Resist Monoculture

Exhibit 6: Santa Fe, New Mexico. The local native american craftsmen are invited, for one weekend a year, to exhibit their wares on the main tourist drag. This is called "indian market." At indian market you see a lot of RC Gorman esque oils of beautiful indian weomen, succulent bunches of red or green chile, pink Cyotes howling at the moon, etc. Very, very commercial, bland, rootless stuff (or is it?). The people who buy this shlock aren't locals; by and large they are baptist tourists from Texas. These Native Americans have held onto their culture and tradition, but it has been reduced (by capitalism? by themselves?) to bland mimicry of the 'real' thing. It seems there is no stopping the influence of monoculture and capitalism. Better to engage actively with the issues of the day-to accept them, to a degree-To accept the fact that on the reservation, people have TV's RV's and HBO, and sometimes drink too much, and are sometimes addicted to heroin, than to blindly ignore these realities of contemporary life. You can't tune out 'America'...when your'e living in the middle of it.

A couple of distinctions: one thing Japan does (because it can) is nick a lot of its culture from France. France is more cute, more feminine, more gourmet, more reassuring as a template for the rebuilding of Tokyo than New York is. So for every DoCoMo Tower (modelled on the Chrysler Building) you get several French-style chateaux and about a hundred 'french' cafes and bakeries. When it comes to cultural exports, the Americans may be ahead on brute marketing, but the French are still ahead on charm.

Secondly, you have to distinguish between two nationalisms. There's the nationalism which discriminates against poor immigrants and people of other races. That's obviously fascist and bad. Then there's the nationalism which attempts to block power and imperialism. This latter is the nationalism of Cuba, of Vietnam, of Japan when it was closed to the west (until Admiral Perry came with his gunboats to demand trade). This we should see as a constructive nationalism.

Koizumi's shrine gesture may have been the latter or it may have been the former, I don't know. I just liked how he wasn't doing a Tony Blair: commissioning focus groups and research teams (not to mention sounding out the editor of the Mail) to know what middle England wanted him to do -- and then still being afraid to act.

If I remember correctly, should Koizumi have chosen to visit Yusukuni tomorrow, the 15th, all World Stage hell would have broken loose. And this is not a man immune to focus groups: the Yusukuni visit was a thank-you gesture to a right-wing component of the coalition which put him in office. Still, he's marginally better on this front than Mori, the madhead the Japanese had before...

A world without cultural pride would indeed be a sad one. My cultural pride as a Euro-Nippo-Scot Mac OS-dwelling dung beetle (or whatever I am) is in the ring with the cultural pride of the nice men who are exporting Marlboro and Starbucks, denim and Hollywood all over the world because they genuinely think it's better than what's already out there.

Cultural protectionism has a role to play. It's when people say 'Thanks but no thanks' to the Marlboro man. It's as simple as 'I know when to go out / I know when to stay in, get things done'. Cultures, like individuals, need to know when to submit, to let other cultures set their agendas (developing nations thinking a dose of the American Dream might do them good) and when it's better stay home with the doors locked and do something creative, emerging the next day with something that might just take the world by storm (think of the Japanese guy who scribbled Pokemon on a PostIt note and, shortly afterwards, beat Disney Corp. at its own game).

The counter-nationalisms — which are for bad reasons as well as good complicit in their own resistance of trade openings — are etiolated, inward, brittle cultures. Cuba is tired; Vietnam capitulated; N.Korea HAH!!; isolationist Japan lurched through a series of proto-fascist horrors, which losing WW2 freed it from... (losing world wars = good for business and cultural health?)

[I so much shouldn't be spending time thinking abt this this morning!! respect my dealines ppl!! talk boring subjects for JUST ONE DAY! Sport = urgent and key till my Wire feature is finished and delivered]

Huge corporate combines — microsoft somewhat aside, and see what happened there? — have sidestepped their immolation and scapegoating by being vast and diffuse, NOT ultra-controlled and centralist (not that capitalism is centralist anyway); above all, not contradiction-free. They are no more monolithic than nations.

Third world war = war between pepsi and coke

Hmm.

I've always been interested in Japan. Sang about it in the first song I wrote, aged 7, 'I Can See Japan'. Why? Maybe because of a holiday on the Hebridean island of Colonsay where I met a Japanese monk. Had a Japanese penfriend at 16. Immersed myself in Japanese style and art through the 80s, first visited in 1992. Been back six times since then. Never learnt the language. (Read someone the other day saying 'I loved Japan until I learned the language and understood it. Now I hate it.' It's a good excuse for laziness, anyway!)

Why do I like it? Because it's the most 'different' place I've ever been, and I love difference. Because it has this weird formality, this cute formalism. Because it's a sci-fi blend of the middle ages and the future. Because the girls are sweeter than Kate and Ally. Because the Japanese are black belt passive aggressive geniuses at seeming to absorb other people's cultures when in fact making them into something totally, freakishly different.

I'm also sort of bothered by the undemocratic nature of the argument. It's certainly sad that Western/American culture is exerting this dominance based not on its value but solely its technological prowess. But on the other hand: do you really want to deny those Mongolians their satellite dishes and MTV? Isn't it somewhat patronizing to tell them what they should be doing with their culture?

I'd also note that plenty of nations have done exactly what you seem to be advocating; the Marxist government in Ethiopia, for example, sunk a surprising portion of its budget into cultural training, rounding up young people and drilling them through traditional music, dance, and literature. But I get the feeling that if you, Momus, were one of those people -- if your municipal authority had handed you a kilt and bagpipes and drilled you to preserve your culture -- you'd probably have been muttering "fascism" under your breath.

Also, walk at your own pace and never presume. And avoid the chains at all costs unless you're really hungry. ;-)

Keep in mind I've also just read John Prebble's _The Highland Clearances_, which made me want to go back in time and punch a slew of people very hard, and which ended with the line 'the tartan is now a shroud.' Too true, really.

Not based on the Japanese girls I know; indeed most that I talk to would be offended that you even said this, not just Japanese- Americans but actual immigrants. They all dislike the Geisha Girl stereotype that so many American male tourists and immigrants seem to uphold so religiously.

Quite frankly, the very idea that by accepting other cultures into your own culture somehow destroys the "native" culture is appalling to me. America itself is not one set culture; if you can't see that and you just point, hysterical Nicky Wire style, at jeans and Coke and Independce Day-style films as "Americana" taking over the world, then there is little I can do for you to explain how the situation is vastly more complex than that. It's an insult to your own country, Momus, to sit there and talk about how homogenous and destructive the culture is when it's the most diverse nation, statistically, in the entire world.

(OK I know what you meant. But hey - statistically, was the old Soviet Union more diverse than the USA? It certainly seems to have split into a lot of different bits.)

Soviet Union was extremely diverse, nationalistically. I think for purposes of argument though, it's best to discuss racial diversity than the sort of diversity found in areas like that. The racial makeup of the former Soviet nations is not that distinct from one another and the cultural differences, while definitely there and definitely a source of conflict and issues for the unified republic, are not as stark and easy to define as the easily sorted out differences between, say, the Japanese and Hispanics.

That's precisely my point, Ned -- if you assume that to be an adequate level of regional culture, then Momus' question becomes entirely ridiculous, doesn't it? If one thinks that Scottish culture is still reasonably and uniquely Scottish, then what's the fuss about a couple of satellite dishes in Mongolia? I sense the typical Western fetishizing going on here: we should be very interested in their culture; they should be disdainful of ours, despite its ridiculously high standard of living being very obviously preferable. I don't understand how Momus can cry "monoculture!" when he sees Japanese kids wearing Levis and eating McDonalds, but fail to recognize his own attempted assimilation into that culture.

It's everything to do with a sort of wrong-headed approach that views non-Western culture as somehow prized or "exotic" or different, and thus worthy of being saved of our influence. But the fact remains that we are the exotics -- if there is any "monoculture" right now, it is that of mainland China or Hindu India, period. Those are the two biggest segments of Earth's population, and it's somewhat laughable to imagine that our way of living could ever subsume a significant portion of theirs.

Ta da, no more fighting.

Culture changes, yes. So, unless you feel you are the embodiment of all your culture is now and has ever been, why hoist it above your head as if it was a trophy? You were simply born into a class, an ethnicity and a situation as was everyone else.

A monoculture would be a good idea in the truest sense; equal opportunity for all, etc. This would be a global culture, not an American one. This would have little to do with McDonald's and Disney taking over the earth. I don't think this ideal monoculture I'm talking about is what Momus was referring to. I believe he was talking about the westernization of the earth is all.

The current "monoculture" is a bad thing not for reasons of fashion, but for the exploitation of weaker cultures, and, like I said, eventually the Haves will hear from the Have-Nots. I don't think the global solution is for everyone to be isolationist within their own cultures, however. But the solution is not the Americanization of the earth, unless some major changes happen.

I'm throwing you back in now, little fishy.

I baited for fun, got my fishy...

I've not been following the argument at all because it's sprawled so much, but from my p.o.v. this sort of thing is about the lamest thing anyone on the Internet can say. And I never believe them.

This is just obnoxious, I'm sorry, I have to stand up. You almost immediately started off with "dimwit" comments towards Kerry. It's just not right, it does come off like some sort of ludicrious ranting when mostly unprovoked and certainly doesn't help you get your point across, and does nothing but fluster the other person involved.

And this "Mexican culture" they were so proud of was not some nostalgic back-to-the-earth nativism, nor was it globalistic futurist cosmopolitanism. It was simply whatever lifestyle they were used to when they left home, which was itself a hybrid fusion of many different influences.

I think my experience illustrates 2 things:

1)it verifies what whoever (sorry can't remember) said above about cultures really only defining themselves when they are placed in opposition to others. This is something which is constantly happening in our interconnected world, so a degree of resistance to foreign ideas should just be expected, and isn't necessarily wrong. It's often a defence against more harmful influences as well as helpful ones. I believe Momus's point was not that we should be isolationists, but that we should be able to discriminate between the various memes we're bombarded with and resist them if we feel it's necessary.

2) There's a more complex dynamic at work here than simply Total liberalization of markets VS Total Taliban-style isolationism. People and cultures have to improvise based on the situation.

I am so glad I grew up in a non-segregationist place, and moved to a different one. Still don't give much currency to what NS is saying, though, and when I left to go to party tons of sense being spoken by Lyra the Board Baby. Nice to see that 16 yr. olds have less than half the issues of those of us who were 16 in the '80s. Progress! Take heart, everyone...

I spent the last year working in a rural community in Oregon that was about 80% Mexican immigrants and 20% racist white people who owned all the businesses and property. The Mexicans as a result had a very strong sense of solidarity brought about by pride in a perceived cultural unity. Their language, cultural traditions, etc. were a bulwark against the poverty and segregation they experienced. I think this gives the lie to the statement "there is no specific reason you should be so damn proud to be from _______."

A: What about the rich Mexicans that OWN Mexico (it's a few families!). They are part of this "mexican culture" as well. These Mexicans cause the shitty conditions that allow American companies to build factories in Mexico, hire people for $1 per hour under extremely hazardous conditions so that these poor Mexicans have just enough money to live at a subhuman level and then the rich Americans can gloat and say, "Well, look, if it wasn't for us, they wouldn't even have what they have now!" This is this GREAT AMERICAN CULTURE that prevails! While the ideals that America was built on are a credit to our forefathers, the system still breaks down to pure greed. The rich exploit the poor so that the Haves continue to Have and the Have-Nots still WANT. If a person was to say that I am part of THIS Western Culture, I'd have to disagree.

And this "Mexican culture" they were so proud of was not some nostalgic back-to-the-earth nativism, nor was it globalistic futurist cosmopolitanism. It was simply whatever lifestyle they were used to when they left home, which was itself a hybrid fusion of many different influences.

My only point is that you should only be proud for what YOU are, not your forefathers. Otherwise, I suppose all Germans should be ashamed for lifetimes to come. Being proud of what others did, who happen to be from the same country or race is pretty similar to these hillbilly Americans saying, "Yeah, well if it weren't fer us, the world would be shit. Look at all a-what we did for technologeee, f'rinstance! An' we stopped the second world war, too! You complain that we're the world police, but ya need us, don'tcha?!" .... Well, if it weren't for US, a lot fewer people would be in dire need of basic things like food and shelter. And if it weren't for Mexicans, Mexico could feed themselves because the super-rich Mexicans are the equivalent of the super-rich Americans! The major difference is that the super- rich Mexicans actually OWN their country and government.

I just wanted to chip in a few more ideas.

A lot of traditional culture exists only because of traditional conditions: time wealth, money poverty. Traditional craftsmanship requires long generational chains of expertise, passed from old to young, mother to daughter. It requires a lot of uncapitalised, 'worthless' time. Nobody with a Palm Pilot schedules three months to make a blanket. As soon as time becomes money, you kill traditional culture.

Some people say it's patronising to condemn the March of the Golden Arches, wherever it may go. These people call attempts to preserve traditional culture 'sentimental'. They say that MacDonalds is simply increasing the dietary choices available to people in whichever country it opens in next.

Once you put trad crafts or cuisines on sale on a supermarket shelf alongside global products, several changes take place at the local level:

1. The people who made them realise they can't afford their own products, let alone the western ones beside them, without getting a job pumping gas. Which doesn't allow them time to make the blankets any more. It's easy enough to get into watching TV and drinking beer instead. The muscles turn to fat.

2. When your own trad culture is just another consumer choice, you may well want to choose an 'exotic' and escapist product like a Big Mac. The people selecting your trad products are probably tourists. Suddenly you're producing for, and consuming in, the global economy. Result: your trad culture, intact for thousands of years, is instantly undermined and turned into something totally different -- a capitalist commodity. It changes. It becomes plastic. What once was a tribal tribute to Apku the Sun Spirit is soon made only by professionals with canny marketing skills.

3. Maybe the internet is the place to start making new versions of the lost traditional cultures. The 'threads' woven here on Greenspun resemble tradional basketwork in pre-global economies in that they're made communally (no copyright or assertion of authorship issues here, no professionalisation, although many of us are professionals elsewhere), they're made less for money than for passion (love, hate, to pass the time, to assert community), and they're not (yet) for sale (I know people have talked about putting this stuff in a book, but really, is that likely? All those flame wars, cast in stone? I think not.) Greenspun threads, like ethnic woven products in remote mountain republics, have high use value but little exchange value. So it's safe to say that Greenspun will not be franchising its way to ubiquity the way McDonald's did.

This is a much more modern marketing plan than McD's. Let's make an artefact we devote hours and weeks and months of our lives to, and don't even think about selling. It's like a rug. It's made of threads.

What I want to know is, would Momus prefer that 'cranky religious minorities, Bible bashers and mercantile untouchables' be prevented from helping to mould a 'culture'?

From what he's posted, yes. It seems that culture is only culture in Momus's mind if Momus approves of it.

Re the asylum seeker parade. There was a big ANL rally after the Glasgow murder which does not really count but does at least show that plenty of people want to offer support. Being anti-asylum seeking is nimby-ism at its worst. People will agree with the principles but then say why don't they go to France/German? The result of having the most spoken language in the world perhaps? The empire based (but as Robin rightly says exeplified by the 50 BBS middle class) monoculture has reaped its reward on that front.

suggested slogan: WE'RE HERE, WE'RE BOGUS, GET USED TO US

(Obv. requires "bogus" being reclaimed, like queer was: so let's start here...)

suggested slogan: WE'RE HERE, WE'RE BOGUS, GET USED TO US

(Obv. requires "bogus" being reclaimed, like queer was: so let's start here...)

Mark's original post on asylum seekers etc. seemed to present almost exactly the same argument as Jonathan Freedland's "Bring Home The Revolution", the most interesting British liberal tract of the late 90s *precisely because* it broke down the excessive smug anti- Americanism of some in "the Guardian coterie" (for want of a better phrase). Didn't agree with every word of it, less now Bush is in, but the point is that it stimulated me, made me think, overturned pre- conceptions. Virtually the whole of this thread has done that, for which I'm grateful, and Freedland's basic argument - that too many people *still* see Britain as a concept defined by ethnicity rather than civic values and therefore see incomers as a threat - is basically, sadly, true.

Sorry, I have nothing of substance to add here. It's just that this resonated so strongly with me that I almost feel like an optimist again.

I'd just like to say that I hope this does NOT happen (again).

lol what is up with monoculture