06.11.07
A Question of Values
There is an idea among a certain spectrum of thinkers concerning the nature of western power in the world today. This idea has to do with systems of values that have enabled the advanced democracies of the west to eclipse other parts of the world in recent years and become the most powerful single geopolitical group in the world. As the world becomes more tightly integrated and the level of economic competition increases between nations, many of these same people find themselves thinking that what has happened to the west is a loss of our sense of our roots. The thinking goes that if we lose sight of our culture, we will fail, since this is what gives us our greatest strength.
However, this then forces the question of what elements of that culture are the ones that have given us the advantages that we seemingly enjoy. The knee-jerk reaction of every conservative thinker is that it all stems from our Judeo-Christian systems of belief, and that is we fall away from these we condemn ourselves to lacking the conviction to remain competitive in the face of forces like Islamic extremism or a rising China. As Samuel Huntington famously argued, the world is shaping up for a clash of civilizations, and we must hold fast to our roots if we hope to survive.
History unfortunately seems to paint a different picture. True enough; the countries that today are considered in the First World are indeed the cultural descendants of Catholicism and Protestantism, thereby part of a set of values that trace themselves to the Christian values that many reactionaries are so concerned about losing. But ask yourself what major factor it was that began is ascent of the west. It was not the word of Jesus, but a rising secularism and the collapse of religion’s stranglehold on European politics and culture. The strength of Western culture rose out of the rejection of traditional values which came to Europe initially, perhaps exactly because of the fractious nature of European politics. After all, no part of the world was simultaneously so integrated yet so fractured, which allowed for a great diversity of ideas.
Perhaps the biggest failure of the “culture†argument is in the case of Japan. While we want to believe that we are somehow superior, the Japanese have succeeded admirably in the Western-dominated international system, and the source of their value systems is very different from our own. What they did was to adapt and change with the needs and demands of changing international systems – precisely what the west did, and precisely what much of the former colonized world is now doing.
Westerners are tempted to retreat into the cave of “values†thinking somehow that getting back to churches will save them from the world. This thinking is wrong. In order to succeed in the world today more innovation, more willingness to reevaluate value systems and more willingness to integrate is the key to the future. Culture is, and must be a changing thing. It warps, contracts, expands, and grows over time. Attempting to isolate some golden age is unrealistic, and a sure way to implode. China has fundamentally changed the way it looks at the world and the way its people live. Likely it will continue to do so. The ancient affinity for strong central governments will evaporate as economic considerations give way to an increased role for the middle class in government. Will this look like a European democracy? Probably not, but already the changes are taking place.
In the West, the countries that will succeed in the future are those that recognize the changing role of business and the changing economy and embrace flexibility. Most importantly – empower their citizens/workers to flourish under ever-changing conditions. This means encouraging health, education, and morale at home (this is especially true in the US where the bottom is falling out of the middle-class and the new question is “how low can you goâ€). Simply getting back to outdated and largely irrelevant value systems will not fix anything, and will leave us buried behind those who engage in a willingness to change.
Radical Islam is reactionary. It is an idealization of a system that is simply no longer realistic, but it highlights that the Middle East is engaged in a process of reevaluation of culture and its relationship with the world. The west should be no different, but we should be looking forward lest we stumble of the precipice while we fumble around in the past. So should they.