David Brooks of the New York Times really knows how to screw up my favorite field of study – cultural geography. It would have been nice if he would have first done some interviews with Cultural Geographers before he wrote this week’s column, “All Cultures are Not Equal“.
He starts the column off with the whole reason that when I was a young man I decided that I wanted to study culture.
“Let’s say you are an 18-year-old kid with a really big brain. You’re trying to figure out which field of study you should devote your life to, so you can understand the forces that will be shaping history for decades to come. Go into the field that barely exists: cultural geography. Study why and how people cluster, why certain national traits endure over centuries, why certain cultures embrace technology and economic growth and others resist them.”
This was exactly why I decided early in my life that I wanted to travel all around the world and be exposed to as many cultures and beliefs that I could. So I could answer those questions. But David then throws in his conservative slant. His first thing is to throw in the “university elites are a bunch of liberals” line.
“This is the line of inquiry that is now impolite to pursue. The gospel of multiculturalism preaches that all groups and cultures are equally wonderful. There are a certain number of close-minded thugs, especially on university campuses, who accuse anybody who asks intelligent questions about groups and enduring traits of being racist or sexist.”
First, I have yet to meet a Cultural Geographer that has stated that there was a culture that was terrible. As social scientist, you can not be subjective (like a newspaper columnist), you can only be objective. You study the facts that you can find. You test them and see if your conclusions are correct. At that time, you can state that the culture of Nazi Germany was “not good”. Of course, you will have to defend your conclusions with fellow scientists and if you can defend your arguments, your conclusions will be accepted by a majority of the people.
So, David that is strike one in your argument. Not good that you still haven’t gotten to your argument for the column.
“”The economists and scientists tend to assume that material factors drive history – resources and brain chemistry – because that’s what they can measure and count. But none of this helps explain a crucial feature of our time: while global economies are converging, cultures are diverging, and the widening cultural differences are leading us into a period of conflict, inequality and segmentation.”
So here is the gist of his argument. Teenagers should not go into economics or science, because they can not explain the widening gaps in culture due to globalization. Hmmm, interesting. However, to be a successful cultural geographer, you need to understand economics. What do you think drives people the most? It ain’t love, it’s money. As for science, I think I already argued that point. I’ll call it a ball on that one, David.
“Not long ago, people said that globalization and the revolution in communications technology would bring us all together. But the opposite is true. People are taking advantage of freedom and technology to create new groups and cultural zones. Old national identities and behavior patterns are proving surprisingly durable. People are moving into self-segregating communities with people like themselves, and building invisible and sometimes visible barriers to keep strangers out. If you look just around the United States you find amazing cultural segmentation. We in America have been “globalized” (meaning economically integrated) for centuries, and yet far from converging into some homogeneous culture, we are actually diverging into lifestyle segments. The music, news, magazine and television markets have all segmented, so there are fewer cultural unifiers like Life magazine or Walter Cronkite.
Okay, first the global technology revolution has brought us together. Everyday we see into the lives of people on the other side of the planet. Most Americans know more about this world than their parents did and especially their grandparents did. Medical scientists are able to pool resources around the world to come up with medical cures quicker. In my blogging and work, I have been able to have long philosophical debates on a whole range of topics with people all over the world.
As for the segmentation that has happen recently, it has been based on two things: Specialization of Knowledge and Fear. Specialization of knowledge is a good and a bad thing. The good part is it has allowed us all to become experts and advance specific fields of knowledge. Numerous fields have been able to spring up, because a person could put all of their effort into that one subject. The bad part is it has allowed us all to become experts and advance specific fields of knowledge. I now have to go see eight different doctors to look at four different parts of my body. I’m lucky, I’m a guy. I feel for the ladies.
Then there is the fear part. The prime example of this has been the White Flight issue that started back in the 1960’s as whites started to fear the impact of black and other minority cultures on their children. Oddly, for Mr. Brooks this was thanks to the rants and raves of conservatives back then and still today. But, in what can be only called karma, white youth today knows more about Snoop Doggy Dog, Puff Daddy, and Jackie Chan than they do of..um.uh…who’s a famous white cultural youth hero? So, again, cultures are mixing together. One thing that cultural geographers know today, is that you can not run from culture. Sorry, David, that was a foul ball – strike two!!
“Meanwhile, if you look around the world you see how often events are driven by groups that reject the globalized culture. Islamic extremists reject the modern cultures of Europe, and have created a hyperaggressive fantasy version of traditional Islamic purity. In a much different and less violent way, some American Jews have moved to Hebron and become hyper-Zionists. From Africa to Seattle, religiously orthodox students reject what they see as the amoral mainstream culture, and carve out defiant revival movements. From Rome to Oregon, antiglobalization types create their own subcultures.
Again, this is explainable from the last part. There are groups, mostly conservative (what is the definition of conservative again?), that are fighting these forces. I find it amazing that David does not mention the fundamentalist Christian extremists right here in America that are fighting globalization forces. There is a reason that FOX News can not cover international issues – their core demographic does not want to hear it. Oops, pop up…and..and..its caught. Sorry, David – You’re Out!
That was a bad turn at bat for you David. Your first mistake was that you tried to set up a case that liberals don’t want you to study culture and dissect it. This is actually what conservatives, like yourself, are really about. Liberals have always study different cultures so we can understand why people in that particular culture act that way. From this, we could come to an understanding about how they would react when certain things happenned. Conservatives, on the other hand, expect all people to act like them. This is why Bush’s foreign policy is such a cluster fuck. He thinks people will always react the same way or not at all based on how he acts. Wrong!!! Unless, you understand the culture of an area or group, you will never understand how they act.
Then, your biggest folly, was trying to put down other cultures, when in fact you were putting down your own conservative culture. There is a reason that many people say that they see no difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic or Jewish fundamentalism. It is all the same. One culture that is trying to force its own views and beliefs on other people’s culture. Sometimes violence will occur, either by the party being taken over or the one forcing itself on to the other. We, liberals, know that. It would be nice for once, your side to know it too.
This is also posted at “Six Degrees of Aaron“.