Trouble is, the left DOES think we're a violent nation which doesn't value what they value! Oh, well.......
I really came here to say HAPPY THANKSGIVING and I'm bummed that I haven't been around lately because I see you have a great thread of blogs here and I'm eager to read them!! Off I go.
Multiculturalism generally takes the view that diversity is its highest value and end. But there are many types of diversity and what type of diversity the champions of multiculturalism have in mind is never specified. For example, if every street on Earth consisted of a German protestant, a Russian Jew, an African American, a Mexican, a Liberian, Japanese, Mongolese, Sikh, Shiite, Sunni, Italian, etc., in one sense it would be diverse, but in another sense it would be entirely homogenous because every place on Earth would be like every other place. This problem runs through almost every model of diversity—as soon as you advocate a type of diversity to be adopted, if EVERYONE adopts it you end up with every place being the same as every other place. In America, suppose each city consisted in equal numbers of the major ethnic groups: suppose every city was 20% white, 20% African American, 20% Latino, 20% Asian, and 20% Native American. In one sense this would be diverse, but in another it would be entirely homogenous in that every city is exactly like every other city. So if we want to avoid this type of homogeny, which I assume the lovers of diversity and enemies of homogeny would, should we then allow certain places to be entirely homogenous? The point of this discussion is to show how meaningless and wishy-washy most discussions of "diversity" are; it is assumed that we know what we are talking about, but what that is is never specified.
There is also the problem with what type of diversity should be emphasized. Racial? Religious? Ethnic? Political? It is always assumed that it is racial diversity that is at issue, but why should racial diversity be more important than religious? If it was religious diversity that was being emphasized should each city be 25% Christian, 25% Jew, 25% Muslim, and 25% Hindu (ignoring atheists and other minor religions). In this case, racial diversity has been sacrificed for religious and ignores the question whether Catholics and Protestants should be treated separately and what to do with the many Protestant denominations. The same question would arise whether we should be emphasizing cultural diversity rather than religious or racial. But it also has the same problem mentioned above that the country would not be diverse since every city would be exactly like every other city, i.e., why should micro diversity be more important than macro? And even if we decide to pick the macro-level diversity, where there are cities or states that are ethnically/culturally/racially/religiously homogenous, are we suggesting that every country should be like this, resulting in homogeneity on a worldwide level?
It seems to me that in order to have the greatest diversity on a worldwide scale would be to have as many distinct, autonomous, races, religions, and cultures as possible, but that within each of these cultural groups, they would be homogenous.
Another great and interesting comment. I am sorry that sometimes I fail to see the last comments and / or do not make it back to my very own blog for a while.
I would even argue that some diversity is much worse than other types. Rights, rights for women, respect for individualism and democracy, freedom of speech and the separation of church and state are WESTERN values. Any diversity that goes against those is not welcome on western shores.
I also do not want to have a diversity of values concerning teen pregnancy and high drop out rates. But some cultures really value that. Multiculturalism undermines our ability to promote values. If we are going to celebrate diversity, what guidance does that give.
In terms of areas . . . First of all, most people who say celebrate diversity do not care about it. It is a stick by which to undermine the West. In Los Angeles, if you were into diversity, you would stop Latin American immigration.
But, ultimately, - allowing that some level of diversity is natural - I want unity around western values (see 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) in the West. No other civilization prizes diversity. China and Islamic nations do not encourage it. They see that it leads to lowered academic achievement and disharmony. It weakens them - see diversity video.
As I really love the West, I do not want us to be the first nation to undermine our strength and social capital. I do not want to have blocks of people in my nation I cannot communicate with. If I want to see exotic customs, I'll travel some more. Until then, I would ask that immigrants adopt our general cultural motifs. And in our schools I would not teach female genital mutilation, Asian supremacy or the virtues of Islamic theocracy. The Western march towards self-governance should unite us under the mission of vindicating the legacy of Athens and Jerusalem.
The trouble is that I have disagree with your statement that human nature does not exists, because it does. Steven Pinker even wrote a book called, The_Blank_Slate critical of the idea that human beings don't have a nature. from what I read in the book, he backs up many of his arguments with empirical data. Pinker is a mand of science after all.
If the only thing that motivated our behavior was how we had been raised, than why has no society ever successfully made communism work? Socialism fails because it goes against human nature.
Greg Nyquist wrote about this in his essay entitled, Truculent Realism ---------------------------------------------------- Take the institution of private property. In our society, private property is a very critical institution. But it doesn’t have to be that way, argue the academic intellectuals. Private property is a mere social construct. We could, if we chose, do away with it altogether. In that case, it would cease to be a reality. Property held in common would be the new reality, the new social construct.
Contrary to what romantic leftists might wish to believe, private property is not a mere “social construct” that can be changed at the drop of hat. There exist a number of powerful psychological forces that provide its foundations — forces which ultimately arise from intractable currents deep in human nature. Machiavelli wrote in The Prince that a ruler, if he would preserve his power, “must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.” Machiavelli understood human nature. He knew that human beings have possessive instincts, that their property is intimately tied up with their social status, and that they will tenaciously defend anything connected to the preservation of their social status.
The unwillingness to accept certain realities of human nature is the primary motive behind the subjectivist interpretation of the sociology of knowledge. The Left has for many decades been in denial about the nature of man. As Stephen Pinker explains in his book The Modern Denial of Human Nature, the Left regards “the malleability of humans and the autonomy of culture as doctrines that might bring about the age-old dream of perfecting mankind. We are not stuck with what we don’t like about our current predicament, they argued. Nothing prevents us from changing it except a lack of will and the benighted belief that we are permanently consigned to it by biology.” ----------------------------------------------------
I have also found a list of web pages dealing with innate physiological differences between men and women, in general.
Therefor there must be more to a human being's motivation, then his or her culture. It seems to me that there must be at least some biological basis for human behavior, good, and bad. I'm not saying that culture doesn't matter, I'm just saying that there's no evidence that human nature is nonexistent. In fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps those violent sexist cultures simply embrace our darker, more basic instincts, instead of our more enlightened way of thinking, that embraces the more rational, peaceful, humane, and compassionate part of man's nature.
I would enjoy reading your response to what I have written here.
Thanks you for the prolific response. Also, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I do not look back at old posts for new comments enough.
First of all, let me offer you a complimentary copy of culturism. Getting details into a three minute video is difficult. There is actually a chapter entitled, 'Culturism and Nature' which discusses the variables of human nature. It relies heavily on sociobiology models. I really like Pinker and probably reference him in there or the psychology chapter.
My take on human nature is pretty standard. It holds that men are primed to seek status. That can come from robbing liquor stores or making money. If you cannot get status in one group, you'll try another. Women seek men with status.
Furthermore, borders, it relates, are natural and tied into status. Animals butt heads for central territory. They get mates and the animals on the perimeter get eaten.
I do, however, wish to situate the individual in groups. Sometimes a slim mold is an individual, sometimes it coalesces with others to make an organism. That depends on the economy. THreat has the same impact.
Perhaps the largest point in the chapter has to do with our brains. We have a large gestation period in order to absorb lots of information. Our culture is responsible for feeding us this information. It is fine for a fish to breed and flee, but it violates our programming. Kids come out ready to scan and absorb their environment.
BTW, this is not a rational process. Kids will believe whatever their culture feeds them. And we, as a culture, have a duty to feed them our line. And, if we do not, someone else will do it.
In the psychology chapter I build on this. We can get status by proxy. People root for teams. If your country is proud it is a source of status. If a second level primal ape feels it can attack, it will gather recruits. Islam is feeling its power.
We need to be aware of and consciously manipulate these culturist dynamics. That is not artificial. Our brains are wired to absorb info as we grow. If we don't, if we multicultural, we will fail.
In the video I am only being strategic and quick. If we assume all folks are naturally good, we deceive ourselves. In the anthropology chapter, I point out some cultures think beheading is natural, good and honorable. If we do not want this value to proliferate, we must actively promote our values. We cannot hope that "human nature" will naturally make every one good.
email me at socialbooks@gmail.com with an address for a copy of the book.
Thanks for your reply. I'm not saying that culture does not matter. I'm just saying that human nature exists, and that there is at least a significant amount of empirical data that says there is a biological basis (to at least some degree) for human behavior. Culture does matter, but so does things like genetics and hormones.
By the way, I agree with you in that it is very naive to think that human nature will make sure that everyone is a good guy, because it won't. Anyone who has studied history or psychology, and has not given into wishful thinking knows that.
11 comments:
Trouble is, the left DOES think we're a violent nation which doesn't value what they value!
Oh, well.......
I really came here to say HAPPY THANKSGIVING and I'm bummed that I haven't been around lately because I see you have a great thread of blogs here and I'm eager to read them!! Off I go.
have a great day, John.
by the way..for anybody reading these comments other than John?....his book is VERY interesting and I recommend you get it.
Seriously. John already knows that!! (lol!)
Thanks Z,
I hope you had a great Thanksgiving!!
John
www.culturism.us
Multiculturalism generally takes the view that diversity is its highest value and end. But there are many types of diversity and what type of diversity the champions of multiculturalism have in mind is never specified. For example, if every street on Earth consisted of a German protestant, a Russian Jew, an African American, a Mexican, a Liberian, Japanese, Mongolese, Sikh, Shiite, Sunni, Italian, etc., in one sense it would be diverse, but in another sense it would be entirely homogenous because every place on Earth would be like every other place. This problem runs through almost every model of diversity—as soon as you advocate a type of diversity to be adopted, if EVERYONE adopts it you end up with every place being the same as every other place. In America, suppose each city consisted in equal numbers of the major ethnic groups: suppose every city was 20% white, 20% African American, 20% Latino, 20% Asian, and 20% Native American. In one sense this would be diverse, but in another it would be entirely homogenous in that every city is exactly like every other city. So if we want to avoid this type of homogeny, which I assume the lovers of diversity and enemies of homogeny would, should we then allow certain places to be entirely homogenous? The point of this discussion is to show how meaningless and wishy-washy most discussions of "diversity" are; it is assumed that we know what we are talking about, but what that is is never specified.
There is also the problem with what type of diversity should be emphasized. Racial? Religious? Ethnic? Political? It is always assumed that it is racial diversity that is at issue, but why should racial diversity be more important than religious? If it was religious diversity that was being emphasized should each city be 25% Christian, 25% Jew, 25% Muslim, and 25% Hindu (ignoring atheists and other minor religions). In this case, racial diversity has been sacrificed for religious and ignores the question whether Catholics and Protestants should be treated separately and what to do with the many Protestant denominations. The same question would arise whether we should be emphasizing cultural diversity rather than religious or racial. But it also has the same problem mentioned above that the country would not be diverse since every city would be exactly like every other city, i.e., why should micro diversity be more important than macro? And even if we decide to pick the macro-level diversity, where there are cities or states that are ethnically/culturally/racially/religiously homogenous, are we suggesting that every country should be like this, resulting in homogeneity on a worldwide level?
It seems to me that in order to have the greatest diversity on a worldwide scale would be to have as many distinct, autonomous, races, religions, and cultures as possible, but that within each of these cultural groups, they would be homogenous.
Empedocles,
Another great and interesting comment. I am sorry that sometimes I fail to see the last comments and / or do not make it back to my very own blog for a while.
I would even argue that some diversity is much worse than other types. Rights, rights for women, respect for individualism and democracy, freedom of speech and the separation of church and state are WESTERN values. Any diversity that goes against those is not welcome on western shores.
I also do not want to have a diversity of values concerning teen pregnancy and high drop out rates. But some cultures really value that. Multiculturalism undermines our ability to promote values. If we are going to celebrate diversity, what guidance does that give.
In terms of areas . . . First of all, most people who say celebrate diversity do not care about it. It is a stick by which to undermine the West. In Los Angeles, if you were into diversity, you would stop Latin American immigration.
But, ultimately, - allowing that some level of diversity is natural - I want unity around western values (see 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) in the West. No other civilization prizes diversity. China and Islamic nations do not encourage it. They see that it leads to lowered academic achievement and disharmony. It weakens them - see diversity video.
As I really love the West, I do not want us to be the first nation to undermine our strength and social capital. I do not want to have blocks of people in my nation I cannot communicate with. If I want to see exotic customs, I'll travel some more. Until then, I would ask that immigrants adopt our general cultural motifs. And in our schools I would not teach female genital mutilation, Asian supremacy or the virtues of Islamic theocracy. The Western march towards self-governance should unite us under the mission of vindicating the legacy of Athens and Jerusalem.
THanks for the very thoughtful comment!
Culturist John,
The trouble is that I have disagree with your statement that human nature does not exists, because it does. Steven Pinker even wrote a book called, The_Blank_Slate critical of the idea that human beings don't have a nature. from what I read in the book, he backs up many of his arguments with empirical data. Pinker is a mand of science after all.
If the only thing that motivated our behavior was how we had been raised, than why has no society ever successfully made communism work? Socialism fails because it goes against human nature.
Greg Nyquist wrote about this in his essay entitled, Truculent Realism
----------------------------------------------------
Take the institution of private property. In our society, private property is a very critical institution. But it doesn’t have to be that way, argue the academic intellectuals. Private property is a mere social construct. We could, if we chose, do away with it altogether. In that case, it would cease to be a reality. Property held in common would be the new reality, the new social construct.
Contrary to what romantic leftists might wish to believe, private property is not a mere “social construct” that can be changed at the drop of hat. There exist a number of powerful psychological forces that provide its foundations — forces which ultimately arise from intractable currents deep in human nature. Machiavelli wrote in The Prince that a ruler, if he would preserve his power, “must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.” Machiavelli understood human nature. He knew that human beings have possessive instincts, that their property is intimately tied up with their social status, and that they will tenaciously defend anything connected to the preservation of their social status.
The unwillingness to accept certain realities of human nature is the primary motive behind the subjectivist interpretation of the sociology of knowledge. The Left has for many decades been in denial about the nature of man. As Stephen Pinker explains in his book The Modern Denial of Human Nature, the Left regards “the malleability of humans and the autonomy of culture as doctrines that might bring about the age-old dream of perfecting mankind. We are not stuck with what we don’t like about our current predicament, they argued. Nothing prevents us from changing it except a lack of will and the benighted belief that we are permanently consigned to it by biology.”
----------------------------------------------------
I have also found a list of web pages dealing with innate physiological differences between men and women, in general.
Therefor there must be more to a human being's motivation, then his or her culture. It seems to me that there must be at least some biological basis for human behavior, good, and bad. I'm not saying that culture doesn't matter, I'm just saying that there's no evidence that human nature is nonexistent. In fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps those violent sexist cultures simply embrace our darker, more basic instincts, instead of our more enlightened way of thinking, that embraces the more rational, peaceful, humane, and compassionate part of man's nature.
I would enjoy reading your response to what I have written here.
Damien,
Thanks you for the prolific response. Also, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I do not look back at old posts for new comments enough.
First of all, let me offer you a complimentary copy of culturism. Getting details into a three minute video is difficult. There is actually a chapter entitled, 'Culturism and Nature' which discusses the variables of human nature. It relies heavily on sociobiology models. I really like Pinker and probably reference him in there or the psychology chapter.
My take on human nature is pretty standard. It holds that men are primed to seek status. That can come from robbing liquor stores or making money. If you cannot get status in one group, you'll try another. Women seek men with status.
Furthermore, borders, it relates, are natural and tied into status. Animals butt heads for central territory. They get mates and the animals on the perimeter get eaten.
I do, however, wish to situate the individual in groups. Sometimes a slim mold is an individual, sometimes it coalesces with others to make an organism. That depends on the economy. THreat has the same impact.
Perhaps the largest point in the chapter has to do with our brains. We have a large gestation period in order to absorb lots of information. Our culture is responsible for feeding us this information. It is fine for a fish to breed and flee, but it violates our programming. Kids come out ready to scan and absorb their environment.
BTW, this is not a rational process. Kids will believe whatever their culture feeds them. And we, as a culture, have a duty to feed them our line. And, if we do not, someone else will do it.
In the psychology chapter I build on this. We can get status by proxy. People root for teams. If your country is proud it is a source of status. If a second level primal ape feels it can attack, it will gather recruits. Islam is feeling its power.
We need to be aware of and consciously manipulate these culturist dynamics. That is not artificial. Our brains are wired to absorb info as we grow. If we don't, if we multicultural, we will fail.
In the video I am only being strategic and quick. If we assume all folks are naturally good, we deceive ourselves. In the anthropology chapter, I point out some cultures think beheading is natural, good and honorable. If we do not want this value to proliferate, we must actively promote our values. We cannot hope that "human nature" will naturally make every one good.
email me at socialbooks@gmail.com with an address for a copy of the book.
Thanks, John Press
Culturist John,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm not saying that culture does not matter. I'm just saying that human nature exists, and that there is at least a significant amount of empirical data that says there is a biological basis (to at least some degree) for human behavior. Culture does matter, but so does things like genetics and hormones.
Culturist John,
Also I'm not implying that we shouldn't be promoting our values.
By the way, I agree with you in that it is very naive to think that human nature will make sure that everyone is a good guy, because it won't. Anyone who has studied history or psychology, and has not given into wishful thinking knows that.
Post a Comment