"Western Culture" and Non-Western Cultures

[Debater Slayer]

I'm against culture of any kind.

It's just easier that way.

Even mushroom culture?

 

[Quagmire]

Even mushroom culture?

Don't get me started.

 

[Ella S.]

You might have already known this and are merely trying to steel-man an opponent's position, but "Western culture" is a eurocentric ethno-nationalist dog whistle. Generally, when people are advocating for the superiority of "Western culture" they're either knowingly or unwittingly borrowing from the rhetoric and ideology of White Supremacism.

It was never meant to be a coherent concept. It's meant to foster a sense of racial tribalism.

 

[Stevicus]

Why can't we have North, South, East and West..? Isn't that how it goes?

I see no reason we can't have that.

 

[Rival]

You might have already known this and are merely trying to steel-man an opponent's position, but "Western culture" is a eurocentric ethno-nationalist dog whistle. Generally, when people are advocating for the superiority of "Western culture" they're either knowingly or unwittingly borrowing from the rhetoric and ideology of White Supremacism.

It was never meant to be a coherent concept. It's meant to foster a sense of racial tribalism.

I'm sorry?

I'm European and I've never heard it used this way at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have encountered the argument that "Western culture," whatever one understands that term to include, is generally better than non-Western cultures. I personally find this to be an oversimplified and potentially harmful view for multiple reasons, but I'm interested to know what others here think.

I voted <yes> because of "generally"
but I also wanted to vote #3, ie, better
in some ways, but not in others.

 

[Ella S.]

I'm sorry?

I'm European and I've never heard it used this way at all.

There are cases where the concept of "Western culture" can be used coherently, such as when talking about how Western culture tends to be more individualistic than Eastern culture, or how religion is mostly a construct of Western culture, and so on. That's the nature of most of these sorts of dog whistles: many of them have a proper use so it's easier to hide them in plain sight.

Nonetheless, if someone is using Western culture in a vague way and promoting its general superiority, it's usually going to be because they're influenced by white supremacism. It's a tactic full-on white supremacists use to shift the Overton Window and radicalize those who are susceptible to taking that sentiment further. It's rarely a good faith dialogue.

 

[Debater Slayer]

[...] or how religion is mostly a construct of Western culture [...]

That would be factually incorrect considering that at least the four most popular religions in the world originated in Eastern countries, though.

 

[Rival]

Nonetheless, if someone is using Western culture in a vague way and promoting its general superiority, it's usually going to be because they're influenced by white supremacism. It's a tactic full-on white supremacists use to shift the Overton Window and radicalize those who are susceptible to taking that sentiment further. It's rarely a good faith dialogue.

Who is doing that? Western culture is very real how layfolks talk about it. When we say 'the West' we mean generally Europe and Anglophone countries that operate usually on systems of Liberal Democracy, Secularism and have Christianity as a historic basis. It's a needful term often when distinguishing from the Asian sphere, China and its orbit, Korea, etc. And the Middle Eastern and more broadly Islamic sphere that has been traditionally allied against Christendom and vice versa

The reason we have trouble defining the West is because it often carries historical and religious underpinnings that aren't politically correct and it is largely based on Christianity, Mediaeval Christendom going back to Rome etc. Some people who want to seem modern don't like this.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm sorry?

I'm European and I've never heard it used this way at all.

Sam Harris and Douglas Murray have both used it in a similar manner. That's one of the reasons I've distanced myself from "New Atheism."

 

[Rival]

Sam Harris and Douglas Murray have both used it in a similar manner. That's one of the reasons I've distanced myself from "New Atheism."

I would hardly call Douglas Murray a New Atheist, to be fair. Sam is. Douglas is a modern conservative and his atheism isn't his defining feature. He agrees more with Peterson than Harris.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Who is doing that? Western culture is very real how layfolks talk about it. When we say 'the West' we mean generally Europe and Anglophone countries that operate usually on systems of Liberal Democracy, Secularism and have Christianity as a historic basis. It's a needful term often when distinguishing from the Asian sphere, China and its orbit, Korea, etc. And the Middle Eastern and more broadly Islamic sphere that has been traditionally allied against Christendom and vice versa

The basis you listed is very generalized, so it's often hard to glean any meaningful distinction from it. By that definition, both Denmark and the US are within "Western culture," but how useful is that grouping when they have major cultural, political, and historical differences?

The reason we have trouble defining the West is because it often carries historical and religious underpinnings that aren't politically correct.

I don't think this is often the case, at least for those of us who consider the term "Eastern culture" to be similarly vague and ill-defined.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would hardly call Douglas Murray a New Atheist, to be fair. Sam is. Douglas is a modern conservative and his atheism isn't his defining feature. He agrees more with Peterson than Harris.

Yeah, I was thinking more of Harris as the reason for my alienation from New Atheism, but both he and Murray have cited "Western culture" in contexts where they have used it to argue for harmful or simply supremacist points. In Harris' case, this seems to tie into his record of justification for violent foreign policy. In Murray's case, it ties into anti-immigration rhetoric that borrows from the "great replacement" theory.

 

[Rival]

The basis you listed is very generalized, so it's often hard to glean any meaningful distinction from it. By that definition, both Denmark and the US are within "Western culture," but how useful is that grouping when they have major cultural, political, and historical differences?

It's meant to be, that's why I said layfolks. Laity aren't bothered to reconcile these kinds of things where we're talking in vague terms that in conversation everyone knows what they mean. If you went to Denmark or the US they'd feel more similar to each other than if you went to Korea or Mumbai.

What I'm trying to say though is that most people using this term don't mean it in some kind of supremacist sense. Maybe that's an issue for some people, but it's generally not from what I've heard. It's just a term used to define the cultures that go back to Mediaeval Christianity, historic Europe and its offshoots, Canada etc. It defines us as well as it needs in context. We're clearly not Asain, Middle Eastern or African.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's meant to be, that's why I said layfolks. Laity aren't bothered to reconcile these kinds of things where we're talking in vague terms that in conversation everyone knows what they mean. If you went to Denmark or the US they'd feel more similar to each other than if you went to Korea or Mumbai.

What I'm trying to say though is that most people using this term don't mean it in some kind of supremacist sense. Maybe that's an issue for some people, but it's generally not from what I've heard. It's just a term used to define the cultures that go back to Mediaeval Christianity, historic Europe and its offshoots, Canada etc. It defines us as well as it needs in context. We're clearly not Asain, Middle Eastern or African.

Yeah, I agree that most people don't really use the term in a supremacist manner, although I have seen some do so inadvertently or unknowingly. I know I personally used to argue for the superiority of "Western culture" when I was vehemently anti-religious and blamed religion for the Middle East's problems.

 

[Koldo]

I have encountered the argument that "Western culture," whatever one understands that term to include, is generally better than non-Western cultures. I personally find this to be an oversimplified and potentially harmful view for multiple reasons, but I'm interested to know what others here think.

Tricky question. I consider myself a progressive, and I see more nations being backwards in the non-western part of the world. But it is not so simple... Western culture is not a monolith and it has a long history of problems (world wars and colonialism, for example).

 

[Koldo]

Who is doing that? Western culture is very real how layfolks talk about it. When we say 'the West' we mean generally Europe and Anglophone countries that operate usually on systems of Liberal Democracy, Secularism and have Christianity as a historic basis. It's a needful term often when distinguishing from the Asian sphere, China and its orbit, Korea, etc. And the Middle Eastern and more broadly Islamic sphere that has been traditionally allied against Christendom and vice versa

The reason we have trouble defining the West is because it often carries historical and religious underpinnings that aren't politically correct and it is largely based on Christianity, Mediaeval Christendom going back to Rome etc. Some people who want to seem modern don't like this.

It is important to take note that you have mentioned specifically "Europe and Anglophone countries", even though Latin America has also been colonized by an european nation, speaks an european language, has a lot of european descendents, is mostly Christian just like Europe, operates mostly on systems of social democracy and secularism, is on the western part of the globe, etc.

Do you understand why excluding latin america when talking about the western world/culture can come across as white supremacism even if that is not intended?

 

[Rival]

It is important to take note that you have mentioned specifically "Europe and Anglophone countries", even though Latin America has also been colonized by an european nation, speaks an european language, has a lot of european descendents, is mostly Christian just like Europe, operates mostly on systems of social democracy and secularism, is on the western part of the globe, etc.

Do you understand why excluding latin america when talking about the western world/culture can come across as white supremacism even if that is not intended?

Yes, but these cultures suffer from the problems we had with the Spanish Empire. Rightly they should be included but for complex historical reasons tend not to be.

It's due to the Black Legend.

So if we are talking about what everyday people consider the West, due to this historical blunder, the Latin Americas tend not to be included. This isn't due to conscious bias but centuries of politicking.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I have encountered the argument that "Western culture," whatever one understands that term to include, is generally better than non-Western cultures. I personally find this to be an oversimplified and potentially harmful view for multiple reasons, but I'm interested to know what others here think.

I have read many times that once non-western countries are westernized, their health suffers.

 

[wellwisher]

I have encountered the argument that "Western culture," whatever one understands that term to include, is generally better than non-Western cultures. I personally find this to be an oversimplified and potentially harmful view for multiple reasons, but I'm interested to know what others here think.

Western Culture is more extroverted, which means is seeks things that are outsell itself, such as money and material things. Eastern culture is more introspective and seeks value more from within; enlightenment.

The most populous countries of the world, tend to be more introverted; China and India, since too much extroversion would place a strain on already limited external resources. China, which is becoming more Western now needs to seek extra resources, outside the country, to make up for the added extroverted demand not balanced by introspection.

The value of the extroverted approach is it focus on the external sensory world, has allowed it to change the environment and create technology to improve the standard of living; external things. On the downside, most of the empires of the past 500 years have been from the West due to the compulsive demand for external things. China stayed in country longer due to the fruits of introspection.

Religious freedom is about introspection; prayer and mediation. But the extroverted approach has tried to sabotage this introspective approach leading to extra strain on world resources.