The Birth and Death of Cultures
Sven Gelbhaar
Sub-cultures are enveloped and assimilated into cultures with more power —
cultures who have more constituents, or which have citizens who control vital
resources. Take the example of the Quaker subculture in North America: they are
charged with paying taxes, among other things, to the U. S. Federal Government.
If they don’t do this, the federal government will leverage physical violence
against the constituents, or rather adherents, of the Quaker subculture.
If the subculture has to pay taxes, that means it needs to participate in the
economy of the super-culture. Furthermore, as the subculture is more desperate
for the currency of the superculture, they get a worse valuation of their
products/exports within the super (culture) economy.
As the subculture must do business with the superculture to prevent physical and
sociological violence, they must make more concessions culturally as well.
Moreover, their laws must reflect those of the superculture. They can extend the
supercultures prohibitions, laws, and statutes, but if they condone something
prohibited by the superculture then again violence, or the threat of violence,
is meted out to the adherents’ of the subculture. The exception of legalizing
gambling on Native American jurisdiction is just that: an exception.
The above are just the plight of extant subcultures. Nascent subcultures face
even more difficulties. There are the obstacles of securing land, and breaking
away from the mores, virtues, and ideals of the superculture against the appeal
and familiarity of their native/childhood culture.
Just as Marx predicted the capital and means of production concentrating in the
hands of less and less entities — people and corporations — so too do cultures
compete for adherents and land. Orson Scott Card penned a terrific treatise on
Edge- and Center-cultures. A famous post-Roman historian, whose name escapes me,
stated that empires, read: cultures, rise, climax, and dissolve. There is no way
that this can happen any longer until sufficient strain is applied to the
Center-cultures and their manifestations: nations.
What makes Right? That depends on who you ask. This doesn’t imply that there is
no Objective Truth on the subject. The only way to maintain culture is conflict.
If we allow our culture to decline or be replaced with another, then that is
exactly what will happen. Cultural Relativism is the death knell of a incumbent
culture. This leads to abstracting cultural motifs that are common to all
cultures in question. For example, people say “Happy Holidays” instead of
“Merry Christmas” or “Happy Hanuka.” If stipulations are made for all cultures
involved, then the populace is negatively galvanized and roused to assert its
culture. The abstracted cultural exhibitions are unsatisfying to all adherents
across the vying cultures.
Contemporary society demands democracy. This has been defined as the tyranny of
the majority. The morals and ethics of the numerically dominant culture are
written into laws of the land. It’s for this reason that people, let alone
members of different (sub-) cultures, cannot buy alcohol at certain hours of the
night and in some places even certain days of the week. Laws of this nature are
termed “Blue Laws,” and they are numerous. Shia law(s) are another example of
legislating morality. See Kory Pickard’s paper: Legislating Morality.
The smallest culture that is possible is that of an individual Normally
individuals throw their lot in with groups of others that share similar views,
but this is not always the case. Every so often extant cultures schism and
secede from a mother culture. Even more rarely, an entirely new culture springs
into existence spurred on by one individual. “The normal person adapts to
his/her environment; it is the fool that adapts his environment to him- or
her-self.” -unknown. Fools don’t get the credit they are due.
This new culture is usually centered around a central tenant or person, which is
venerated by its adherents. Unfortunately there is no land left in the world
which isn’t ruled by at least one culture. Even Antarctica is partitioned off
amongst the dominant nations of today: the USA, China, and Russia.
An ideal culture is insisting and compelling, and imbues its adherents with the
most benefits over its competitors. Useful, or Utilitarian, cultures allow for
the satiation of the needs of the adherents. These have been enumerated by the
psychologist Manslow. Food, water, shelter, social harmony. What Manslow does
not mention are a credible anticipation of an improvement in their lives, and
having a purpose in life. The culture, in the form of nations, that guarantee
the best deal for the adherents will therefore be more likely to spread and
thrive.