Barring military conquest from outside forces, can or will a society ever adopt another way of life if that way of life is not associated with a good social standing or something to look up to? For example, if a society that is not Muslim does not consider being Muslim prestigious, how likely is it that that society will become Muslim? Whenever a new cultural trend starts and gradually turns into mainstream culture, it begins with an initial group of pioneers or frontrunners, who start the ball rolling and from whom a new cultural trends moves to the wider public. Which group of people (things like class/ethnicity/politics, etc.) - in your society/country - would you consider the ones most likely to either start or be the frontrunners that the rest of society would follow? Doesn't matter if you like or sympathtize with them, just if you think they would have the power and prestige it takes to foster widespread cultural change. And finally... if a new cultural trend begins, and it is popularized by whomever in your society is considered prestigious and looked up to, do you believe that you could counter it without having the same degree of prestige as the powerful and prestigious?
How often do cultures really change in a large and meaningful way without military conquest? Isn't it just a slow absorption into the prevailing culture of some of the more popular aspects of a new culture? Food being a good example, Britain has had a love affair with Chinese food since the 60s but I struggle to think of any way that our culture is turning Chinese.
'Prestige' is a conjuring trick and is no more meaningful outside of a small circle of politically influential mutual back-slappers than the Oscars.
They've always changed in a large and meaningful way without military conquest. Our cultures today, no matter what country we're in, are no longer the same they were just 200 years ago, or merely a century ago, much less a thousand years ago. How high of a prominence is the concept of "human rights" in all of Europe today, and how high was the prominence of that same concept in Europe 200 years ago? Culture doesn't just change as a result of foreign interaction, after all. The values of early medieval Europe and late 19th century Europe are as alien to each other as the values of Saudi Arabia are to the values of the US today. But on the topic of foreign-inspired cultural change: As for Chinese food culture.... let's use another national comparison: Would you say that American culture, for example popular culture and entertainment has not changed British culture, possibly even language?
So, looking up to someone or holding someone in high regard for what they do, is " a conjuring trick"? Nonsense, and I doubt you even believe that yourself. Fair enough, that you don't like what society at large considers to be prestigious, but I doubt that you - as an individual - don't consider anyone else prestigious. Prestige isn't just something reserved for the elites, it's just that historically almost all of the ideas that make up what we'd call Western Civilization, all the ideas and styles that make up our cultures came from or were popularized by the elites and trickled down from there to the common, dirty masses like ourselves. Just as it has always done. One can resent that if one is so inclined, or one could be happy that recent history suggests we are less likely to listen to our elites or consider them cultural frontrunners. Yet, that simply means someone else will become seen as the group we take our cultural cues from. Culture never stands still, it may change slowly or fast, but it will always change.
'Prestige' to me smacks of collective idolatry. I respect those who have earned that respect through their actions, as opposed to the fleeting, subjective application of the term, prestige, usually from sycophants lured by the fashion of the day-be it the arts or politics. Nobody will dictate to me what they consider prestigious or otherwise, and expect an agreement.
Well clearly American culture has added to our own in many subtle and not so subtle ways but does that mean it has changed British culture or just added to it. We still make very typically British films even though we mostly watch American ones due to their popularity and much greater volume of output. Like you said no culture stands still despite what the most rabid nationalist would have us believe but is multiculturalism changing or destroying our culture or merely adding to it. Is it just a matter of fashion and progress or is it a ''taking over'' of our culture. I may be getting away from your original topic here........
Yes. Much like outrage: THEODORE DALRYMPLE on outrage: “Outrage is a substitute for religion: It convinces us that our existence has some kind of meaning or significance beyond itself, that is to say beyond the paltry flux of day-to-day existence, especially when that existence is a securely comfortable one. Therefore we go looking for things to be outraged about as anteaters look for ants. Of all emotions, outrage is not only one of the most pleasurable but also one of the most reliable.”
The largest culture change I have seen is the assimilation of the LGBT community. At present it seems to be accepted by the majority. Not all embrace it but every year it gets better for them. The flip side of the coin is the degrading of the black community. When a black gets killed in my city I don't hear much outcry. The general comment is "were getting to be like Chicago". Black values have led them to the point falling over the cliff. BLM didn't just up because of police brutality but because a realization that only blacks care about black lives matter. Some are realizing they are a dying force in America. The other culture change is the unacceptance of illegal persons in our country. Whites are out front and will say so. The hidden voices are the blacks and legal immigrants who privately hope that the border is secure and the deportations continue. As a society we are no longer willing to be doormats. We are no longer willing to be shhh-ed because it may hurt ones feelings. Maybe honesty is coming back in vogue.
I don't really get why you'd consider prestige a bad thing. Respect is prestige. You need to be respected, to have what you do and say, or you're not prestigous. But from a strictly societal perspective it doesn't matter what one, single individual thinks when it comes to what is considered prestigious. Those countries with monarchy, have most people considering monarchy prestigious. Doesn't make them all "sycophants". Respecting tradition and certain professions, like doctors, is not "sycophantic". You argue that prestige smacks of collective idolatry, yet you seem to simply dismiss it because it's "subjective". Well, so is who you respect and why you respect someone. If there are three or more people who respect the same person as you for the same reason, do the three of you respecting the same person for the same reason become "sycophants". I would argue that no, you don't.
A cultural shift I can think of that goes along the lines of your OP in my country is people wanting to imitate black gangster culture, wiggers, but it seems to be fading out these days.. It is definitely not something I look up to.. It is full of praise for being uneducated, violent, doing bad things like pimping women and doing/dealing drugs, speaking **** english, and basically trying to be something that even those who are should not want to be.. Even blacks in the ghetto should not want to be there and live the way they do, they should and most do want to get out but they are trapped by the leftist welfare/excuse cycle which has made them hopeless in that matter and even more violent and racist.. But, young kids idolize this crap because of celebrity propaganda and mostly the music industry.. I have to admit their music does bump.. But why in the world would anyone idolize being from the "projects" (welfare), and being a felon or having cred for having a criminal record.. Stupid.. But there waddle white country boys saying "*****" (aggin) and trying to talk like some sort of uneducated moron about how cool they are because they got arrested and brag about the drugs they do..
No, on the contrary, you're actually getting into my original topic. It is probably not an usual current events topic. The topic is meant to be about how the culture of a society or country changes, and what/who drives our respective countries cultural change. I use the word "prestige" for what drives the general public of a society to gradually adopt new values, beliefs, ways of organizing society, etc. The belief that "Muslims might take over Europe" is somewhat popular here, yet it seems people don't know that it is American culture that is considered cool/prestigious/respected and prominent, and not , say, Arab culture, values, popular culture, music and beliefs that are. No culture on Earth stays the same. I am not suggesting that British culture disappears and is "taken over" by American culture, simply that one changes the other. As you say, we (that includes Scandinavians) watch American films due to their popularity and greater volume. My topic is meant to delve into the question: Why are we consuming so many American films, tv series and music? We have more immigrants from the Middle East in our country than immigrants from the US, yet it is American popular culture, and even language that influence us the most. Why's that you think? Why are Europeans, especially those in countries with more than 10% of Middle Eastern or Central Asian immigrants, not adopting and consuming Arabic or Muslim language, customs, beliefs, popular culture, to the same extent that they're adopting and consuming American culture? This is why I bring up prestige. My notion is this: Historically, in the 18th century the lingua franca, popular culture, linguistic influence and what foreign words you'd needed to know to be considered "cool", was French. French occupied, in Western Europe at least, the cultural prestige and influence on other European cultures that America does today. To a lesser extent, of course, due to the range of mass media and that most European societies were strict class societies, but the social "mechanism" was the same: Country A's culture and cultural products is considered popular and prestigious, and so the upper classes copy those trends, and eventually the lower classes copy the upper classes' values. I would say that wether or not multiculturalism is destructive depends on which of the two sorts of multiculturalism, you're talking about. There is the national multi-culturalism of, say the 18th century British Isles. One society, several native cultures united under a single state through historical conquests, royal inheritence, etc. This form is the one that nearly all empires and kingdoms throughout history has had. Then there's something like the American "melting pot" form of multiculturalism. Empty land, bring in loads of different ethnicities to settle it. I don't see any positive value in the latter for a country that did not originate in the excat same way as countries like the US, Canada, Australia or the Latin American and Carribean countries. That are foreign values that are worthwhile considering, but there are also foreign values that - while fitting in say an American historical/cultural/geographical context - does not fit into another country. Doesn't mean they're "bad" because they're foreign, but simply that what fits into one society for historical, cultural, geographical reasons may not neccesarily fit into another society the same way. Would my country still be called Denmark if Americanization increased even more? Sure. Would the culture still be "Danish"? Actually yes to that, too. It would simply have changed. Imo, for the worse, because I value cultural diversity over the notion that we must all be the US and adopt a multicultural melting pot society. But I would not call it "taking over" my culture as it doesn't involve outside force. I would not consider it progress, I would simply consider it...change.
I think that point is the most culturally significant change in modern Western society. It's no more than a couple centuries ago that the direction, leadership and ideas that shaped our societies only came from the elites in society. Today, movements for change can build entirely from the ground up, even the poorest members of society have a voice and the means to call for action. A trend that probably already began slowly with the dawn of radio, but has reached its zenith in the social media age. Not sure all of that is a good trend, sometimes populism can be source of good, other times it can be a short-term release of frustration that can leads to policies that trip one up in the long-term. And yeah, the cultural acceptance of LGBT by a majority of US and generally Western societies is not just big, but also a very recent and rapid change. Don't have to go many decades back before being gay was still taboo. What did the LGBT community do right in terms of gaining respect, in your opinion, that the BLM folks did wrong in the same terms?
If they are convinced that they can never become anything greater than a criminal, that that's the only success they'll feel... I can see why some would turn to that. Why suburban, well-off kids would listen to that and adopt the culture... well, teeanage boys want to be seen as tough to some extent everywhere, I guess. It's sort of ironic in a sad way. It's extremely low self-esteem, when you think about it. I'm actually a supporter of a welfare state, but not a nanny state or one that simply allows people to be on passive welfare assistence. Because you're right, that does make people lose hope, purpose, sense of self-worth, ambition.
I guess that part of the reason American culture has spread so readily in Europe stems from the fact it is essentially European in origin. It's not the same jump from American to European as it would be from Arab to European. The faiths of the two cultures being so different also has to play a part. In Britain at least, Christianity is seen as a benign and fairly irrelevant influence while Islam is seen as the polar opposite. Ignorance about the greater parts of Muslim culture and what it has contributed to Western culture is widespread. I have travelled in North Africa spending a month or so in both Egypt and Morocco so am more open to the better sides of Arab culture than most. I loved the food and the hospitable nature of the people but was put off by the apparent sexism. I found the music dreadful but was surprised at how safe it was to wander alone through Cairo at 2 in the morning. Most people have not had those experiences so their only knowledge of Muslim culture is the terror attacks and often repeated stories of gays thrown off roofs etc. I get accused of wanting Islam to take over the West because I refuse to stereotype all Muslims as fanatics when the truth is I can see the advantages of multiculturalism adding to my culture so long as it is the best and not the worse aspects that we accept. There are plenty of downsides to American culture too, I don't want to see gang culture taking over my inner cities any more than I want to see Sharia law and the mangling of the English language can upset me but because the similarities are so much greater American culture is influencing mine much more than Arab culture ever will despite the lower numbers of American immigrants.
