5 ms·

I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with the original author's thesis: not all cultures are created equal. But the author does make a critical conse

I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with the original author's thesis: not all cultures are created equal. But the author does make a critical conservative assumption by implying that economic output is a proxy for "value". This is honestly the critical point: our culture defines how we value things. Some cultures are not bothered by things like social welfare or socialist policies because the base unit of society is considered to be the family rather than the individual. Cultures like this may value things like "familial harmony" more than "individual prosperity". So it's obvious that someone like the original author -- who likely grew up in this "bourgeois culture" -- would attribute everything bad in society to the decline in things she holds valuable. It's part of the definition. As a counterpoint, American culture is much better for the individual than it was 30-40 years ago for anyone who isn't a straight white male. Those people have the viewpoint that things have improved. Bourgeois values aren't meaningful to these people because they never really applied. So really, we're back to where we already knew we were: globalization had winners and losers. The losers were primarily located in the western middle class (i.e. the bourgeois class).

weberc2 9y ago
Could you clarify your argument? It sounds like you're saying something to the effect of "The author is just upset that life is better for people with different attributes than her; no one can legitimately hold her point of view". I don't think that's what you mean, but I want to give you the opportunity to clarify.
- exelius 9y ago
  I'm trying to say that her argument simply isn't very interesting :) Look, the only people who think America was better off in the 60s/70s are the ones who benefitted from the systemic discrimination inherent of that era. It's perfectly reasonable for them to feel that way, and I'm not even saying I blame them for feeling left behind. Is America actually better off today? It depends who you ask. It's just not intellectually very interesting to talk about. All she's doing is imposing cherry-picked aspects of her chosen value system as objectively "better" while ignoring the whole point that any definition of "better" relies on a subjective personal value system to begin with.
stijnh 9y ago
>Cultures like this may value things like "familial harmony" more than "individual prosperity". In the article, it was stated that there is a relationship here. Children are much more likely to be successful in live if their parents were married. >the author [..] would attribute everything bad in society to the decline in things she holds valuable. It's part of the definition. No, that's just a strawman.
- exelius 9y ago
  It's the definition of "successful" that I'm arguing against. It presupposes a lot about what the purpose of culture is/should be.
cortesoft 9y ago
This is spot on; cultures don't exist in a vacuum. How much of the success of the 'bourgeois culture' of the 1950s was due to the exploitation of other cultures? Some things are zero-sum games, or at least don't scale to everyone getting the same benefit. I guess zero-sum is not the correct term; there ARE ways we can improve the sum total quality of life in our country and planet, but we have to really think about what it would mean as the plan scales to everyone.
- weberc2 9y ago
  While I'm inclined to think that personal choices are a more powerful predictor of outcomes than race, I agree that we don't understand cultural dynamics well enough. I think this is all the more reason we should pause before accusing someone of white supremacism, etc.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> But the author does make a critical conservative assumption by implying that economic output is a proxy for "value". I think she made a critical assumption that "ability to create economic output" is a proxy for "ability to lift people out of poverty". I consider that statement to be much more reasonable than its negation.
- kelnos 9y ago
  I don't think that's a great proxy. Just because a group has high economic output and an ability to lift people out of poverty, it doesn't mean they will. The rising income inequality in the US (without a desire to increase social welfare programs) coupled with the fact that the US's economy is still growing would seem like a counterexample.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Let me try to clarify what I meant. If a culture can enhance the culture's members' ability as individuals to create higher economic output, then that culture is probably more able to lift individual members out of poverty. Or, if you prefer, it gives the individual members better tools for lifting themselves out of poverty. I'm not claiming that it will do better at taking care of the poor. I'm claiming that poor members of that culture will be better able to help themselves.

weberc2 9y ago

Could you clarify your argument? It sounds like you're saying something to the effect of "The author is just upset that life is better for people with different attributes than her; no one can legitimately hold her point of view". I don't think that's what you mean, but I want to give you the opportunity to clarify.

exelius 9y ago
I'm trying to say that her argument simply isn't very interesting :) Look, the only people who think America was better off in the 60s/70s are the ones who benefitted from the systemic discrimination inherent of that era. It's perfectly reasonable for them to feel that way, and I'm not even saying I blame them for feeling left behind. Is America actually better off today? It depends who you ask. It's just not intellectually very interesting to talk about. All she's doing is imposing cherry-picked aspects of her chosen value system as objectively "better" while ignoring the whole point that any definition of "better" relies on a subjective personal value system to begin with.

stijnh 9y ago

>Cultures like this may value things like "familial harmony" more than "individual prosperity". In the article, it was stated that there is a relationship here. Children are much more likely to be successful in live if their parents were married. >the author [..] would attribute everything bad in society to the decline in things she holds valuable. It's part of the definition. No, that's just a strawman.

exelius 9y ago
It's the definition of "successful" that I'm arguing against. It presupposes a lot about what the purpose of culture is/should be.

cortesoft 9y ago

This is spot on; cultures don't exist in a vacuum. How much of the success of the 'bourgeois culture' of the 1950s was due to the exploitation of other cultures? Some things are zero-sum games, or at least don't scale to everyone getting the same benefit. I guess zero-sum is not the correct term; there ARE ways we can improve the sum total quality of life in our country and planet, but we have to really think about what it would mean as the plan scales to everyone.

weberc2 9y ago
While I'm inclined to think that personal choices are a more powerful predictor of outcomes than race, I agree that we don't understand cultural dynamics well enough. I think this is all the more reason we should pause before accusing someone of white supremacism, etc.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

> But the author does make a critical conservative assumption by implying that economic output is a proxy for "value". I think she made a critical assumption that "ability to create economic output" is a proxy for "ability to lift people out of poverty". I consider that statement to be much more reasonable than its negation.

kelnos 9y ago
I don't think that's a great proxy. Just because a group has high economic output and an ability to lift people out of poverty, it doesn't mean they will. The rising income inequality in the US (without a desire to increase social welfare programs) coupled with the fact that the US's economy is still growing would seem like a counterexample.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Let me try to clarify what I meant. If a culture can enhance the culture's members' ability as individuals to create higher economic output, then that culture is probably more able to lift individual members out of poverty. Or, if you prefer, it gives the individual members better tools for lifting themselves out of poverty. I'm not claiming that it will do better at taking care of the poor. I'm claiming that poor members of that culture will be better able to help themselves.