Talk:Western culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The word "Culture" should be well defined. Culture is something that changes continuously over time. Very young nations such as Canada, the US and Australia do not have established cultures. The value systems of these countries change rapidly in comparison with established nations of Western Europe. In major urban centers of Canada, such as Toronto and it surroundings, the rate of change is so rapid that, we would not be able compare the culture of today to that of one fifty years from now. However, this won’t be the case in Western Europe as rate of change will be minimal.

As for the section “Beyond art and politics”, yes, there is an emphasis on progress, however, deep belief in ancestry and ethnocentrism still persists. The birth of Jim Crow laws after the end of slavery and the racial segregation after the abolishment of Jim Crow Laws in the US almost 40 years earlier are not indicative of a culture that puts little emphasis on the past. Further, slavery, the Jim Crow Laws, the holocaust, Guantanomo Bay and the Iraq war are in direct contrast to a culture that emphasizes on Human Rights. There are other cultures that put lot more emphasis on Human Rights. Therefore, the section, “Beyond art and politics” must be refined.

Further, the word “Culture” should incorporate social attitudes that prevail in a given geography. After all, it is on the foundations of these attitudes that, public policies, scientific thoughts, musical forms and other achievements that shape nations are formed. In reality, it is these attitudes that a common man considers as culture.

I disagree with the statement "Less emphasis of connections with the past, such as ancestry and ethnocentrism" under section "Beyond art and politics." The US in particular is deeply rooted in identifying and categorizing people as evidenced by racial segregation in that country. Despite the fact that the rule of law prevail in these countries, the emphasis on human rights is questionable, especially in the US, particularly with regards to its African-American population. This once again reiterates Western Culture's dependency on ancestry and ethnocentrism. Thus, the section, "Beyond art and politics" is a glorification of What is perceived to be Western Culture than an academic one.

Further, Western culture is more of a collection of what was borrowed from various parts of the world than some thing that is really indigenous to the geographies and the associated people that are in question.

More research is required on the definition of Western Culture and the article on this forum should be academic to meet the quality of standards that is expected in an encyclopedia.

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Talk:Western culture/Delete.

/Archive 1

I agree, the cultural achievements of the West are considerable, diverse, and manifold, despite the recalcitrant grumblings of a few native sons, the most recent that Las Vegas guy who...whatever...he's the Las Vegas guy. However, my problem with the article is the "Similarities" section, an unthought craptrap of minimal value. Seriously, the world is rife with writers, can't Wikipedia at least get some of the mediocre ones?

Contents

[edit] "Western achievements" section... misleading title for a section

The "Western achievements" section opens with the words "A distinctive feature of the Western culture is its focus on science and technology".... the section proceeds to examine only the scientific and technological achievements of the west. Since the section only concerns science and technology, the section should be renamed as to reflect that. The current section title suggests that the section will account for, say, artistic achievements or philosophical achievements in addition to science.

[edit] Split into Two Articles?

The different complaints presented above all make sense to me, and all seem to have some merit. The conflicting visions of what an article on Western Culture ought to be both seem correct. This leads me to suppose that the article needs to be split in two separate articles:

  • One article for "historical influences on Western Culture", perhaps starting with the end of the Greek dark ages, and going up to the mid-to-early industrial age. Perhaps ending coverage around the end of World War II.
  • Another artcile would cover "contemporary western culture" that would deal with the current ideals and ephemera. Stuff like blue jeans.

It seems that the issue about points of view is wrapped up with the differences between what a "Western" point of view was and what it now is, both of which are muddy issues anyway. I'm not sure how to deal with how is over here as opposed to over there, where-ever "here" and "there" might be, but then and now might be fixable by a split. Tom Lougheed 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is a postmodern approach to the concept of western culture. The history of the western culture begins with the first time the concept was introduced in its contemporary meaning. Then could be portrayed how the concept changed in the past century and what the most striking differences between the use of this concept are. Problem is that i know nearly nothing about it and i am very busy, so somebody else should read some handbooks and edit this article.--Daanschr 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, The article should definetely split into two articles. This article seems to dwell too much on the history and origin, rather than the actual culture and what it means today. *ahem* Not to mention that it's horribly biased. The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I started a new chapter called contemporary western culture, to fill the gap. I am very agitated at the moment, because of a paper that i am making for homework, which must consist out of 15,000 words, so my edit was perhaps a little bit too fast. You may change whatever you like of it. At the moment it is still pathetic.--Daanschr 14:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is "still pathetic" It is so bad that it is impossible to improve it incrementally. Typos, poor grammar, and just plain bad writing. The whole thing (contemporary western culture) should be removed or entirely rewritten. DonSiano 11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice to know that we got a real discussion. Perhaps you have any suggestions on what you like to keep, what should be removed and what you like to add? Frankly, i like the overall idea of trying to determine the similarities and differences within the contemporary western culture. The main reason for my bad grammer, is that i am not native english speaking.
I don't agree with you that it can't be improved incrementally. Could you make clear where you don't approve with my edits? I know that a major shortcoming is the lack of sources, allthough some of the links that i made, like South Park and Michel Houellebecq, will give some explanation on the western culture. I also know a good Japanese example of rising cynism, what about Battle Royale?--Daanschr 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The worldview tag

I really believe the worldview tag posted on the talk page should also be put at the top of the article itself. Readers should be informed that this article is potentially biased before they read it. The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved that back to the article page becuase that is where it generally belongs. While their are some tags that go on the talk pages such as the controversial tag this is not one of them. --Cab88 08:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Appreciated. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Deletions

I don't agree with the recent deletions. It seems like a violation of the Npov#Pseudoscience rule. To make an article npov, all povs have to be included without making a judgement. Michel Foucault had a very clear view about the western culture and he is very popular around the world. It is not for nothing that his article became featured due to the enthusiasm of the editors who contributed on his page. Also, I think that Edward Saids view about the west should be kept into this article. My opinion is that a right-wing purge has occured to this page. I hope that future changes will be made after a debate in this talk page. I suggest that the recent deletions should be reverted.--Daanschr 14:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you are referring to my deletions (I've made several) in the introductory para, but they seem uncontroversial to me. The introduction was so ungrammatical that it was incoherent. It was really hard to read, I thought. The links were in some cases inappropriate, and I changed those and added needed ones too. The intro para should be general enough to introduce the topic, and is not the place to put special cases, exceptions, narrow viewpoints and it should be short, with no redundancies. To revert these changes is not warranted.
As for the Foucault sentence, which I also removed, I believed that the sentence in question was out of place. Mention of his viewpoint can, of course, be included, but should not be where it was under the broad description of the "History." I don't recall "Said's view" and don't think I touched it.
The article needs references, and I added three. We still need more.
"The second para, referring to the cold war needs work too. A "contrast" that becomes "synonymous with" is poor English. It is jargon.
DonSiano 14:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the deletions in the introduction.

Foucault was (besides philosopher) a historian, so i think that his view should be in the history of western culture. Edward Said 'sharply criticized Western scholarship of the East', to quote the introduction of his article. You deleted his views on the difference between east and west.

I will add some references as well.--Daanschr 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

----------
Ok, I was concerned that your problem was with the intro. It is much better now, don't you think? As I said, adding Foucault ref is ok, but let's try to put it in the right place, and not to overemphasize it. This is, after all, an article which has a history section of Europe which failed to mention feudalism! I looked, but failed to find the Said ref. You may be right that I deleted it though. Could you give a date or version from the history that has it? I'll take a look. How about the second para of the intro?
DonSiano 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro is better indeed.

Here is a summary of your last edits[1]. you deleted all references to east west differences from the description. There is no reference to Said, but the text refers to orientalism, which was critizised by Said. I think that the deconstruction of the term western should be kept into the article.

I don't agree with you about Foucault. My pov is that the text of Foucault and Elias should be kept entirely. I don't know exactly what you mean with the right place. Many people here on this talk page have complained about the overemphasis on western achievements throughout the ages, but they didn't delete the edits.--Daanschr 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Feudalism is a highly controversial term.
In military history, feudalism has only existed for less then a century in most of Europe. Before 1100, armies were gathered ad hoc and after 1300 carefully balanced elite armies were bought and prepared for in cities.
In many European countries, the central government did its best to defeat the independent internal nobility throughout the entire middle ages.--Daanschr 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood your "Said" ref. I now understand it to be the sentence or two about discipline as refed by Elias and Foulcault. Is this correct? It read: "Discipline became an important aspect of the western culture during the renaissance (see Norbert Elias and Michel Foucault). Emphasizing civilized behavior and disciplining is not special for the western culture. Western discipline led to military drill and military inventions, which enabled military world dominance. "
This was startling to me because when I searched the Elias ref the word discipline was not mentioned, so something seemed very wrong. Foulcault mentions discipline mostly in the context of prisons, apparently, so this seemed weird. Then the idea that this appearance of discipline in the renaissance leading to military drill (parade) seemed ludicrous--soldiers have paraded from ancient times, and the renaissance has nothing to do with. Stylistically, "(see So and so)" is wrong--there is a "See also" section. So I delted the whole sorry mess. Those two sentences are incomprehensible to the average reader. I stand by the deletion.DonSiano 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"Foucault mentions discipline mostly in the context of prisons..." Not quite. Foucault describes the evolution of the "disciplinary power" in Western culture. He traces its evolution from the power of the sovereign over the bodies of subjects in feudal times (a "policy of terror," which included the power to torture and to display offenders in the "spectacle of the scaffold"). Foucault, says that with the advent of the industrial revolution, the power of the ruling authority became covert (typified by prisons)—a panoptic mechanism of surveillance (the guards, invisible in their darkened towers watching the prisoners silhouetted in their lighted cells). In modern times, panopticism has shifted into society; includes surveillance of a wide variety of types and extends to potential offenders in a "disciplinary matrix" that pervades the institutions of western society. Is this relevant to the article? I would say it is a perspective that would enrich the article, as would the paragraph referring to orientalism. Sunray 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A sentence in the wikipedia article of Norbert Elias is: Elias traced how post-medieval European standards regarding violence, sexual behaviour, bodily functions, table manners and forms of speech were gradually transformed by increasing thresholds of shame and repugnance, working outward from a nucleus in court etiquette. The internalized "self-restraint" imposed by increasingly complex networks of social connections... The word discipline hasn't been mentioned in his article, but these sentences are referring to it. It would be strange if it isn't mentioned in one of his books as a main theme.

I have the impression that you (DonSiano) are not an expert on these subjects, since you didn't know anything about Said. I think it is not appropriate to delete edits based on the main theme of worldwide famous writers, while you don't know about them. Both Said, Elias and Foucault have written about the western culture and not something else, so it would be good to include them into this article. I will search for some footnotes, to make the claims stronger.--Daanschr 09:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Military drill is a Dutch invention. I am Dutch, so i am very proud of it. I learned it during a introduction course of military history on Leiden university. The Dutch were rebels of the Spanish empire in the late 16th century. The Spanish had an at that time invincible army, which was much larger then the Dutch forces. Prince Maurice of Orange, commander of the Dutch army decided to use everything to led the Dutch freedom and the protestant religion survive. Many scientists of Leiden University helped him in his attempt to create an army that would defeat the Spanish. They read old handbooks from the Greek and Roman antiquity and tried to adapt the knowledge into the time of musqeteers and cannons. The Dutch army became a proffesional army, meaning that it trained every day and tried out all kinds of new tactics, which were made up by Maurice and his brother and by scientists. This was a new practise, nobody before them trained an army all year long. Before prince Maurice, shouting was used at the onset of a battle to get rid of the fear. After prince Maurice shouting became a regular part of military drill. He also introduced parading on a daily basis. The Dutch tactics were succesful at the Battle of Nieuwpoort and in the campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus. After Gustavus Adolphus, it was taken over by all european countries, especially the Prussian discipline is notorious, which started after the continuous pillaging of neutral Brandenburg by both protestant and catholic armies during the Thirty Years War.--Daanschr 10:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I definitely think that it has relevance. However, it is unlikely that we could state that military discipline is in any way unique to western culture. It may be relevant to compare the form of drill with other cultures. Sunray 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3,000 British troops defeated 50,000 Bengali during the Battle of Plassey, this is only one of many examples of western military dominance.--Daanschr 09:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Beyond art and politics: Deleted line that stated homosexuality is an accepted alternative lifestyle and includes acceptance of homosexual marriage. This is a recent phenomena of controversy that is not wide spread enough (or sufficiently enduring) to list as an attribute of Western civilization. Particularly homosexual marriage, the first of which was performed in the Netherlands 2001, and which is legal only in 5 countries, and a couple U.S. states. It would be best if the issue were not mentioned at all, but if it must be discussed the wording should read something like: "Trending toward acceptance of homosexuality as an aspect of individual civil liberties." Darien_McLean 20:03, 2 October 2006

[edit] From dawn to decadence: 500 years of western cultural life 1500 to the present

I don't agree with the reference with this title. The term decadence has been used from the onset of the western culture in 1500. The term was used to describe the vices elite culture and the lack of will to defend once country with military force in the 16th century. It has also been used to describe citylife in the 18th century after the attempts to get rid of the paupers was a failure. Romantics were decadent on purpose. The 19th century saw the birth of the decadent movement. It would be silly only to mention decadence to describe the contemporary western culture. It could be that it has been described in this book, but the version 'dawn to decadence' implies that this is not the case.

Since i have the impression that this discussion will take on longer, it would be better to analyse the npov rules in order to be sure that we will come to an agreement. Important is to come to a majority scientific worldview. That will be impossible with this topic. So, we have to consider what could be considered as the majority scientific worldviews.--Daanschr 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose that is a flashy book title, presmeably chosen for mercenary purposes. It is only a reference and a pretty good one, I think. The article should have _some_ references and footnotes, surely. Do you want to remove it? Perhaps you could add a few.
DonSiano 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I will edit an introduction to the book, to get the bias out of it in accordance to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements policy.--Daanschr 09:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Western civilization (old proposal)

Aren't civilization and culture overlapping terms? In my opinion they are at least to such an extent connected that it is impossible to have non-overlapping pages. It would also put some defining characteristics, which are currently disputed, in a context. Sijo Ripa 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right that those terms are overlapping eachother. Still, i think that a difference can be made between culture and civilization. Civilization sounds larger to me. Western culture could have a small definition of Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and perhaps also Japan. I would like to have an article, that is dealing with the difference between the 'western culture' with developed economies and cultures with underdeveloped economies. A solution could be to link both articles to eachother and that 'western civilization' will deal with modernism, imperialism, invention and westernization and that 'western culture' will deal with the contemporary culture. This way, we can deal with the requests to split this article.--Daanschr 13:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Western civilization and then split in subpages? + Avoid confusion between culture and politics

(Reply to: Daanschr 13:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)): Civilization isn't or doesn't have to be larger or different than culture. Civilization is always about a specific culture. For instance, when Samuel P. Huntington divided the world into civilizations he named N-America, W-Europe and Australia and New Zealand the "Western civilization" and you call the same area "Western culture". Huntington also added that it was possible that the Latin-American and the Slavic-Orthodox civilizations (and even Turkey) could become part of this Western civilization (or already are) as they are to a very large extent similar to Western civilization. This is then again similar to what others call the definition of "Western culture". Therefore, it depends on the definition one uses whether it can be one page. --Describing the "Western culture" and the "Western civilization" will always be POV, as there is no consensus about which countries should be included in either one of them (if the terms are already different). Therefore I think it would be better to have one consensus page, which highlights the evolution and the different definitions and can link to subpages for more detailed discriptions/geographical or timebound subcultures. For instance: "Western civilization (Ancient)", "Western civilization (Middle Ages)", "Western civilization (Colonization)", etc. and contemporary "European culture", "American culture", etc. --A last note: I think the Western cultural world ("civilization") and the Western political world (political, economical and military "cooperation": NATO, ANZUS, EU, etc.) are different. However remember that you can fight wars or eradicate eachother (WW I, WW II, etc.), and still have a similar culture. Both "worlds" should therefore not be confused. Sijo Ripa 20:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Daanschr 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hold on, guys. There is no article titled "Western civilization" it is a redirect to "Western world." I would not be in favour of a merge between "Western world" and Western culture. The former article is political (and appropriately so, as noted by Sijo Ripa). Western culture is the far broader topic. Theoretically "Western world" could become a part of "Western culture," but as they are both substantial articles already, it would make an overly lengthy article. Thus, both articles should stand on their own, IMO. As to POV, we can control that with good sources. We simply pick a definitive source or sources and quote or cite them. This will make more interesting and informative articles if it's done well. It requires more rigour, but is exactly the project of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (i.e., a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge"). Sunray 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Western world can remain apart, but Western civilization shouldn't. Also currently the Western world page is still too much about culture IMO, while it should be about the politics (e.g., Greece vs. Persia, Rome vs. the Parths, Christianity vs. Islam, NATO vs. Warsaw, etc. - though it shouldn't be necessarily limited to such external tensions) which have occurred in the Western cultural world. Sijo Ripa 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, there is no Western civilization article. It is a redirect. Otherwise, I agree with everything you say above. if there are aspects of "Western world" that are too much about culture, they can be moved to "Western culture." Sunray 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know there isn't one. Sorry for the confusion. I ment the same however. Move the redirect, and the cultural parts to this page. Sijo Ripa 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that does make sense. Sunray 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The strange thing is that i first looked at Western Civilization and then at Western Culture, and i was able to notice a difference. ;-) Being a postmodernist, i don't mind very much what will be the header of an article. I think it would be nice to have an article about the contemporary western culture as it is since 1980 or the 1990s.--Daanschr 12:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think "culture" can be regarded as more temporary (e.g., Western culture (1945-present)) and more specific (e.g., "Roman culture"), and civilization as more enduring ( "Western civilization", which is also dynamic, but is more wider and general, longer term, makes abstraction of subtle differences and outliers). Sijo Ripa 12:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My view of this is that "Western culture" is the broader term. It is also more neutral. "Western civilization" is inherently biased, taking the position that the west is "civilized" and that "less civilized" cultures (such as hunter-gatherers) are inferior. "Western world" is the more neutral term that allows one to speak of political/economic factors. Sunray 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. The concept of civilization is very strong worldwide. People are forced to adapt, not only because they are described as inferior in the language, but because they are weak in the physical reality. Trying to delete the concept describing this fenomenon will not make an end to the practise of the worldwide dominance of elements of the western civilization. I mean this from a perspective similar of the sociologist Max Weber, so i hope that you will not confuse me for a rascist. In the end we are al weak. My view is that western dominance is coincidence and that many causes for this dominance are irrelevant for the future. I think that the term civilization and other terms that describe dependency relations should be used in an encyclopedia, otherwise we wouldn't have words to describe them. An idea is to mention the controversiality of potentially biased terms based on Wikipedia:Npov#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.--Daanschr 09:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought you said you were a "postmodernist." Civilize in English carries a definite value judgement — as one dictionary definition puts it: "[to] bring (a place or people) to a stage of social, cultural, and moral development considered to be more advanced." "Culture" carries none of this baggage. Sunray 19:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. To repeat the Hungtington example. Huntington put every culture/people in the world into a civilization, which means that everyone lives (according to him) in a civilization. Thus the term civilization does not necessarily mean that when one lives in a civilization others in the world aren't. I think that at least some other social scientists have a similar view as Huntington, which means that civilization can have a neutral connotation. I also think that in the past the term was much more value loaded than in the current usage.Sijo Ripa 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It is fun to play around with words and make them mean whatever you want them to. However, not only do most dictionary definitions give the meaning that I quoted above, but most social scientists do too. The HarperCollins Dictionary of Sociology, for example, says that civilization is "well-established complex society... [having a] value positive connotation: civilization is usually contrasted favorably with the primitivism, savagery..." Please do some homework on this. Sunray 06:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And of course words cannot change in meaning. *sigh* It's not playing around with words. Civilization is a well established term (Western civilization: more than 8 million google hits). Also, you cannot deny the fact that it is increasingly used in a neutral way. And I find "please do some homework on this" extremely arrogant and close to a personal attack. For uses in academic journals in a neutral way, just visit academic search premier (academic journals section) and you'll find for the term "Western civilization" articles that talk about the importance of teaching all "world civilizations" in school, articles that examine mental disabilities in the "western civilization" since the Roman Empire, articles that deal with the Slavic and Arab influences on western civilization, articles that deal with the west-islamic tensions (calling both "civilizations"), the influence of the growing muslim communities on western civilization, and so on. I haven't encountered one article yet that describes one part of the world as savage. (Note however that I only have checked articles from recent years, as the list of very long) Rather they just see the Western civilization as one of the many civilization. Sijo Ripa 12:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to be treated with more respect, I would suggest that you not say things like: "I disagree," when all I have done is quote a dictionary definition. I've been trying to point out that the word "civilization" has a great deal of baggage. There are many articles on culture: Western culture; Asian culture, etc., but using such terms is always problematic as well, as you note. Obviously we should reflect all points of view in accordance with their relative importance. However, I think that we should stay away from neat classification schema such as Huntington's. His approach is controversial and, after all, is only one theory. Sunray 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As your (second) definition points out, it doesn't have to be value loaded (just read the "is usually contrasted"). In other words, the author defines whether he uses it in a value loaded way or not, whether or not he uses it in contrast. (Of course it always has a slightly positive connotation, but that's the same with so many terms. A negative connotation towards other people would be problematic however.) And you can easily find definitions that don't mention the contrast at all, and if you would have read my comment, you would have read that many authors, besides Hungtington, use the term in a neutral way (which isn't surprising according to your and many other definitions). An example of another definition is the broad (as opposed to the narrow) definition of Wikipedia: "In a broader sense, civilization often can refer to any distinct society, whether complex and city dwelling, or simple and tribal. This sense is often perceived as less exclusive and ethnocentric, or alternatively less useful and meaningful, than the first. In this sense, civilization is nearly synonymous with culture." In other words, if Wikipedia doesn't use it into a value loaded way, it isn't value loaded. Sijo Ripa 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't worked on this page, and the name is not important to me. But in my view, "Western Culture" or "Western Civilizatiion" essentially means "based on European history", although that might not be the best way to put it. If I was to look up either one, I would expect to read more or less about ancient Greece and Rome, the domination of the Christian Church, the Renaissance and the Reformation, and Shakespeare and so on, and how their influence has carried through the centuries (for better or worse). Maurreen 15:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Michel foucault is considered as one of the most prominent postmodernists. I have read a few texts of him. In one article in the 'History of Western Sexuality' (probably not the real title), Foucault repeated 50 times on a row 'all men are homosexuals'. He only gave one prove, namely that two straight men enjoyed having sex with eachother during a test on a French university. Being a straight male, i was astonished about this. My sexual feelings are not chosen. I fancy women, because nature forces me to this. This could probably mean that i am not a postmodernist, but i still regard myself being one. I once followed a course of philosophy and the teacher said the line: 'How to define the moment that you write,' preceded by what did i do this year, this month and this day. This belongs to the main theme of Foucault. I am not a philosopher, so i probably am not good in getting to the point. To interpretate Foucault, I think he means that reading, listening, talking, writing and acquiring knowledge are all acts. Knowledge is not some kind of solid building that expands, but it is scattered and fragmented in space and time. Within its context, knowledge is always different, because the context is lost once the moment is gone. The text of Foucault in which he states 'all men are gay' is knowledge because it exists (to my view of course). Being postmodern doesn't mean that i need to be against certain things, it means for me that i accept everything as it is because it exists, even racism or genocide. I think that the Wikipedia:NPOV rules are very postmodern. Wikipedia wants us to come to a consensus. It says that we should add all knowledge, even pseudoscientific or biased knowledge and get the bias out of it by coming to a 'worldwide majority view', whatever that means.
What i don't understand is why the Western Civilization should be looked at so negatively, i prefer a neutral POV. The only reason why the west is viewed as negative is because the west conquered the world, and gave all away because all men should be equal and free according to the western POV. An article about the Chinese civilization would never have these kind of disputes, because they were not strong enough to conquer all.
I think we should add the Huntington view, because it is a POV, allthough Wikipedia wants that only views that are hold by a significant amount of people should be added in order to make an article NPOV.--Daanschr 09:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise suggestion

Western civilization could become a disambiguation page, linking to both Western culture and Western world. Maurreen 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] japan a wester civ

I strongly disagree with the statement that "Japan has largely adopted Western culture." I find this at best an extremely superficial and simplistic "observation" and at worst an ethnocentric overgeneralization. The fact that people of Japan drive cars or wear suits only proves that there has been some material cultural transference. Americans literally eat tons of maize, tomatoes and potatoes. Have Americans "largely adopted Indigenous Native American culture?" I suggest you ask someone from Japan what they think of your statement. In my experience, Christianity, a fundamental and basic element of Western Civilization is still foreign to the average Japanese person from Japan. Shinto and Buddhism are preeminent. People of Japan speak Japanese, primarily eat traditional Japanese food, and write using the (originally Chinese) system that has been used in Japan for over 1000 years. Where is the "largely adopted Western culture?" The example given above regarding an adopted Chinese writing system is an excellent example. Japan has adopted technology and methodology from many places. And they made it just as Japanese as anything else they do. I have edited the picture caption accordingly.--AnthroLibrarian 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

since wwii
Sort of. An eastern civilisation heavily influenced by western civilisation perhaps would be a more accurate way of saying it?LupusCanis 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The eastern civilization does not exist. The whole world is heavily influenced by the western civilization. I think that Japan should be included into this article, because it is rich and has similar social institutions and phenomenon, which differ from underdeveloped countries. Japan has very large differences compared to Western Europe and North America. To name some examples:
  1. There are no housenumbers visable on Japanese houses. For a houseadress, people have to go to the police station, which serves as a public library. Policemen have become a sort of social workers, since crime is very limited in Japan. (Police_system_of_Japan#Police-Community_Relations)
  2. The mafia is called Yakuza in Japan. Yakuza is tolerated and has a huge scycraper in Tokyo with the text Yakuza on it. They still kill people, but they are not convicted for their crimes. (Yakuza#Current_Activities)
  3. The Japanese have very liberal views towards sexuality compared to North America and Western Europe. There is a guild gropers of women, who have a judo colour belt and they do interviews on the radio. The frequency of groping of women have resulted in special wagons in the metro for women. I witnissed this liberalism in the train in the Netherlands. Japanese youngsters where sitting on the ground near the entrance of a busy train with a pile of pornmagazines on their lap. In the Netherlands the sexual morale in the media and politics is very liberal, but in daily reality the Dutch are very conservative compared to the Japanese. (Josei Senyo Sharyo)--Daanschr 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Japan is Western? NONSENSE. Is this what Westerners think of Japan, or what Japan think of themselves? Sources? I am feeling that "Westerners" love to cherry-pick and call any rich, developed countries as "West" so that their "West Club" can look simply fabulous. Heilme 23:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this goes to show the difficulty in defining "Western". Is Australia "Western?" Not geographically. Culturally though, Australia is quite similar to the United Kingdom and is therefore normally thought of as Western. How about Bolivia? Geographically it is “Western” but culturally is quite different from any European culture normally thought of as "Western."

[edit] Made a small alteration

Saying that the majority of Western Europeans are agnostic or atheist is rather hyperbolic, so I just changed "the majority of" to "many" - it is certainly not a majority of the %s cited are accurate and indicadive of a trend across the whole area. It is, however, a VERY significant minority. LupusCanis 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Incorrect Information

This article makes several mistakes. I'm taking out information that I feel does not apply to the western world defined as "cultures of the people of European origin and their descendants". If someone wants to reinclude the information with a quality citation, I won't object. Most of the cutting is from the "Beyond art and politics" section.--Dr.Worm 02:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you excluded freedom as an important value, and the fact that many countries in the western world have strong socialist political parties as opposed to the USA. I had the impression, reading the npov-rules, that deletion of material should be done after consultation on the talk page of an article, not before. Also, in the Netherlands non-western immigrants are not immigrants from Japan. Japanese immigrants are counted as western. So, your assumption that the western world only includes (transplanted) Europeans is only one point of view, which is not consisted with the practise in social sciences in at least one country.--Daanschr 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Feminism and the rights of homosexuals have absolutely nothing to do with socialism and to link them in a single sentence is very misleading.

[edit] A lot of confusions

I tend to think that the whole point of view of the so-called "western culture" seems very confusing and oriented in a American-centred point of view.

The basic confusion is, in my opinion, as it is made in usual language between "western culture" as refering to European christian cultures (with the huge cultural differences, like beetween latin/catholic-based cultures and Anglo/Protestant-based cultures for exemple) with "modernity" (social modernity, technological modernity, fashions, etc.) and with "American civilisation". I think that in the USA these three concepts overlap and make the American society. The consequence of this overlaping is that from an American point of view (in this article) a lot of characteristics which are basically American, or caracteristics which are modern societies caracteristics are all put in this whole "western culture" group. As if all of these elements were basically common traditional elements of all western countries; Which is completly wrong. A lot of these caracteristics (such as consumerism, lost of honor codes, society oriented to personal development and material improvement, nuclear-family based society, etc. Are things that were completly inexistant in most western European countries only 40 years ago. I'm from France, my parents were born in a society which was part of the western civilisation since thousands of years, but without a lot of these tipical things of the "modern civilisation". It was before the modernization/Americanisation of the sixties (and excuse me also the tem "americanisation", because it was also in big part made with cultural things of American origins, musics, fashions, etc.)

I thing that calling these "modern global culture of American origin" "western culture" can be very confusing because it is not basically a caracteristic of all countries of western culture (even in western Europe a lot of people continue to live following a more "traditional way of life (which is western by the way)".

This confusion with of the two different concepts can lead some "sociologists" such as huttington to draw maps of "civilisation" made on an exclusive USA's point of view, in which "western" means more or less "in the sphere of influence of the modern American civilisation and way of life". which would mean that to be "western" a country is supposed to be rich, democratic, consumerist, practicing all these modern values, enjoying "international" fashion such as hip-hop culture or fast foods and leisure parks, etc. Which would mean that all the countries that does not share these "modern" caracteristics are not supposed to be of "western culture", which is of course wrong. Myself I am shoked to see that latin-America is excluded from huntington's "western civilisation", since these countries, despite being generally poor, share much more of lot of traditional values and cultural caracteristics that are present in my own western country than in the USA, through the latin herency and the catholic values.

I am also disturbed with the confusion wich is made between "modern civilisation" and the Greco-Roman civilisation. If Grego-Roman was one the the foundations (bringing christianity with it) of the European civilisation, it was not the only one. Germanic civilisation for exemple is another, especially important for northen European civilisation, which have developped their own version of christianity, quite different from the Roman catholic one. But put Greek and Roman civilisation as the fathers of the "modern consumerist civilisation" is just wrong; These civilisations have influenced much more the mediterranean Europe (which curiously is less "westernized" (in the "modern" meaning), or is since less time. Which is the symbol of western civillisation and which has more link to greco-roman world: the modern the "fast-food", or the Italian "slow-food" ? The problem is, with all the confusion with the term "western culture", when thinking of westernization most people would think more "fast-food" than the traditional family social meal of the mediterranean regions. Another point is that linking the "modern western culture" with "greek" herency, is too forget that greek civilisation can be as much a point of reference for European culture than for eastern mediterranean cultures. Especially for the arabo-muslim civilisation who took a lot in greek (and Roman too) culture, wich was present ont he mediterranean regions before the arrival of the Arabs. Greek philosophy, Greek science astronomy, poetry, mathematics have been one of the main foundations of the Islamic civilisation. The Greco-roman urbanity and architecture (introverted patio-based architecture, baths, etc) had also much more influence on islamic cities than on European ones (especially on north American and northern European ones). we could find much more other exemples.

I think the whole concept of "western" has become too much incaccurate in its modern meaning that the role of an encyclopedia (especially an international and global one) is precisely to stop the confusion and should be less American-centred. This article should avoid to use the word "western" in the cold-war political meaning and in the same time put the accent just in the historical meaning that include European cultures, and explain why it is hasardous to use "western" as synomym of "modern societies".

I have started a new project: WikiProject debate on literature before editing aimed at writing an article after debating about relevant literature. I am willing to help rewriting this article if you like the join this project. We could find relevant literature and debate about it. Everybody is welcome to join in.
I like your input about the western culture. I don't agree though that the western culture is two millenia old. The western culture is as old as orientalism and dates from the 19th century. I agree that the concept of western culture has very different meanings, therefor i suggest a research of the literature in order to find it out.--Daanschr 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


An excellent discussion. I love it. In my opinion, Americans and Europeans seem to have separated in terms of values and the perception of "Western culture" in American context versus European context are different. In America, where their history only really begins in 1776, they tend to look forward and mix "modernism" as part of its Western culture. Europeans tend to look more towards its past (thousands-year-old Greek and Roman culture) and therefore tend to be more "traditional". Of course, setting the date as what is considered "traditional" is difficult because a culture always changes with time. But to claim that Western culture include overly modernistic terms such as consumerism, casual sexual practice, or even human rights/democratic values are completely derived from American perspectives. When do human rights/democratic issues themselves truly began to be important even in the West? The Age of Empires or Colonialism only ends about 50 years ago. Consumerism only starts last century when global economy took off. As for casual sexual practice before marriage, I guess that's everyone's little secret. :P Heilme 23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with western world

I discovered that personal freedom is continuously deleted from the list of Western culture#Beyond art and politics. In the netherlands, personal freedom is the primary value. This means that the central value of one of the countries of the western culture apparently doesn't belong to this article.

Last years i am getting more and more the impression that the western culture doesn't exist. At the moment the two main cultures mentioned in this article are seperate. I am talking about the American culture and the European culture. There are several reasons for thinking that the American culture and the European culture are very different. 1) Europe is secular and America christian, 2) Europe is in favour of international cooperation personified in the European Union, and America is in favour of schisma and war, 3) America likes to break international law and international agreements and Europe want to uphold these old traditions of the western culture, 4) America has an anti-social policy of exploiting its poor population, while Europe tries to be humane to those who live in Europe, 5) America tries to control the entire world by filling everybodies minds with irrational fears, while Europe is in favour of letting reality speak for itself through science and act upon it politically, 6) America thinks that politics is only about money and power, while in (Northern) Europe, politics is primarily for helping the common people and society, without having a ratrace for survival. Therefore, i request that this article should be merged with Western World. I don't belong to a culture that includes the United States of America.--Daanschr 14:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal freedom is greater in the US than in the Netherlands where freedom of speech isn't guaranteed due to hate-speech laws, often driven by irrational fears. Next there's severe indoctrination by the media, which often results in, for example, anti-american sentiments, and strengthens various believes to fascist levels. If I'm not mistaken there was a near lethal arson attack on a meeting of a political party some years ago, due to the party being considered 'evil' non of the attackers were arrested, and though a woman lost her leg, the incident was regarded by the mainstream political parties as an 'insignificant accident'. Not to mention the murder on Theo van Gogh for freely speaking his mind, two homosexuals holding hands in Amsterdam being beaten up by some youths, several politicians needing police protection due to constant death threats, attacks during every far right demonstration by so called 'anti-fascists', attacks on political campaigners, and last but not least, the demonization of people with 'despicable believes' by the media which resulted in the murder on Pim Fortuyn.
You definitely picked the wrong country as the bastion of 'personal freedom'. --Zero g 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It was wrong indeed that far-right political parties were treated with disrespect. This has considerably changed though. Geert Wilders, Rita Verdonk and Marco Pastors are respectable members of the political community. Minister Rita Verdonk is trying to solve the immigration problem, thereby actively helped by Ahmed Aboutaleb. This is unique in the world, i guess, that someone like Verdonk can get such a level of respect. It is not possible in Belgium that Filip Dewinter becomes the minister of integration and is able to solve the problem of integration thereby helped by a prominent member of the most difficult groups of immigrants.

In the USA this would be completely impossible. There the politics estranges itself from the population, trying to rule by cheating and lying. No wonder that that country is suffering from a major disillusionment. Despite being left, i am confident with the Dutch politics, and i assume that the right and even the far right is confident in my country as well. A major difference between Europe and the USA is that Europeans try to solve problems by talking and trying to understand eachother, while Americans, especially the Republicans try to solve problems by creating unnecassary fears, suspicions and by lying and cheating. This kind of policy considerably reduces personal freedom in the USA. As John Stuart Mill wrote, people shouldn't be able to sell themselves into slavery.--Daanschr 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I could name numerous occasions where Wilders and Verdonk (who was spat upon by a student) were treated with the utmost disrespect. You conveniently left out Smit from Nieuw Rechts, who like the above can't walk around freely without protection even though his political importance is insignificant. Verdonk and Aboutaleb aren't on friendly footing so I'm not sure where that argument is coming from. Verdonk and her soft immigration politics are also not comparable to Filip Dewinter.
The Netherlands used the same strategy as the US regarding its immigration policies. Immigrants were allowed into the country without the population's consent, and anyone who dared speaking up against it was labeled a racist and subsequently ignored. Crime, unemployment, and other unfavorable statistics were kept from the population, such as the fact that 75% of the muslim population marries a bride or groom from their home country. Though recent Dutch laws made this more difficult Dutch muslims simply marry in Belgium nowadays. I'd say the bullying and indoctrination the Dutch population faces easily out matches Republican politics, and Mill's quote easily goes for Holland, the Dutch people sold themselves into slavery by the unrealistic ethical norms the government forced them to adopt. --Zero g 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There were nice graphics on crime and immigrants in the newspapers. It was very clear that the Antillian and Moroccan immigrants represented the largest amount of criminals and the Dutch ethnic population the least. It is also known that the muslim population takes many brides and grooms from their native countries. Especially the male muslims do this, because they think that the female muslims in the Netherlands are too independent.

Nowadays, all politicians in the Netherlands need bodyguards, which is not surprising given the many death threats from both the left and the right.

Minister Winsemius of housing said that the immigrant problem is about to explode in the same way as in France, so emergency measures have to be taken to turn the tide. At the moment the borders are closed. Only refugees are excepted.

Verdonk may be soft in your view, but in the Netherlands she is regarded as too hard. The VVD was split in two camps regarding the treatment of immigrants, which nearly destroyed this political party. Verdonk lost her election to Rutte, which can give you an indication that the kind of language she uses is regarded as negative by a considerable amount of conservative liberals. The CDA had problems especially with the treatment of immigrants thanks to the policy of Verdonk. The whole CDA department of the province of Friesland threatened to split if the top of the party wouldn't implement a more social policy towards the poor and the immigrants. Prime minister Balkenende had to hurry to Friesland and other parts of the country to try to keep the party from falling apart. D66 was part of the coalition government, but left only because of the anti-immigrant policy of Verdonk. Now, D66 tries to fight as best as it can to marginalize Verdonk and other anti-immigrant politicians. Wilders and Pastors can only get 5 seats out of 150 at least.

A poll on the opinion of the Dutch population has proven that more then 2/3 of the populatian wants to make an end to the discussion on immigrants and want other issues to become more important. Filip Dewinter said about it that the Dutch population is tired and that the policy of Verdonk of the last years was good. Do you really think that Dewinter is a radical when he says something like that? The Belgians should end the cordon sanitaire and except the opinion of a million Flemish. For me, discriminating rascists is a kind of rascism in itself.--Daanschr 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dewinter prefers a full immigration stop, something that is far from Verdonk's goal.
The eventual oppression of "racists" was predicted by Churchill who said "The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists", probably fearing that anti-fascists sentiments would develop into a polar opposite. --Zero g 16:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your change of the article is right, but only partly. The economy of the entire western world has not grown as much in the last 30 years as it did in the 1950s and 1960s, so a more liberal (instead of socialist) economy had to be implemented. However, you are right that former left-wing people are now voting right-wing due to the immigrant problem. At the moment i still vote left, but i am doubting wether i should vote Eén NL at the moment instead of Groen Links. You are partly right, but i think your views are too one-sided. There are more things in life then immigrants.--Daanschr 10:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But taking the Netherlands as an example there is no real poverty. Also, the "less rich" people generally vote socialistic, not right wing. I've seen no indication that the poor are voting capitalistic because they believe it will lead to greater prosperity. What might be the case is that the increased wealth made the middle class bigger than the lower class, which would result in a shift of the votes. What do you believe to be the reason for the shift to the right among the voters? --Zero g 16:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a expression among Dutch social workers that poverty can be smelled. There are many families in the Netherlands who can't buy toothpaste, shampoo, meat and can't pay the rent. whole families became homeless because they couldn't pay the rent. It wasn't possible in the 1970s, but it is today. This happens all over the western world. You are right that most of the Dutch society exist out of middle class nowadays, but most of them have to spend all their money for being able to live comfortably.

The shift to the right didn't happen from left-wing political parties to right-wing. The official left-wing has never ever won a majority in the elections, but the right-wing political parties were very moderate by tradition. Christian political parties were conservative in family values but divided in social-economic policy. The liberals were conservative in the social-economic policy and moderate regarding morale issues. The liberals supported the abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage laws of the 1990s and 2000s.

The shift to the right slowly occured through all the political parties. The Labour Party was extreme left-wing in the early 1980s but cradually changed position and supported huge tax cuts in the 1990s. 1992 was an important year for the beginning of strict regulation for immigrants. I know lots about it, because i wrote a paper on the Ghanaian community in the Netherlands. In 1992, a huge criminal organization was discovered who smuggled illegal immigrants into the Netherlands, who could easily become Dutch citizens. These immigrants had to take several kinds of welfare of the government. This got huge press coverage and the illegals were more and more marginalized from 1992 onwards. Morrocan immigrants became fanatic religious and started terrorizing neighbourhoods and haressed girls for dressing too naked.

In the late 1990s, a cultural shift took place, which started with left-wing politicians and left-wing comedians. Suddenly it became acceptable for left-wing comedians to make cruel jokes about immigrants. Left-wing politicians and journalists started giving attention to conservative thinkers with new ideas on ethics and morale. In 2000 and 2001, the integration of foreigners was an important agenda in the politics. The idea was that the integration was no succes and measures had to be taken, like making it is hard as possible for immigrants to come into the Netherlands. Even refugees had to have a very good story with all the paperwork correct in order to become a Dutch citizen.

2001 was the year when Leefbaar Nederland was founded. It was left-wing and wanted to blow the other parties away. What they were lacking was a good leader. They introduced the right-wing Pim Fortuyn, who made it into a huge party. Fortuyn said in january 2002 that the islam is a backward culture. He was ousted from Leefbaar Nederland and started a new political party, LPF. Leefbaar Nederland lost the election with only 2 seats, but LPF came into the parliament with 26 seats. Fortuyn was seen as a nazi by both the left-wing and the right-wing. He was killed by a left-wing extremist, still he could win the elections. At that time in june 2002, the anti right-wing spell was broken. Since 2002, it has become accepted for people to express anti-foreigner sentiments. I know that many left-wingers really don't like this, but it is true. Journalists treat all right-wingers with respect nowadays, even the neo-nazis. NOVA had a half hour long press coverage of the leader of the NVU, which was without any critics regarding his views.--Daanschr 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How are neo-NAZI's "right wing"? The NAZI's were socialists.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/s/Talk%7EWestern_culture_41c7.html"