Melting Pot Vs. The Salad Bowl (Culture Wise)

cardboard adolescent · 10-13-2009, 02:15 PM

lol, as though america has a culture

seriously though, i like the fact that capitalism and globalization break down cultures. that can go two ways, of course, people can begin to recognize the universality in cultures--the fact that all cultures and cultural edifices are built around certain fundamental human needs, and express more or less the same hopes and desires, perhaps even to the point of recognizing that all religions express a recurrent 'transcendent' insight (probably inspired by mushrooms), but it can also go the opposite way, that is, of cultures breaking down and leaving a void in their wake--a void which will unfortunately have to be filled with consumerism. as far as i can tell, both of these processes are taking place. for instance, you have the skeptical/relativistic/nihilistic hipster, who derides culture and embraces superficiality since, after all, there is nothing beneath the surface--or you have the liberal 'open-minded' semi-intellectual who reads sufi poetry and the bhagavad gita and the new testament and says "they're all the same, man!" we're slowly but surely moving out of the time when preserving culture and religion were the task of an upper-class elite, who in this way backhandedly justified the economic disbalance, since, after all, they used their lives of comfort to put the people in touch with something 'eternal.' this still persists, of course, both the hipster and the academic can only play those roles because of their economic position, but at the same time access to information is much more widespread, and there is an inherent drive in globalization to 'embrace the other,' after all, you'll probably be working together soon.

so what am i getting at? despite the fact that many believe we are living in a 'post-ideological' era, i think we are finally entering into an ideological era. for instance, while the crusades were ostensibly about restoring christianity by regaining the holy land, really they were about securing territory--in the past ideology has always acted as a smokescreen for political or economic powerplays. as we move more and more toward a standardized political/economic/social system, as we reconstruct the system in ways that make it harder for people to gain and use power, as the measure of a person's worth becomes not their charisma or the strength of their voice but simply how well they can operate by the system's protocols, I think the significant conflicts that will emerge between people will become genuinely ideological. i think that as the sense of identity that goes with 'belonging to a country' breaks down, people will reconstruct that identity through their beliefs, and will organize themselves based on ideology. you can see the same sort of thing happening on the internet, though it restricts itself primarily to superficial forms--people group based on the kind of music they like or in most cases based on what they consume--their tastes. but taste is still a form of identity which relies on socioeconomic disbalances, a 'refined' taste takes time, after all, and time is money. slowly, however, we become aware that everything is ideological, every story advertises a set of values, every time you buy something you are making an ideological statement, every building you see advertises an aesthetic theory, every person on tv is selling a system of values, and most of them are pretending to speak from 'common sense.' i think as people become more aware of this (and hopefully they will), that for instance the use of feedback in rock music doesn't say "rock music has revolutionized itself, it has shattered boundaries, it has overcome" but rather says "there has been no revolution, we have given up on revolution, but there's some solace in making the bourgeoisie grimace by using too much feedback in our music" they will also begin to operate on that level--no mode of behavior is 'normal' or 'practical,' everything you do is ideological. that would open up space for genuine cultures to form, purely abstract cultures, in a sense. in some way this has already happened, for instance there are already modernist and postmodernist cultures, but they are still mostly reserved for intellectuals, and as such devolve into 'intellectual culture' rather than having the meaning and weight which they ought to.

capitalism and consumerism claim to be post-ideological (after all, with consumerism everything is reproducible and accessible, even the most transgressive 'art') and while it's tempting to say that the power-structures behind capitalism and consumerism are judeo-christian in origin, i think the real ideology behind consumerism is hedonism--radical christianity (not the same as fundamentalism, which mostly involves getting caught up on insignificant details and fighting the symptoms of contemporary society) would be fully opposed to consumerism on an ideological level, which is why I think the gap between 'religious fundamentalists' and 'radical (secular) intellectuals' could be, and should be, closed.

and bla bla blah.

TheBig3 · 10-13-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

lol, as though america has a culture

I'll read the rest of your novel, but I first wanted to ask a question about the above comment.

Are you scoffing based on it having only 1 culture, or not having a culture at all?

cardboard adolescent · 10-13-2009, 02:34 PM

just a little joke to set up my exploration of the relationship between culture and consumerism, with the implication that america has consumerism rather than culture

TheBig3 · 10-13-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

just a little joke to set up my exploration of the relationship between culture and consumerism, with the implication that america has consumerism rather than culture

Do you think America's regions have culture, more than the nation as a whole. And if you don't, can you explore some of the issues one region has with another?

cardboard adolescent · 10-13-2009, 02:50 PM

i think the more isolated, rural regions have a better idea of identity, mainly because they define themselves negatively against the perceived corruption and immorality of the big cities, or whatever. whether or not this actually translates to 'culture,' i'm not sure, i think of culture more as artistic/religious legacies which are perpetually reborn/reformed by new generations. and i think culture in that sense is mostly present in the cities, but it's a very confused, self-reflective sort of culture, which doesn't have the roots to be fully comfortable with itself. i think most of the issues one region of america has with the others are mostly superficial, everyone either thinks they and their group are morally superior or that they are more intelligent and everybody else is stuck in the middle ages. i'm tempted to say that california is the exception, where a genuine culture of ideas draws 'outsiders' in, but at this point it's mostly the weed, isn't it? the differences seem to me to be either consumerist (californians smoke pot, new yorkers go to art galleries) or endless religious bickering. i do think the personality of america is very schizophrenic, which is probably what you were getting at, to the point where two radically different personalities (the New York intellectual and midwest conservative, for instance) can both strike us as archetypally american, but there is no american as such. i don't think there's enough history behind these personas, however, to really lift them past their superficiality (the history that does support intellectuals and conservatives, say, is mostly borrowed from europe), and for this reason america doesn't really have a culture. and if it does, it's crumbling faster than anyplace else.

modernism, for instance, is usually associated with america and considered our cultural legacy, but it's just a rebellion against europe's formalism, for the most part.

dark shadow · 10-13-2009, 09:06 PM

I understand that a lot of this will sound like a rehash of whats already been said, but stick with me. I feel that a capitalist society has only one possible outcome, the breaking down of culture and the rise of consumerism, or in other words, materialism. By emphasizing money, and basing success in life on obtaining and having savvy in spending it, we have created a world in which needs have become subservient to desires.

With the right connections and a little luck, everything we possibly want is in our grasp, or appears to be on the surface. However, the fact is that for the vast majority of the populace success is a pipedream that is possible in theory but ultimately unachievable. However, this is not the view broadcast by the media, which truly wields great power in the court of public opinion. In order to maintain balance in a materialistic world, those who will never be able to possess greatness must believe that its not a hopeless endeavor. After all, if you will never have an opportunity to be on top, why toil away in obscurity while the rich profit off their labor?

So the media portrays the ultra rich, while also showing stories of the "average guy" who rises above everything to become a millionaire. It is one of the basic concepts of Sun Tsu's "Art of War" that to lose the public is to lose the battle. With most people blinded by visions of grandeur or their latest idol, very few ever stop to question the futility of their work. They don't think to create anything, to be independent. Instead, we live our lifes working for things that we don't need, or sometimes even want, but have become status symbols by the country at large. In this way, all are eventually forced to assimilate or be looked down upon, sadly stifling the possibility of progress.

TLDR; i dont like materialistic society

TheBig3 · 10-14-2009, 09:12 AM

I think its rather unfair to suggest that america has no culture because we're materilistic.

If you look at me, any of our members from down south (we've got a texas influx, lets use them) and say...I don't know, Califnoria. None of us are going to engage in our respective communities the same way.

Take for example the town I grew up in. We've got an event down there called "Meat on a stick." It is what it sounds like.

You buy a vat of chicken or beef. You get a complimentry 12 foot skewer to put it on, and then you lay it over a giant pit of fire. They sell beer for a dollar a can. You go home smelling like firewood, charcoal, and smoked meat.

Why is this culturally relevent? Because as I see culture, it shapes the way you see the world (or in this example, a part of the world). If a guy from the town I'm in goes to Oregon and asks about that they're going to think he's barbaric up in Portland.

You mentioned religion in your breakdown, and I suppose thats fair, but if thats the case how isn't the U.S. brimming with culture. Where else do so many religious factions co-exist?

I think art - in its broad sense - has quite a bit to do with it as well. I say a broad sense because I believe a great amount of the country to not view metropolitan art, and I don't feel that anyone needs to. Alright so Omaha probably doesn't have a MOMA, but what they consider beauty still shapes their culture.

I think Big City Americans tend to look toward Paris and define culture, but the American best summing us up is Ken Burns. His latest film on the National Parks was amazing. However if you're looking for the traditional Jazz, Baseball, Cartoons, Novels, Architecture, Language, and Scientific advances...how isn't the United States dominating the cultural market?

I can't imagine how a bunch of music snobs, when asked about culture, always think of reality tv, pop music, and video games.

14 year olds do not define the zeitgeist where I live. I'd expected better from Chicago.

cardboard adolescent · 10-14-2009, 10:40 AM

nobody's going to think 'meat on a stick' is barbaric, they'll probably just think it's trashy. i mean, it's just different modes of consumerism, isn't it? i don't even want to talk about chicago, it's so full of hipsters you can hardly breathe without someone parodying it.

TheBig3 · 10-14-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

nobody's going to think 'meat on a stick' is barbaric, they'll probably just think it's trashy. i mean, it's just different modes of consumerism, isn't it? i don't even want to talk about chicago, it's so full of hipsters you can hardly breathe without someone parodying it.

The earthy culture on America's west coast would find it barbaric.

you find it trashy because of the prism you see it through.

I believe its a pretty interesting subculture born from Portugese immigrants.

I sort of knew, based on your posts, your avatar, and your location you might see things that way.

hipsters are a cultural enima. they're like termites in the forest. we need them.

cardboard adolescent · 10-14-2009, 11:13 AM

i don't think it's particularly trashy, it sounds tasty actually. but i think that the need to construct a social identity around food and the way it's consumed is... old-fashioned, for lack of a better word. food is obviously a big part of human life, but i don't think people 'are what they eat,' it's just a thing everybody does, every person has their own tastes and turning it into a cultural thing seems meaningless to me--if it agrees with enough individual tastes it'll probably stop being a cultural thing eventually.

when you only had access to certain foods in certain regions I can see how it might define a culture, but that's not really true anymore.

10-13-2009, 02:15 PM	#11 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	lol, as though america has a culture seriously though, i like the fact that capitalism and globalization break down cultures. that can go two ways, of course, people can begin to recognize the universality in cultures--the fact that all cultures and cultural edifices are built around certain fundamental human needs, and express more or less the same hopes and desires, perhaps even to the point of recognizing that all religions express a recurrent 'transcendent' insight (probably inspired by mushrooms), but it can also go the opposite way, that is, of cultures breaking down and leaving a void in their wake--a void which will unfortunately have to be filled with consumerism. as far as i can tell, both of these processes are taking place. for instance, you have the skeptical/relativistic/nihilistic hipster, who derides culture and embraces superficiality since, after all, there is nothing beneath the surface--or you have the liberal 'open-minded' semi-intellectual who reads sufi poetry and the bhagavad gita and the new testament and says "they're all the same, man!" we're slowly but surely moving out of the time when preserving culture and religion were the task of an upper-class elite, who in this way backhandedly justified the economic disbalance, since, after all, they used their lives of comfort to put the people in touch with something 'eternal.' this still persists, of course, both the hipster and the academic can only play those roles because of their economic position, but at the same time access to information is much more widespread, and there is an inherent drive in globalization to 'embrace the other,' after all, you'll probably be working together soon. so what am i getting at? despite the fact that many believe we are living in a 'post-ideological' era, i think we are finally entering into an ideological era. for instance, while the crusades were ostensibly about restoring christianity by regaining the holy land, really they were about securing territory--in the past ideology has always acted as a smokescreen for political or economic powerplays. as we move more and more toward a standardized political/economic/social system, as we reconstruct the system in ways that make it harder for people to gain and use power, as the measure of a person's worth becomes not their charisma or the strength of their voice but simply how well they can operate by the system's protocols, I think the significant conflicts that will emerge between people will become genuinely ideological. i think that as the sense of identity that goes with 'belonging to a country' breaks down, people will reconstruct that identity through their beliefs, and will organize themselves based on ideology. you can see the same sort of thing happening on the internet, though it restricts itself primarily to superficial forms--people group based on the kind of music they like or in most cases based on what they consume--their tastes. but taste is still a form of identity which relies on socioeconomic disbalances, a 'refined' taste takes time, after all, and time is money. slowly, however, we become aware that everything is ideological, every story advertises a set of values, every time you buy something you are making an ideological statement, every building you see advertises an aesthetic theory, every person on tv is selling a system of values, and most of them are pretending to speak from 'common sense.' i think as people become more aware of this (and hopefully they will), that for instance the use of feedback in rock music doesn't say "rock music has revolutionized itself, it has shattered boundaries, it has overcome" but rather says "there has been no revolution, we have given up on revolution, but there's some solace in making the bourgeoisie grimace by using too much feedback in our music" they will also begin to operate on that level--no mode of behavior is 'normal' or 'practical,' everything you do is ideological. that would open up space for genuine cultures to form, purely abstract cultures, in a sense. in some way this has already happened, for instance there are already modernist and postmodernist cultures, but they are still mostly reserved for intellectuals, and as such devolve into 'intellectual culture' rather than having the meaning and weight which they ought to. capitalism and consumerism claim to be post-ideological (after all, with consumerism everything is reproducible and accessible, even the most transgressive 'art') and while it's tempting to say that the power-structures behind capitalism and consumerism are judeo-christian in origin, i think the real ideology behind consumerism is hedonism--radical christianity (not the same as fundamentalism, which mostly involves getting caught up on insignificant details and fighting the symptoms of contemporary society) would be fully opposed to consumerism on an ideological level, which is why I think the gap between 'religious fundamentalists' and 'radical (secular) intellectuals' could be, and should be, closed. and bla bla blah. Last edited by cardboard adolescent; 10-13-2009 at 02:41 PM.

10-14-2009, 09:12 AM	#17 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	I think its rather unfair to suggest that america has no culture because we're materilistic. If you look at me, any of our members from down south (we've got a texas influx, lets use them) and say...I don't know, Califnoria. None of us are going to engage in our respective communities the same way. Take for example the town I grew up in. We've got an event down there called "Meat on a stick." It is what it sounds like. You buy a vat of chicken or beef. You get a complimentry 12 foot skewer to put it on, and then you lay it over a giant pit of fire. They sell beer for a dollar a can. You go home smelling like firewood, charcoal, and smoked meat. Why is this culturally relevent? Because as I see culture, it shapes the way you see the world (or in this example, a part of the world). If a guy from the town I'm in goes to Oregon and asks about that they're going to think he's barbaric up in Portland. You mentioned religion in your breakdown, and I suppose thats fair, but if thats the case how isn't the U.S. brimming with culture. Where else do so many religious factions co-exist? I think art - in its broad sense - has quite a bit to do with it as well. I say a broad sense because I believe a great amount of the country to not view metropolitan art, and I don't feel that anyone needs to. Alright so Omaha probably doesn't have a MOMA, but what they consider beauty still shapes their culture. I think Big City Americans tend to look toward Paris and define culture, but the American best summing us up is Ken Burns. His latest film on the National Parks was amazing. However if you're looking for the traditional Jazz, Baseball, Cartoons, Novels, Architecture, Language, and Scientific advances...how isn't the United States dominating the cultural market? I can't imagine how a bunch of music snobs, when asked about culture, always think of reality tv, pop music, and video games. 14 year olds do not define the zeitgeist where I live. I'd expected better from Chicago. __________________ I've moved to a new address

10-13-2009, 02:34 PM	#13 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	just a little joke to set up my exploration of the relationship between culture and consumerism, with the implication that america has consumerism rather than culture

10-13-2009, 02:50 PM	#15 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	i think the more isolated, rural regions have a better idea of identity, mainly because they define themselves negatively against the perceived corruption and immorality of the big cities, or whatever. whether or not this actually translates to 'culture,' i'm not sure, i think of culture more as artistic/religious legacies which are perpetually reborn/reformed by new generations. and i think culture in that sense is mostly present in the cities, but it's a very confused, self-reflective sort of culture, which doesn't have the roots to be fully comfortable with itself. i think most of the issues one region of america has with the others are mostly superficial, everyone either thinks they and their group are morally superior or that they are more intelligent and everybody else is stuck in the middle ages. i'm tempted to say that california is the exception, where a genuine culture of ideas draws 'outsiders' in, but at this point it's mostly the weed, isn't it? the differences seem to me to be either consumerist (californians smoke pot, new yorkers go to art galleries) or endless religious bickering. i do think the personality of america is very schizophrenic, which is probably what you were getting at, to the point where two radically different personalities (the New York intellectual and midwest conservative, for instance) can both strike us as archetypally american, but there is no american as such. i don't think there's enough history behind these personas, however, to really lift them past their superficiality (the history that does support intellectuals and conservatives, say, is mostly borrowed from europe), and for this reason america doesn't really have a culture. and if it does, it's crumbling faster than anyplace else. modernism, for instance, is usually associated with america and considered our cultural legacy, but it's just a rebellion against europe's formalism, for the most part.

10-13-2009, 09:06 PM	#16 (permalink)
dark shadow Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 78	I understand that a lot of this will sound like a rehash of whats already been said, but stick with me. I feel that a capitalist society has only one possible outcome, the breaking down of culture and the rise of consumerism, or in other words, materialism. By emphasizing money, and basing success in life on obtaining and having savvy in spending it, we have created a world in which needs have become subservient to desires. With the right connections and a little luck, everything we possibly want is in our grasp, or appears to be on the surface. However, the fact is that for the vast majority of the populace success is a pipedream that is possible in theory but ultimately unachievable. However, this is not the view broadcast by the media, which truly wields great power in the court of public opinion. In order to maintain balance in a materialistic world, those who will never be able to possess greatness must believe that its not a hopeless endeavor. After all, if you will never have an opportunity to be on top, why toil away in obscurity while the rich profit off their labor? So the media portrays the ultra rich, while also showing stories of the "average guy" who rises above everything to become a millionaire. It is one of the basic concepts of Sun Tsu's "Art of War" that to lose the public is to lose the battle. With most people blinded by visions of grandeur or their latest idol, very few ever stop to question the futility of their work. They don't think to create anything, to be independent. Instead, we live our lifes working for things that we don't need, or sometimes even want, but have become status symbols by the country at large. In this way, all are eventually forced to assimilate or be looked down upon, sadly stifling the possibility of progress. TLDR; i dont like materialistic society

10-14-2009, 10:40 AM	#18 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	nobody's going to think 'meat on a stick' is barbaric, they'll probably just think it's trashy. i mean, it's just different modes of consumerism, isn't it? i don't even want to talk about chicago, it's so full of hipsters you can hardly breathe without someone parodying it.

10-14-2009, 11:13 AM	#20 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	i don't think it's particularly trashy, it sounds tasty actually. but i think that the need to construct a social identity around food and the way it's consumed is... old-fashioned, for lack of a better word. food is obviously a big part of human life, but i don't think people 'are what they eat,' it's just a thing everybody does, every person has their own tastes and turning it into a cultural thing seems meaningless to me--if it agrees with enough individual tastes it'll probably stop being a cultural thing eventually. when you only had access to certain foods in certain regions I can see how it might define a culture, but that's not really true anymore.