Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

August 23rd, 2005

Tags

Comments

14 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Is Culture Fate?

In preparation for my stay in Syria, I’ve been preparing myself in a variety of ways. One book I’ve been reading about intercultural problems and a guide for Westerners mentions the following:

“A good personal relationship is the most important single factor in doing business successfully with Arabs.”

“You will find it useful to become widely acquainted in business circles and, if you learn to mix business with pleasure, you will soon see how the latter helps the former proceed. In the end, personal contacts lead to more efficiency than following rules or regulations. This is proven over and over again, when a quick telephone call to the right person cuts through lengthy procedures and seemingly insurmountable obstacles.”[1]

The author notes the same for relationships between Westerners and Arabs on a personal, non-business related level. Friendships between Arabs are much “higher maintainence” than between Westerners. Arabs also never say no to a request for a favor or help, but rather “God wiling,” “I’ll try,” etc. A direct no is insulting and makes the other person lose face. Thus, a “yes” from an Arab does not actually mean he’ll do what he’s said. Words and custom are more important whereas in the West, actions speak louder than words as they say.

Upon reading the above cited paragraph, I immediately had to wonder whether this was a cultural difference which can lead to misunderstandings, or a cultural problem of Arabs which has led to their problems? After all, there are indeed very concrete characteristics of failing cultures as I’ve discussed in the past. Could the aforementioned paragraph be hitting upon another? And, at this time, the discusion should be extended to not just the Arab world but the Muslim world as the same things hold true in Iran, Turkey, Central Asia, etc.

First, I’d like to split this into two parts, structural and personal. By structural, I mean business and political structures. Most of the developing and especially undeveloped world is rife with corruption and as a result, who you know is always more important than what you know. Therefore, to some extent the types of personal relationships described above are also characteristic of the third world. Life goes on, if not within the rules, then another way is found. It’s also no secret all of the Muslim world is either developing or undeveloped. There are a select few out there who indeed seem to have a bright future, such as Tunesia and Jordan, but the others have a long way to go.

Thus far, we find only corellation between this cultural trait and unsuccessful countries. In order to look for causation, let us examine the personal level. Here, honor is is seen as being of the utmost importance. A funny anecodote from the book is that a Westerner invented a fake address in Riyadh and went around asking people where it was. Everyone gave him an answer, and the pinnacle was when two police officers simultaneously pointed in different directions upon asked where the place was. Add to the importance of honor and never saying “I don’t know” or “No” the extended family, and you have a society, which when faced with Western values and systems, is very dysfunctional. Naturally, were the Arabs the most powerful it would be us who had failing systems, however, this is not the case and the West has forged ahead leaving the others behind.

As modern development and the rise of the West is only a recent thing, and culture, though it changes over time, goes back to the early days of man, it would indeed seem most likely that culture is responsible to a large degree for the failure of societies. The question is the degree, or directness of causation, and the effects of the combination of various cultural traits. According to Ralph Peters,

Culture is fate. Countries, clans, military services, and individual soldiers are products of their respective cultures, and they are either empowered or imprisoned. The majority of the world’s inhabitants are prisoners of their cultures, and they will rage against inadequacies they cannot admit, cannot bear, and cannot escape…[2]

Other traits of failing cultures include:

  • Restrictions on the free flow of information.
  • The subjugation of women.
  • Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
  • The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
  • Domination by a restrictive religion.
  • A low value of education.
  • Low prestige assigned to work.

To sum up the challenge facing Arabs, Muslims and the Gap in general Peters says:

Globalization demands conformity to the practices of the global leaders, especially those of the United States. If you do not confrm – or innovate – you lose. If you try to quit the game, you lose even more profoundly.

Comments to this entry

Dan tdaxp
August 23, 2005
12:41 pm
How would you compare the importance of cultures to the importance of societies (voluntary cultural sub-groups, such as doctors, meth-heads, etc)
Kushibo
August 23, 2005
1:30 pm
It looks like parts of the Bible Belt may be considered a failing culture.
Mutant Frog Travelogue » Blog Archive » Guns, Germs, and Steel- a reader’s exercise
August 23, 2005
3:44 pm
[...] At the moment I am about 2/3 of the way through Jared Diamond’s book “Guns, Germs, and Steel.” Basically it’s a history of human civilization written by a scientist, trying to uncover root the root causes for the success and failure of civilizations around the world while attempting to destroy the racist and culturalist theories behind the common ‘rise of the west’ narrative. With this rolling around in my head, here is my off the cuff (and in true blog style, completely unedited) attempt at a response to a post over on the blog Cominganarchy.com, in which Chirol argues that Arab cultural values are responsible for their current material backwardness. I don’t normally post this sort of thing here, but it may lead to some interesting comments. [...]
Dan
August 23, 2005
6:27 pm
* Restrictions on the free flow of information.
* The subjugation of women.
* Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
* The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
* Domination by a restrictive religion.
* A low value of education.
* Low prestige assigned to work.

Kushibo, all seem like Leftist qualities. Just attend a college lecture. The atmosphere is more anti-speech, anti-woman, anti-responsibility, anti-religious-diversity, anti-education, and anti-work than can be believed ;)
Alfred Russel Wallace
August 23, 2005
8:03 pm
I'm not sure that it is fair to describe the traits you suggest as those of a failing culture, implying it was working better in the past.... Rather I would say that many of the positive things we accept as our birthright come from our post-enlightenment culture, which places a premium on a questioning of everything. And real questioning can only come from a falsifiable world view - the fundamental basis of science.
Dave Schuler
August 23, 2005
9:06 pm
I don't think that culture is fate. But I do think that some cultural practices impose costs that other cultures may not have to bear. Take, for example, any culture that makes a distinction between the vernacular and the literary language. In order for people who live in such cultures to become literate they must learn a new language. The time and effort needed to do that are costs.

Similarly, a ban on lending money at interest imposes a cost (both in the form of motivation and in the form of the friction that circumventions require and the lack of auditability the circumventions themselves imply). Removing half of your workers from the labor force imposes a cost. And so on.
mark safranski
August 23, 2005
10:10 pm
A few thoughts on dysfunctional cultures:

*Dysfunctional OODA cycle*:

"Restrictions on the free flow of information, Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure, Domination by a restrictive ( version of a) religion.
A low value of education.

*Irrational Allocation of Labor Resources*:

The subjugation of women, The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization - _when they become the limiting factor on the growth of nascent economic organizations_

The Chinese and Koreans have used Confucian-based extended family structures as vehicles for pooling resources and accumulating wealth so I don't think this has to be a negative.

To this list I would like to add:

*Risk Aversion*

*Time Orientation to the Present/ preference for immediate gratification*

* Private violence as socially acceptable enforcement of implicit Rule-sets*

*Extrinsic - shame morality* ( as opposed to intrinsic-guilt morality)

* Envy-based social disapproval of strivers* (As the Russians like to say, the nail that stands up gets hit)

All cultural factors that inhibit individual initiative and accumulation of capital.
mark safranski
August 23, 2005
10:12 pm
Hmm, not sure why extrinsic shame morality was crossed out - or why some text went reeaaaallly small. Must have hit a key in an odd way. Sorry !
mark safranski
August 23, 2005
11:41 pm
Hey, on a related tangent from the blog *Gene Expression*:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Enisbett/formalreas.pdf
Mutantfrog
August 24, 2005
1:14 am
I tried posting my response here as a comment but no go. Any luck this time?
Curzon
August 24, 2005
1:52 am
The most interesting thing about the rise and fall of great powers is how cyclical it is. Certain nations have been the dominant powers through history -- Syria, Egypt, Macedonia, Rome, the Islamic Empire, Mongolia, Spain, France, Britain, Russia, the United States... no one rules forever. Much of what we consider to be failing culture in our description of the Arab world could have been used to describe much of the West only a few hundred years ago. Need I bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc etc.?

This rise and fall is the destiny of humanity. Societies that get rich and fat proceed to get lazy... and other societies gain strength through hard work while the older order gets weaker. This was laid out in the Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun -- the rise and fall of socities is as old as the human race.
Kushibo
August 24, 2005
4:13 am
In order for people who live in such cultures to become literate they must learn a new language. The time and effort needed to do that are costs.
This is not really meant to contradict your point, but sometimes these "costs" can provide their own benefit. Being forced to learn a "second" language, or in the case of many East Asians, learning complex Chinese characters, provides a sociological and/or biological compensation that can end up being quite beneficial later on.
Chirol
August 24, 2005
12:43 pm
Mark: If you have a dash, and don't put a space between it and the next word, it strikes out everything (I don't like it either). Fixed it for you.

MutantFrog: Don't know why. Ask YH.

Curzon: Yes, perhaps I didn't clearly state that these features are for ALL cultures and I was merely using Arab culture as an example. Naturally it extends to other peoples and to the past as well.

All:

I think first of all, Mutant Frog makes a good point in mentiong Guns, Germs and Steel. I've just finished it myself, last week. It seems that over time, many, though not all, of the factors which have led to the rise of certain groups have been environmental, luck of the draw. The biggest two he mentions are available plants that can be domesticated and large mammals which can be domesticated. Many areas such as the Americas, Africa and Oceana had little to work with and thus did not develop like the peoples in Eurasia did.

However, today, after centuries of global trade, most places have about the same access to food, animals and technology as others. A private citizen can fly anywhere in the world within a day. Thus, most of the original environmental factors have already played themselves out.

The big wildcard has been culture. While according to GG&S, the most important factors are environmental, culture has also played a key role. An example of such was the Japanese banning the use of guns and thus going backwards. Conservative culture thus played an important role in keeping the country behind.

So, for everyone, please understand that I'm not saying culture is the sole reason the Arabs are backwards. I'm saying that their culture, in its present state, contains a number of factors which impair development and transition into modernity. Naturally this will change over time. It's not written in the stars, as was mentioned they were indeed a world power for a few hundred years and ages ahead of Europe.

Dan: To your first comment, I don't see this as a big difference.
The "society" would probably be characterized by the dominant culture, though naturally sub-cultures exist. Sub-cultures are exactly what the name implies, sometimes parallel may be more accurate too. There are many sub groups inside the US itself whose cultures are replete with the factors mentioned above. Thus, it is no surprise. The poor, both black and white, tend to put little prestige on work and little value on education, so surprise surprise they are going nowhere. I hope that answered your question, if not then do be more specific.
lirelou
August 24, 2005
4:57 pm
Dave, spoken Dutch and literary Dutch also differ, but it hasn't seemed to hold the neederlanders back. And Chirol. Not sure about the firearms analogy. The Japanese had firearms during the Imjin wars, which appear as effective as the european weapons of their time. And while they did subsequently abandon firearms, the Koreans and Chinese did not. But by the 19th Century, who was ahead? Was Japan any more backward than China or Korea? All tried to hermetically seal their borders to outsiders, and two (China and Korea) were forced to open theirs at gunpoint. In the case of Japan, however, their opening was voluntary, if controversial (and under an implied threat). Could the difference in the way these societies modernized lie therein?