Terry's and Juan's comments strike me as an improvement in the level of
debate. A few notes. It is important to not reify the 'powerful' as
corporations, states, etc. Classes and various subaltern groups can also
become powerful, and, before being incorporated into the system, are
likely to modify 'hegemonic ideologies.' I don't quite follow sectioning
off basic needs. Image making and creating needs are central processes of
most of the largest corporations in the US--think of Microsoft, or NIke,
or McDonald's. convincing people that they need these particular products
and brands is not simply responding to out-there needs, but is a process
of image building/manipulation/communication etc. The system gets its
salience through the ability to dominate/integrate other cultures, not
through its ability to 'go below them' to the level of basic needs. Now
that the system seems to be loosing its capacity to do so, creating a
'clash of civilizations' both across space (Islam, for example, vs. the
West) and within countries (the revolts of national minorities,
indigeneous people, women, and so forth) it can be said to be in crisis.
Steve Sherman Binghamton
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Juan Luis Chulilla wrote:
> 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(
>
>
>