It's not about culture but about traditional versus modernity. There are lots of philosophers who wrote about this. To give some examples: - Ken Wilber's Integ

It's not about culture but about traditional versus modernity. There are lots of philosophers who wrote about this. To give some examples: - Ken Wilber's Integral philosophy attempts to bridge "soul and sensibility". It includes a discourse on modernity and how it breaks with tradition, how post-modernity is not the answer. He pulls in work from other philosophers, one idea being that modernity breaks the Great Chain of Being. - Christopher Alexander, the architect who developed (with collaborators) the idea of pattern languages (which later directly influenced the schools of object-oriented patterns and human-interaction UX design) originally developed the pattern language that ends up incorporating traditional modes of design. That is, by creating a pattern language where it is impossible to create a bad, incoherent design, and is simple enough for end-users to use, you end up with design that is always contextually appropriate and sensitive to local community values while adhering to global principles discovered through modernity. He then went on to develop the ideas around "centers", and "centers of centers". (With "centers of centers" having a parallel with Wilber's Integral philosophy, or Koestler's work on holoarchy). This is no longer about the "Western" world or "Western values". China, for example, is going through a transition which struggles with modernity vs. traditional. My favorite example is the discussion by the Chinese elites about the film Kung Fu Panda.