From: akash@crescent.berkeley.edu (Akash R. Deshpande)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Reply-To: akash@crescent.berkeley.edu (Akash R. Deshpande)
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:32:04 GMT


As has been previously pointed out, the original article by John McCarthy was
a bit subjective to discuss without bandying opinions. I propose the following
aspects to objectify "superiority" of cultures: survival, stability, humanness
and aspiration.

Clearly, eastern (such as it is) culture has survived. Speaking from personal
knowledge, Indian culture has certainly survived. It has brought forth not only
rich classical cultures but also has effloresced into thriving contemporary
cultures expressed through approximately 25 widely spoken languages,
concomittant literature, idiom, theatre, films, cuisine and several arts,
all woven into the fabric of a common Indian spirituality and world-view. More
surprisingly, ancient Indians who forged the Indian archetype created such a
dynamic and resilient culture that it withstood extremely hostile attacks
intermittently for 2500 years (remember Alexander), and continuously for 1000
years embodied in Moghul and European occupation. It could also assimilate
internal perturbations such as Buddhism and Jainism. For survival a culture
adapts to other cultures it interacts with, which reveals its dynamism. Thus,
surely we shall see reflections of western (such as it is) cultures in eastern
ones.
	Western culture is relatively young and dynamic, and hence hopefully
agile, and shall adapt too to eastern cultures which seem certain to survive.

At present, western culture does not seem to be sustainably stable. This is due
to its model of growth which relies on relatively unfettered individual freedom
and predominantly two uses of technology: imperialism and consumerism.
Imperialism relies on maintaining artificial differentials in availability
of markets and suppliers to the advantage of a given imperialist, through
the use of superior military technology. Consumerism relies on universalisation
of technological advances by which tools and conveniences are brought to each
individual. Though consumerism at home and imperialism abroad is a good
formula, we are also seeing both, imperialism and consumerism, abroad in the
Japanese strategy. But more and more, imperialism cannot succeed against
largely self-sufficient systems of China and India.  Further, consumerism
inherently reduces the differentials that imperialism exploits.  Given
the powerful universalising capability of technology, we shall increasingly see
a level playing field. Since there are no more Americas to discover, we have to
keep making difficult choices in resource allocations. Hence, we shall more
and more see unbridled individualism failing as a sustainable culture.
Sharing, interdependence, give-and-take shall become important features of
a stable culture. In fact, one often equates these qualities with culture.
	On the other hand, eastern cultures have had a long training on the
frontier of their capabilities. In their youth approximately 3000-5000 years
ago, they expanded into virgin territories full of youth, conquest and glory.
However, for more than 2000 years they have been on a relatively constant
frontier, honing their culture through difficult choices in interdependence
and sharing. Now, acquiring newer technology and expanding into an expanding
frontier, they have a relatively sure compass and instinct for sustainability.

Humanness, I must admit, I find absent in western culture as it is (at least
in the US). To industry, a person is a unit of labour, a more or less
recalcitrant factor of production; to the political machinery, a person
is a vote; to the economic machinery, a person is a consumer, to the social
machinery, a person is a social unit to be listed in statistics and
reluctantly to be cared for when down. Why, I ask you, don't you feel like a
cow, its straw fed, udders milked, occassionally scrubbed or petted, and
of course, under capitalism free to roam the meadow? In communism you may
not so roam.
	Of course, there are spots of brightness when you come in contact with
real persons, humans. But on the whole, I say that this is despite the
system and not in it.
	On the other hand, one could fault the eastern cultures for too much
humanness, to the extent of being inefficient. And this inefficiency directly
affects its ability to survive against western culture. 

Aspiration of a culture characterises its higher goal, its very reason for
existence. Efficiency seems to be one aspiration of the western culture -
and this has certainly upped the ante for sheer survival. But this cannot be
a goal in itself. Efficiency in what? It only seems to be a means. Arts
and the general pleasure of life seems to be another goal. And this indeed
has been a redeeming feature of western culture, imparting it some humanness.
But again, narcissist hedonism doesn't seem to be a satisfying motive for
civilisation. Philosophy and intellectual sophistry could be the leading
principle of culture. But it is too dry for the mass of humanity and provides
no sustaining motive. Religion, too, has been a strong quest of all human
cultures. But in the west it is said that the overt influence of religion on
life has diminished. To sum up, the west presents satisfaction of vital
desires through efficient material means assisted by a keen intellect as
the goal of civilisation and culture.
	All these are innate human tendencies. However, in the east more
than these the spiritual quest has been recognised as the imperative and
overarching motive of existence. Most, it is said, follow the leisurely
pace of normal life - through its vicissititudes, yearnings, satisfactions
and play, and some at an accelerated pace, so to speak through yoga.
These latter have been hailed by these cultures as seers who could found
and propagate civilisation. They were not reclusive hermits but dominant
teachers and guides - directing kings and their affairs and wars, building,
organising and propagating knowledge, imparting supreme vision and wisdom,
and setting the keel of civilisation's vessel, charting its
course and unfurling its sails to be filled by the breath of the lord.
	Certainly, in India the quest was of union with the divine, here on
earth, and if not here then in other domains. In completely unambiguous
words immortality was laid out as the goal for man - attested by any Upanishad.
In measure as the `here on earth' was ignored by its culture, India lapsed and
was susceptible to external attacks and now needs to assimilate respect
for matter. But in its aspiration it is supreme, unmatched by any western
culture.

Such is the content of my response to the speculations of John McCarthy.