Our Reality

Not every reality is worth sharing. But some realities are imperative.

I was listening to NPR this morning. Granted, it is usually pretty liberal and I take many reports with a grain of salt. But this morning there was one interview that intrigued me. It was with Tina Brown. Tina Brown, best known for her work with the Daily Beast and Newsweek, which are now one, had made a recent visit to Russia for a special project.

It seems some creative and entrepreneurial spirit here decided Russia needed a dose of good old-fashioned American First Amendment enterprise. A group of producers decided Russia was ripe for a reality show. When it aired, they discovered an interesting thing about Russia: They wanted no part in it.

It seems that part of their cultural paradigm is to disbelieve any reality as reality. While in America, we know some of reality TV is scripted; we also are entertained by the spontaneity of the overall experience. For many Americans--depending on the show's subject--reality shows are mere amusement; while, for others it is more akin to watching a bullfight, where the matador is the object and his prey hasn't a clue why it is in the ring with the man throwing spears at it; and still others might see it as a looking glass of their own emotions. But to Russians, growing up with the media as nothing more than propaganda, watching such a show is a frustrating exercise of wondering what the point is. Tina Brown was amused.

As Ms.Brown put it to NPR, with half a chuckle I her voice, "they just rolled their eyes" and "shrugged their shoulders." Suffice to say the idea of reality in Russia failed.

The nature of ethnocentrism.

The interview recalled to my mind my undergraduate prerequisite courses in cultural anthropology. All societies have certain characteristics in common. These integral components are what keep each culture viable. But beyond that, there are some cultures--some societies--whose basic paradigm suggests more. They believe their society is the right society, and they are duty bound to 'help' other societies understand that. This phenomenon is called ethnocentrism--a belief that one's own culture is the predominantly right--or perfect one, and therefore should be imposed upon others.

America, very guilty of such an endeavor, is not alone, however. Many cultures throughout the course of time have suffered from the same social malady. Usually, but not always, it stems from a religious belief that God has ordained them in their circumstances. This would be true of America, whose Judeo-Christian founding was certainly all about religious freedom and God given individual liberty to live as consciously driven. Ironically, the very religious sects who established themselves early in the Colonial, and pre-Colonial periods were just as vehement about their society's rightness, as the one they escaped. One main difference is that most of these sects, the Puritans, and other original Protestant sects, were not seeking to convert others, but to simply live in their perfect communities. But they did expect everyone within their community to live "in conformity." There are, however, some historical 'hot spots' of zealous Puritans who expected nearby areas to live as they. The religious persecution of the Quakers at the Bay Colony is one of the more profound historical examples. It was something of an "elbow-nudging" behavior akin to roller derby, for the most part. Again, it was ethnocentric.

Our heritage is our culture.

But the reality is that the original concept of freedom of religion has been modified over the course of 200-plus years. In reality, each group coming to America felt strongly that they had the right course and spiritual stream heavenward, hence, their need to find a refuge to practice that stream. They did not, however, believe that everyone should come to America to practice their favorite religious philosophy.

So, interestingly, while America has abandoned its early religious ideal of a place where expatriates of England go to escape worshiping as the King demanded, it has not surrendered the paradigm that America has the right culture. It is still ethnocentric. Moreover, America has come to be known as the big brother solving the world's issues through its own binoculars. When another society asks for the assistance, it is not ethnocentric. It is charity. When we shove our philosophy onto another society, there is trouble. We are seen as invaders. Likely, we are seen as confusion as well. Many societies simply do not understand a representative form of government. (We barely do.) To expect they will understand our efforts to "save" them from the travesties of their law, or dictatorial governance is ignorance of understanding that, while they may not be happy in their circumstance, they also do not understand ours or how to get here. We are ethnocentric in expecting that simply through our perceived rescue to them, they have the ability to change from their current paradigm to ours in one clean sweep.

We are not alone: Even from biblical times ethnocentrism existed. The Tribes of Judah and Ben (considered the Hebrews) thought little of the other Ten Tribes of Judah, and blamed the latter's capture into Samaria on their unrighteousness. One hundred thirty years later, the Southern Judah, befell the same fate as the Northern. Interestingly, in modern excavations of Hebrew tells, thousands of pendants with the pagan goddess of fertility embossed upon them were discovered. It correlates with the Biblical texts citing the God of the Old Testament who is repeatedly admonishing Judah to stay clear of idolatry. It appears that the Southern Tribe of Judah was not as pure as they had perceived of themselves. Though, certainly they were justified through their cultural perceptions.

There are plenty of societies whose ethnocentric behavior has mandated an Empirical order: One that means, like America, we expand our philosophy beyond the eyes' view. While, for the most part, America, until late, has not used force as an excuse to expand its view of social mores and morals upon others, there are many in history who have used brute force to expand their view of the world. The Huns, the Muslims, the Catholics, Nazi Germany, Japan, all are examples of societies that took part in an expansionist ideal of their society by force. The problem, if not already obvious, is that no society is blameless, or perfect. Some are more enlightened than others. The latter of which can be determined when observing the treatment of their own people. Those whose oppressive paradigms severely damage people of their own society, yet desire to expand their view by force upon others will ultimately cause reparations rather than enlightenment. History has made a note of it.

There is a more powerful way.

The question then, becomes, how is good will expanded? If a society is more enlightened than another (and cultural anthropologists would argue whether that is possible--or a fair analysis--since it requires one society to subjectively define another), how do they teach, mentor, or persuade another society without blatant ethnocentrism? Is there such ability? Or, should all societies stay strictly to themselves and leave others to their own paradigms, even if their own philosophical view requires 'spreading the good news" or their system and culture?

The answer, I feel, may go back to the start--with fortifying the essential elements of all societies. Those elements--characteristics, if you will, are: Enculturation; the ability and desire to pass along to the rising generations the beliefs, mores and morals of their culture; Universal language; the vested establishment of a main, universal language as a binding tie; Religion, the importance of believing similarly in a Higher Being whose dictates are universal to all in the culture; cultural modes and mores, the expected, yet oft times unspoken ways in which we conduct ourselves in public and in private; propagation, the ability and desire to carry on through generations, the people of that society; adaptability, particularly to outside forces, which threaten the viability of the culture, such as natural and unnatural calamity and devastation, war, invasions of all sorts, and so forth; and lastly, to support a system of order (governance).

Cultural Anthropologists discovered long ago, that these seven elements are essential to each other, and exist in all cultures. They are intertwined. If any one of these elements begins to unravel, they will all eventually fail; and thus, the society will dissolve. If a society is truly enlightened, living it with vigor and commitment is the singularly most effective way to ensure its success. It is also the most effective way to instill in other societies the enlightenment and "rightness" of that society. In other words, other societies will copy the example. For instance, prior to 1798, there was no other national constitution such as that in the United States. It was the first. From it, however, over 200 other nations have since copied the idea of our constitution in some part or form.

While those nations may not have copied verbatim the system held within our document, many elements have pervaded elsewhere. As America lives her founding principles, and as we rebuild losses in the links of societal elements that make up our American system and culture, our influence upon other nations is worthy of emulation without throwing it upon others.

In addition, America, to preserve our inheritance of her specific culture, and in order to sustain our viability, must, in our effort to thrive and adapt, be vigilantly on the look out of other cultures whose system of order holds a devastating paradigm to America by invasion of any kind. The Huns are no longer a threat. Hitler's regime ended. But Communists pervade throughout the world, and in America, where they are bent on destroying our unique economic system and liberties. Fundamentalist Islam would have America living Sharia Law, rather than the Rule of Law--that based upon Judeo-Christian morals and mores. Some Libertarian groups, though they would claim otherwise, are a threat to our heritage, which, while built upon principles of liberty, is also beholden to Rule of Law, and a shared culture with England to soem degree.

So long as America is a land to covet, she will be a land in danger of loosing her cultural elements and character. But more importantly, she must oblige--from within--those elements while respecting other cultures. To do anything less, may bring the kind of response that Russians did to reality they don't see as reality. Would that we would never roll our eyes and shrug our shoulders at the reality of America's cultural character.

Sources:

Living Ideas in America, H.S. Commager; Harper Bros. NY 1951

http://www.academicamerican.com/colonial/topics/religion.html

Making of America, C. Skousen; National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1985

The Great Republic, Bailyn, et.al; D.C.Heath & Co, 1977

Research writing in Colonial History, Brigham Young University; 2001