A core problem with the belief that one can take in millions of people from around the world into ones’ own country and can then integrate these people by “teaching them” the local culture, is that this is based on a category error concerning what culture is. Rather than something that can be defined in a series of graphs or bullet points, cultures are mainly unspoken things. They are the platform from which a person steps before they study the world in an effort to make things explicit.
Cultures are intuited from generations of trial and error handed down more often than not through sample and emulation, not an explicit description. Thus it should be no surprise that no German, Pole, or Swede will have a response to that inevitable question of “Well, just what is Swedish/German/etc. culture” which follows any legitimate concerns that foreigners are destroying their culture or not assimilating into it. They do not know “what their culture is” because they were never taught it. They never had to be. They inherited it. A Japanese person wouldn’t be able to give you a detailed list of all aspects that constitute their culture. Nor would a Chinese person. Nor would an Igbo. Does this mean their cultures do not exist? Of course not. Irritatingly, Western liberals are usually immediately averse to any modern efforts which may conclude that an “indigenous” culture in some far flung part of the world does not exist. So why are they so enamored with the notion that theirs do not?
It is telling that the average member of a non-European culture does not take from their inability to adequately describe their culture in any number of words that their culture does not exist. Or indeed, that the behavior of anyone taken from any culture who is placed in the state within which their nation exists, depicts the indigenous culture as much as anyone who is the progeny of those who first built it. Many would see such a notion as absurd, akin to claiming that the sun doesn’t exist because one cannot perfectly describe all the systems that comprise it, or in fact any of them. And yet, those who dominate the acceptable discourse of European cultures, conclude from the inability of anyone to describe their cultures in part or whole, that, not only do such cultures not exist, but must consequently have all the conditions for their further existence utterly destroyed. That all who reside in the territories that used to be relatively coextensive with nations and ethnic groups, regardless of their origins, instantiate the indigenous culture as much as the indigenous population. It is telling that they feel they have adequately defended this patent absurdity by finding no one of the indigenous culture who can describe what their culture is. The most that can be said is that this is a pathology of European cultures that will either be corrected, or cease to exist along with the cultures and peoples that hosted the pathology.
Here are two valuable considerations to keep ready in ones' mind:
1. There are very good reasons to believe that many of the social norms and behaviours that facilitate things we value in modernity derive from specific cultures, and require specific cultures to sustain themselves. Destroying ancient cultures because they cannot be adequately laid out on a pie-chart risks all those social norms and conventionst that require the heriditary, and indescribable, cultural cues to be sustained without heavy state intervention and threats of violence.
2. Enforcing a jus-sanguinus citizenship policy is the single most valuable proxy for ensuring cultural preservation. Since culture is abstract, and the vast majority of it is indescribable and unmeasurable, it is impossible to directly preserve it. It is genetic homogeneity is, however, just a proxy for cultural preservation and has limited value in itself much beyond avoiding the discohesion that derives from not sharing an ethnic history. So, while you can't select it for preservation directly, you can select its mode of transmission, which is sufficient to preserve it. In this way, culture may be preserved indirectly. Jus-sanguinus indirectly preserves the culture, by insuring that the state that is built on that culture continually selects a society imbued since birth with the cultural artifacts underpinning the state, which require a connection to thousands of years of tradition and can not be replicated in just a few generations. In this way, that civil society, its character, institutions, etc. may be protected by indirectly preserving the conditions for them to exist, the indigenous culture, or culture families from which the came. Failure to preserve a society uniformly connected the ethno-cultural history that gave a nation its qualities results in state creep, as the state apparatus must actively enforce the norms of a society, which were once passively sustained by the culture. Further, the state will be forced to mediate the social dynamics and human relationships that were once mediated through culture. Where culture dies, the state is forced to fill its role, and thus grow ever larger and contol more and more of the society and its individuals, which can only control by force, or the threat of force, where they were once controlled by a common world-view and consensus built over thousands of years.
No feedback yet
Form is loading...