Terry Boswell wrote:
> Debates about worldviews, materialist vs cultural, always seem to me
> to get lost in "time and space." If one is talking to the person
> next door, then questions of cognition and differing cultural
> definitions of reality are immediately important determinants of the
> course and form of interaction, independent from its content. That is,
>
> did your neighbor understand your message? Specific issues of
> cultural context, such as language, gender, perceptions, values, and
> worldviews, are paramount for answering this question.
Are cultural differences important just in personal interaction? What do
you say about communication between aborigen communities and states, or
between states of different religions (e.g.)? Are you sure, for example,
that is appropriate to talk about true communication between countries
at U.N.? Are you sure that production methods are the same in all the
world (e.g.--> Daewoo and is "holy" owner)? 8)
> Move in time and space away from interpersonal interaction, and
> issues of cultural context fade in relevance for determing
> interactions. For a world-systemic process to operate over
> hundreds of years
it is not the same 30 years that a couple of centuries. I think that is
appropriate to talk about world process only after the independence of
european colonies, at least. The end of cold war, coincident with the
affirmation of wide-range communications, is the appropriate start point
of REAL world process, in my opinion. Sure, 1973's crisis affects all
the world, but I'm not sure if each major event in each region affects
directly the rest of the world.
> it must produce relatively similar outcomes in
> an enormous variety of specific cultural contexts (otherwise, it is
> not the same process over the entire time and space in question).
> Only the most basic material relations tend to qualify -- food,
> shelter, death, fertility. The more one's basic material needs are
> determined by the world economic and interstate system, the more
> integrated the system --and vice versa.
Superficially similarity, of course. The meaning of food and death is
not the same. The concepts associated with them aren't the same, too.
After all, using a materialistic perspective, a culture is just a
adaptative system for a CONCRETE environment. I can accept that the
adaptations of most of the non-occidental cultures are being stimulated,
contaminated by the occidental way, but the cultural inertia still
exists and marks the use and conception of such innovations.
> At the mid-range between specific cultural contexts and the long
> history of the world-system are institutions, such as corporations,
> states, and churches. Insititutions bundle together sets of cultural
> contexts and back up their definitions of reality with powerful
> material resources. Agreement among the world's most potent
> institutions can create a worldview that defines the cultural
> context for most of the world's inhabitants (i.e., a hegemonic
> worldview).
Agreement between churches, religions, states or corporations? A happy
world, isn't it? It is very difficult to think about that theme
nowadays, when the competition between major economic zones grows and
diversifies constantly in new fields. Moreover, a hegemonic worldview
is, I think, a promise of terrible days, a promise of loss of the
cultural diversity: death of human being as he is.
Finally, I want to remark the ambiguity of the relationship between
powerful actors (e.g., states, megacorporations, etc.). Fierce
competition is necessary for saving each actor's identity and prestige;
variable cooperation (depending on circumstances) is unavoidable (an
isolated actor has no opportunities Vs the others).
Regards
Juan Luis Chulilla.
P.D. Yo ask for critics, don't you? I hope that I used the appropriate
context and, of course, the critic as a whole is very simple, but don't
forget: History is a product of Occident, we write History and our
identity depends on it. Beware of its applications (even as a method) to
the entire world.
P.P.D. Excuse my poor english 8(