Randomly generated numbers... or national culture?

[imomus]

I'm catching a plane to Spain later today, and, as always when I dip into a foreign culture, I'll be filing observations into two rough categories -- "that's typically Spanish" and "this is an indication of how Spain is changing". Of course, I'll make mistakes, wrong attributions. I'll probably see something new and think it's old, or see an anomaly and think it's a core part of Spanish identity, or see something local and think it's national, or see something Muslim and think it's Spanish. And actually, that last example shows how blurred these sorts of attributions can get. Where do you draw that particular line, when Spain was a Muslim nation for 800 years? The answer is partly political. You draw the line not just descriptively, but prescriptively. To designate this Spanish and that Muslim would be a political statement, and you'd make it according to your philosophy.

This issue -- and it's an interesting one -- comes up a lot in the clashes and crusades that go on over at Neomarxisme. Marxy often takes a stand against "Nihonjinron essentialists", people who talk about the Japanese character or way of life as if it were something unchanging. An example came up the other day, where he mocked the Nihonjinron Essentialists (let's call them NEs) for saying that Japan is a culture based on fish and rice, and failing to account for all the hamburgers now eaten in Japan. (This came as part of a wider argument -- well, a narrower one, actually -- about alleged links between Japan's visually-based writing system and its robustly visual manga culture.) The NE Marxy was actually answering there was Donald Richie, but a thinly-veiled parody of my writing style suggests I was also a target.

Actually, Marxy is being somewhat essentialist about the essentialism of my position on national character. It isn't as rigid as he'd like to believe. Anyone who's read my Japanese are almost Japanese piece will see that I think of national character as a construct (but also real), something that has to be learned by Japanese in pretty much the same way it's learned by foreigners.

Do nations change their habits and their character? Of course they do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a national character and a national habitus. Over the weekend I posted two pieces about the US (one about a 1959 General Motors film about design, one about the CIA's use of culture to influence post-war Europe). Click Opera reader bricology got annoyed. "Be angry at the Bush Administration, be indignant at American corporations (I won't disagree on either count). But please -- enough with saying that America and Americans "are" this or that thing, as if such finite classifications were possible. You might as well criticize randomly generated numbers."

The irony is that this belief that a culture is no more than "randomly generated numbers" is a particularly American one. American culture encourages people to look at the level of the individual ("someone in particular"), and the level of universality ("everyone in the world"), but shies away from the intermediate group level -- the level where you can talk anthropologically or sociologically about people collectively at lower levels than "everyone".

The Guardian has an interesting article today about US census bureau data, and the picture it paints of a changing -- but distinct -- nation. Look, for instance, at how the attitudes of university entrants in the US have changed between 1970 and 2005.

"In 1970, 85% of university entrants thought abortion should be legalised, 59% thought capital punishment should be abolished and 57% aimed to keep up with political affairs. By 2005, those figures had fallen to 55% in favour of legalised abortion, 33% against capital punishment, and 36% who aimed to follow politics. And while in 1970, 79% of university entrants said they had a personal objective of 'developing a meaningful philosophy of life', by last year 75% defined their objective as 'being very well off financially'."

The Guardian then goes back to the first statistical aggregate of an American census, made in 1878. America then was a very different nation, with most of its population clustered around a few North-Eastern states in which the majority of immigrants were white Europeans. Their lives revolved around relatively dense inner cities, the post office and the railway network. What generalizations about Americans could take in both these people and the car-dependent suburban people -- many of them Hispanics and Asians -- we call Americans today?

The answer is that the fact that American identity has changed in response to the historical, demographic and technological context doesn't mean there is no such thing as American identity. To be American is more than to be a series of "randomly generated numbers". People who think it's all random radically underestimate the effects of culture, socialization, ideology, politics and myth. For instance, how to explain the apparent ethical paradox revealed by the Guardian stats towards the value of human life? Support for abortion is falling in the US, and support for the death penalty rising. The answer doesn't lie in ethics, but in politics. These apparently inconsistent beliefs make sense when seen as parts of a political package -- conservatism -- which is gaining ground in the US. Conservatives assert that abortion is bad and capital punishment good, therefore these beliefs are perceived as consistent.

People hold inconsistent beliefs if they perceive them to be part of a package. Ironically, despite the lowering of stated interest in politics revealed by the US census, people hold clusters of beliefs which are entirely political, in the sense that they're only "consistent" when you see them along party political lines rather than ethical ones. They have, in other words, a mythical consistency. And the thing people forget about myths is that they're perfectly real.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Have you heard the news: Robbie Williams smokes on stage in Australia!

[georgesdelatour.livejournal.com]

Presumably, in the 1970s, a far smaller proportion of the US population got to university. So the seeming rise of right wing attitudes among students may simply mean that more Alf Garnett types are getting there than used to.

I'm sure I've read, in several places, that enthusiasm for capital punishment is actually falling in America. A majority still want it (as they do in the UK and Europe), but the margin is falling.

[(Anonymous)]

You make a dangerous "essentialist" assumption that "university students" of 1970 are somehow the same thing as "university students" in 2005 - the same constituency but one which has changed its beliefs. Not so. There were far fewer university students in 1970; they belonged to a more privileged group and were more skewed towards the liberal bastions of the east/west coast. Today, you'll find students are a much larger and culturally far broader constituency, with greater southern and red state input than in 1970. In fact, the sons and daughters of 1970 students are probably no more likely to be against legalised abortion or in favour of the death penalty; the uni intake is simply a little more nationally representative than it used to be.

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

I think the reason that your friend got so upset is that those of us who are American and liberal/progressive are utterly horrified to be lumped in with the conservative assholes. Individualism is our escape from being seen as one of "those" Americans who support the war and hate abortion and love George Bush. It's deeply embarassing to share a country with those creeps, and the idea that I could be seen as one of them just by virtue of being American is utterly galling. Individuality is safe because I can control that and I'm comfortable being judged on my own shit, but being judged on the stuff that is done by a very large group of people to which I do not belong... that's really upsetting.

[dmlaenker.livejournal.com]

The thing is, though, I'm an American, culturally, and I actively reject that fundamentalist worldview you describe. This isn't because I'm an individualist; I consider myself to be a communitarian. Rather, I'm just not a culturally conservative USAdian.

Also, I believe that culture is a much broader set of assumptions than that. Mark Rosenfelder had a great checklist (http://www.zompist.com/amercult.html) for Americans and others who doubt the existence of culture to test their broadest set of cultural assumptions. I can see myself in it, and see how others necessarily mightn't.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Of course. Just as all men are impugned when a man starts murdering prostitutes in Suffolk. The only positive aspect to this is that our horror at such associations might make us try to improve our gender, or vote strategically to minimize the power the creeps have to "represent" us in the political process.

The thing is, though, there are so many creeps. For instance, the newspapers most bought in the UK are the ones read by creeps whose politics I utterly abhor; the Daily Mail, The Sun. I would be pretty unrealistic if I asserted that these huge circulations have nothing to do with the proclivities and attitudes of the typical British person though.

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

I think part of what makes the American situation unique is that in a number of areas, people are divided almost evenly across the whole country, but have stronger local identities. I'm a lot more comfortable being a San Franciscan or even a Californian than an American. When our single country is the size of all of Western Europe, it becomes harder to generalize a single identity.

That said, I do think there are a number of things I have in common with other Americans, and it would be ridiculous to assert that this isn't true. I wouldn't say that nothing can be said about "Americans" as a whole, just that we have such a huge population and deep divisions politically that there are a number of issues that really just can't be easily generalized (or perhaps can be generalized in one of maybe three categories).

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Spain was a Muslim nation for 800 years.

I believe what you meant to say is that a varying part of modern Spain was several predominantly Muslim nations for about 1200 years. But I'm a nitpicker like that.

[(Anonymous)]

The "decrease" in pro-abortion, anti-capital punishment, life philosophy-seeking college students has less to do with an American attitude shift and more to do with the fact that more and more lower middle class folks are going to college. The result is that college campuses look like high schools now, filled with hoodlums and rednecks, and the curriculum is dumbed down to accomodate everyone.

-henryperri

[(Anonymous)]

It's true - each region is like a nation in itself, and even within. I remember hearing from a German friend that Berlin is distrusted in Germany like NYC is in the United States - you know, urban decadence, that kind-of thing.

So, it would be as wrong to describe the German character based on your experiences in Berlin as it would be ... the American to any city or region within it. To make the cultural arguments you like to posit, you have to live in the -entire- country, speaking the language, immersing yourself, even in the distasteful Southern or rural parts, etc. Otherwise the observations are just shallow guesses.

[(Anonymous)]

The 1970s were the peak of the liberal movement in the U.S. Then followed the conservative backlash, which continues today. The thing about politics is that it changes.

There are lefties and righties in every country, and the U.S. political spectrum actually happens to lean liberal in the grand scheme of world political systems. Only on issues like the death penalty, abortion, and the level of government involvement in providing social welfare do Americans come out conservative -- in comparison to Western Europe. Moreover, these issues are no Litmus test of liberalness. The Chinese government (as an example) has no qualms about allowing abortion, but by no means is it politically liberal.

The American conservative position on abortion is more consistent along religious/cultural lines than political ones. African-Americans, who are by and large Democrats, tend to be conservative on social issues and are not particularly pro-choice.

I certainly agree that there is such a thing as an American culture. In fact, I have never heard in the U.S. that a culture is nothing more than a cluster of randomly generated numbers. Americans pride themselves on being American. That may be why American readers of your journal are coming out to defend American culture despite not particularly liking the type of Americans you sneer at any more than you do. They consider themselves fully part of the culture without adhering to the political beliefs you think define it. Do you still claim that yours is an accurate picture?

--One of your American readers

[georgesdelatour.livejournal.com]

You suggest moral consistency means either opposing capital punishment AND abortion, or supporting both - and by the way, which of the two are you?

Let's get down to details.

First, let's agree that we're only discussing capital punishment in cases of murder. Executing people for apostasy, marital infidelity, homosexuality or supposedly insulting someone who died in 632 is not worth discussing, right? Well, that assumption unites the most right wing Republican and the most left wing Democrat in America. But it doesn't unite everyone in Europe.

For me, the overriding consideration is, does capital punishment cut the murder rate significantly? Not just a dubious two percent here or there, but really significantly? From all the evidence I've come across, the answer is no. And if it doesn't, then, given the possibility of miscarriages of justice, we shouldn't have capital punishment.

But supposing there was absolutely compelling evidence that capital punishment really could cut the murder rate massively. Supposing it was such an effective deterrent that it could stop almost all homicides from occurring. If that were so I'd have to support it, albeit reluctantly. But that's not what the evidence shows.

I don't see how I can apply this line of argument to abortion. The relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child is unique, and that means abortion is a morally unique problem. Also, science is changing the moral calculus of abortion, by making premature babies more and more viable.

Supposing it becomes possible to remove a foetus shortly after conception, and bring it to full term completely outside a woman's body. One day scientists may be able to do exactly this. When they can, the "right to life" of the foetus, and the "right to choose" of the woman will become compatible. The woman can say "I don't want that foetus inside my womb". And the state can say '"okay we'll remove it from your womb - but we won't let you kill it".

[(Anonymous)]

Americans are defensive.

[(Anonymous)]

Or just exasperated...?

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortuantely myths are never real, and the things people forget or actively overlook is what makes them real.

I wonder are the statistics the Guardian puts forth as a trend in thinking really true? What were the statistics for 1980 and 1990? Its just a stange omission if they are really trying to establish a pattern.
That also raises the idea as to what questions are actually being asked? I would imagine they change in accordance to administrations although I have no reason to say so.

I also think it is natural for Americans not to perceive themselves as having a single national identity though, as the only time they adopt that face is in foreign affairs. Everything internally occurs with the very real truth that the states are independent of each other. And most non-americans can't fully appreciate the political power of the individual states.

As for the US becoming more conservative, I think it is perfectly arguable that the country is slipping back towards a more liberal outlook. Evidenced by the recent elections and the continued momentum of gay rights onto the TV and now into New Jersey.

[(Anonymous)]

Or just hysterical? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh

[(Anonymous)]

You make a good point about capital punishment, but youre talking out your arse about abortion.

If the woman wants it out her body, it's like she wants it dead. She's a killer. Even if it stays alive in a glass jar, the baby is dead. You dont appreciate what the womb and gestation is for. It's not a fucking bun that you can put in any oven.

[bifteck.livejournal.com]

She's not a killer. A fetus is part of her own body. It's her right to terminate the pregnancy if she wishes. Ultimately, it's her body, not yours. You may not like self-mutilation or body piercing either, but it's not your place to prevent other people from doing it -- and certainly not your place to make legislation preventing their ability to do it.

Society is much better off having the choice. There are plenty of people who are pro-choice but hate the idea of abortion and would never have one themselves. It's a situation where they don't agree with an opinion but would fight for someone's right to have that opinion. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Then again, these debates are never winnable, so go ahead and get angry, reductionist, defensive and stubborn, as I can guess that you will.

[(Anonymous)]

Hysterical? How so? Like Aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh?

OK, will stop biting the bait now.

[scythrop.livejournal.com]

Actually, the first U.S. census was done in 1790, and one has been taken every ten years since. (Sadly, the census of 1890 was largely destroyed in a fire.)

[(Anonymous)]

It seems the original poster was posing the question of a future where medical technology allows the fetus to be taken out without killing it.

This is actually the logical extension of one of the arguments laid out in Casey v. Planned Parenthood to destroy the trimester framework of Roe.

[(Anonymous)]

Also, the biggest problem with capital punishment is not a functional problem. The system is stacked from the beginning such that when we get to death row we get predominantly poor, black males. This is a fairness problem.

[(Anonymous)]

Your average American has not changed since at least 1960. JFK and GWB are essentially the same kind of moderate politician and represent where the American people's interests can be found at all times--an ultimate faith in democracy and a desire to promote it abroad, a belief in the healing powers of government spending, and at least a veneer of social conservatism at home.

Just because the American public will likely elect John Edwards in '08 does not mean that the American character has shifted to an "anti-war" position. As long as the idea of "democracy" is sacrosanct in America, you will have continued generations of American people backing the president to promote it or "defend it" on foreign soil.

It's important to understand that the Iraq war was essentially orchestrated by liberals under a different name--with the idea that people living under non-democratic regimes are not free, and that the cause of democracy is on par with the anti-slavery movement. If you believe in democracy, as most Americans do, I don't see how you can see the neo-cons as anything but sympathic, albeit completely incompetent, figures.

The reformation started this whole business of the importance of individual freedom. And America, being the first post-Reformation country, has always been completely obsessed with this idea. So keep that in mind as our country continually tries to "free" the rest of the world from its ignorance.

-henryperri

[(Anonymous)]

Neocons are not liberals. Their worldview is Wilsonianism on massive steroids. No self-respecting liberal would call that liberalism except in the very technical, theoretical sense. It's like saying Christians are Jews because they accept the Old Testament.

The Iraq War was sold on fear and deception.

A fetus is part of her own body.

[akabe.livejournal.com]

uhm, that's a hairy one. in a way it's like saying the headlice are part of the hairstyle. the uterus etc undisputably is.