also determines the way we choose to organize society and the way we priorotize political tasks. Pressed beyond a certain limit most men will kill without remorse, and pressed even further - killing in self defence does not involve others - we may take furious.

Nations are inventions of men. This is not to say that women are inferior, but historically the vast majority of women have been subdued to men, just as you could say the vast majority of men have been subdued to warlords and to their aristocrats, clerics and bureaucrats. The future society may become supremely feminized, taking shape not after geographical borders drawn by a ruler, but from the roundness of the Earth.

But in this day and age nations are ruled by men or masculine values, even when women are formally empowered by office. This means that any nation or culture will vigorously defend itself agains threats, vainly pursue glory in the eyes of the outside world by whatever means it possesses, proudly bost achievements and if threatened or hampered significantly, exact vengeance and even launch widespread, random destruction in acts of compensation.

A few years ago China, through a general speaking "unofficially" on a press conference with the Western press, threatened to wipe out the American west coast with nuclear weapons, if she intervened in Chinese matters such as the claim on Taiwan.

"We don't have the capacity to counter conventional attacks, so we would have to answer aggression with nuclear weapons", the argument was.

When came to the retaliation, China had already calculated losses of millions of lives in specific regions.

The age of merchants and peace

With all this in mind, how then can I talk about a historical window of opportunity to foster an era of global democracy? First of all I have lived to see the end of The Cold War, after growing up in a political climate so fearful of nuclear Holocaust children would have nightmares about it. Secondly, I have seen the end of the conflict in Ireland and England with IRA turning in their weapons, shutting down their militant divisions and forming a legitimate political party.

Nothing is impossible.

But more importantly, the world has already changed in a number of ways that facilitates this level of chage: Globalization has interwoven our economies and our cultures, just as the financial crisis has exposed. This, to me, is the positive side to the financial crisis: It will force us to work together, to form new supranational entities, to build bridges between cultures and to shape policies through cooperation.

It is a political imperative, further enchanced by global climate change, by transnational terrorism and by the threat of natural disasters and global pandemics alike. We have no other option, and the development of cultures is shaped by such imperatives: People will invent the solutions to the problems, if they are required for base survival.

Immigration has made people of all ethnicities, nationalities and creeds vulnerable to the same terrorist attacks. The global ICT infrastructure has made everybody communicate with everybody, and I cannot imagine the censorship department or electronical filter to prevent increased interaction and the distribution of free speech and critical thought. It is already done, and in spite of all conflicts, a new universal loyalty will grow out of it.

Finally, according to the UN Human Security Report, the total number of wars as well as the number of people killed in wars has dropped dramatically over the past 50 years. In the same time the number of democracies have grown significantly, making for only a minority of the nations of the world to adopt formal democracy. There may be a lot of reforms needed, but overall the world is growing more peaceful. In spite of horrifying conflicts around the globe, in spite of hunger and disease, the world is slowly moving in the right direction.

Paradoxically, I ascribe this to the fact that merchants have become the de facto rulers of the world, which is historically unique. You may say a lot of bad things about multinational corporations, about lobbyism and bribery and corruption, business scandals and commercialism and offshore accounts. You may invoke Bhopal and Enron, but in the large historical perspective merchants have always in almost every civilization been under the thumb of the martial clan. Warrior culture has almost always dominated, sometimes supplemented or checked by the clerical class, but today scientists shape our paradigms, engineers construct our realities and the priorities of merchants rule our governments.

What does that mean? It means that wars between nations have become less frequent, simply because it is bad for business. Technically, this is associated with two major events, one occurring in the faculty of economy and one on the geopolitical scene. Modern theories of economics have altered our perception of wealth. As we went from gold to production economy the GDP became the rational indicator of the wealth of a nation, rather than the amount of gold in its vaults or coins and bills in circulation. Even if wars can briefly boost an economy, the consensus is that wars are bad for economy.

That is the rationale behind the European Union. After a series of devastating world wars triggered by European rivalry, following a long history of feuds, Europe decided to form an internal alliance among the nations in order to create wealth through increased productivity and promote peace. The basis of success is very simple: The production price of a unit is reduced the more you produce, and the volume is determined by demand. With a larger market production costs went down and profits went up. At the same time the nations established codependency, not only because they needed access to each other's markets, but because of increased division of labour. And, as Adam Smith summarized in the opening of Wealth of Nations, division of labour is the principle from which human societies have benefited the most.

As a side-effect of co-dependency, European countries are reluctant to make war on each other. The untameable male urge to strive for splendour and dominance has been directed into professional pursuits.

It's not the MBA, it's survival, stupid

I started out slamming conservatives for cultural pessimism, when it comes to the durability and marketability of Western principles as well as when it comes to the changeability and adoptability of foreign nations. In many cases, however, the right wing is easier to work with than the left, particularly because of the widespread animosity against corporations and the stock market exchange. This gives way to another type of pessimism based on the worst assumptions about the entire private sector based on whatever rotten apples you may find at any given time.

It is as absurd to me to condemn the private sector as "the root of all evil" as some right wing notions about a nightwatcher state - or no formal government to interfere with people at all. Common sense that we owe our material blessings to the industries that form the economic backbone of any nation, and as much as we may like to criticize commercialism and consumerism, we are quite reluctant to toss out our television, refrigerator and cell phone to make our point. Likewise, we owe our relative security to the government, whether or not we agree with all its dispositions.

When it comes to globalization I have always been fully aware of the inherent risks, the capacity for calamities in multinational corporations when left to take care of public utilities, the inherent corruption in many a business deal, the rampant lobbyism stealing away influence of the people and the mandate below the politicians, the sweat shops and the disregard for the worker's rights. Still I have supported globalization for a number of reasons, mostly for the same reason I support the European project: Increased codependency will decrease the global potential for war.

It is not because commercial interests prevents people - business partners can become enemies as well. It is because of codependency implicates automatic and immediate catastrophic loss, if you switch abruptly from cooperation to hostility. The entire globalized market system is damaged, and sanction is distributed to all players. It's a game theory analysis, not an idealistic dream based on confidence in human nature or the better nature of the particular class of people with more than average economic insight.

Also, my personal experience is that there are redeeming features to the corporate environment. It is far more meritocratic and less authoritarian than for instance the academic invironment or the bureaucracies. Creativity and ideas are actually rewarded, if you are persistent and capable of accepting the need to wrap everything in a delightful packaging. As an immigrant of Asian origin I have experienced racism in corporate environments, but far less than in any other environment, simply because it is bad business: Racism hinders you from achieving your maximum potential. It alienates you from valuable human ressources. It cuts you off from markets. During the Muhammed Cartoon crisis the most prudent actors in Europe were Danish companies with significant financial interest in the Middle East.

Sometimes trying to make another buck can bring out the best in you, not the worst.

The fourth and final installment in this series is about the way industrialization has changed the way society organizes its bodies, and how globalization will transform it once more, moving the epi-centre of our internal model of the world into the core of the Earth.