America is a typical reflection of the result of the wave of colonialization by Western powers of the rest of the world over the centuries stretching from the 1600s to 1945. It is a prime example of the ‘child that became the parent,’ in so far as this former colony eventually came to lead the former colonialisers, as the leader of the Western world. It is ultimately a typical reflection of a society colonialised by Western powers.
In actual affect, until recently, the United States has been nothing but an extension of Europe; the most successful all colonial waves that have swept over the world since the 1500s. However, it is now clear that the dominance of Western civilisation will erode together with the erosion of the United States as the dominant nation on earth.
Make no mistake, the United States is still be far the most powerful nation on earth. Almost a quarter of all economic value created (nominal GDP) on planet earth still takes place in the United States and the country is beyond any meaningful comparison the most powerful military presence. Let’s combine the economies of the United States and Europe and the result is that almost 56% of all nominal economic value (USA, 53,3% and Europe 22%) in the world is created in the traditional Western world.
However, let me then immediately qualify by statement with two little words: For now!
The point I want to make in this post is not so much that the United States (and Europe) is losing its power-grip on the world, but that these countries are engaged in a fundamental internal transformation (reshaping of a national order [rather than a global one]). To get to the point: This post is not concerned with the power-game (competition for domination) among nations, but rather within nations (and then specifically Western nations).
The United States respond to world-events (and global power-relations) on the assumption of an entity-in-unity (an integrated power-block with a shared vision and common paradigms). It is actually not that; and neither is Europe. They are all (but especially the United States) societies in deep conflict with themselves; to such an extent that there is little real shared vision or purpose.
In a space of scarcity, there is always competition for domination – and we are living in a macromixing world; a world that is constantly getting smaller-and smaller. We have run out of space – and there is a very real threat that we will soon run out of resources (including the most precious thereof, such as water and food).
Furthermore, competition for domination is not limited to geography, but also include intangible "space", such as cultural values. In this space of life-threatening limitations, people will engage in competition for domination; it is simply human nature. The question is: How do we define “identity” (which will ultimately determine on which side of the divide we will fight)?
Competition for domination is a fact of life; is takes place among children playing games, among pupils and students competing for leadership positions, or for the affections of romantic mates, among brothers and sisters competing for the attention of parents, and among wife and husband It is simply a natural human reaction whenever scarcity occurs in a society (regardless of whether the “society” are parents, children or nations). The argument in this article is that it also occurred among nations, and among cultural identified inside nation states.
1 . The Battle for Domination
Where the world often mistaken when arguing about colonialization, is when the conclusion is drawn that it was (or is) limited to Western powers’ aggression. That is not the case, it is a phenomenon found in all societies.
Britain was a prime example of a colonial power in the Western world, the empire brought about by Genghis Kahn of one in the Eastern world, and the one brought about by Shaka Zulu in Africa. The colonialization of much of especially Africa by Western European powers is just the latest one that has taken place on a grand scale, and the one which impact is most noticeable in the world today.
Fact remains, however, that the ‘new world’ (as it is popularly known the past couple of centuries) is a direct result of the domination of Western powers, and, with it, the centuries-long dominance of Western civilisation.
There was a time in the recent history of humankind when the Eastern civilisation, as embodies in the Achaemenid, the Persian and later the Ottoman Empires was dominating the world. However, in the year 331 BC perhaps the greatest military leader of all times, Alexander the Great, defeated the massive armies of the Parsian Empire, commanded by the “king-of-kings”, Darius II, close to Gaugamela (the modern city of Dohuk). This battle was the decisive event in history that has shifted military power from the Eastern to the Western civilisation. The rise of the Roman Empire consolidated the dominance of the Western civilisation.
This dominance was naturally never all-inclusive or complete (for instance, the Mongol Genghis Khan dominated large part of the then known world). However, the dominance was unmistakable, and most of the major wars of the 20st Century, including the First and Second World Wars, were in actual affect ‘civil wars in the Western Civilisation.’ Yes, it involved Eastern civilisations with expansion aspirations of their own (like Japan in the Second World War) but the broader context was always the Western Agenda.
There were (and are) other civilisations, like the African civilisation, which must have been dominant at one point, given the fact that Africa was the birthplace of humankind. Samuel Huntington, in his famous article titled “The Clash of Civilisations,” has identified seven civilisations in the modern world. However, this article is not about that, and for my purposes in this article, is will suffice to cluster the main civilisations in the world unscientifically together into Western, Eastern and African.
2. Civilisations
The term ‘civilisation’ has gained a negative connotation within the context of the domination of the Western civilisation, and the meaning attached to it as a result of this domination. For instance, it has become commonplace in the context of a Western cultural context to speak of “civilised” as meaning complying with the norms and standards of the Westerners interpretation of right, wrong and custom or behaviour.
Consider, by way of example, the norm to regard a man stepping aside to let a woman enter a doorway first as ‘civilised’. This is, in actual effect, a purely Western interpretation of a cultural rule; the African cultural norm is exactly the opposite (for very good reasons, because in that cultural context the argument is that a man must enter before a woman to face the danger and protect her).
Truth to be told, if one struggle through the complex definitions for the term, civilisation simply means the values, institutions, modes of thinking and idiom for development according to which a collective group of groups (of people) perceive the world around them (and therefore the idiom in which the subsequently act). I perceive the concept of civilisation as a cluster of related cultures; cultural norms and standards with a common origin or source.
Perhaps to understand the meaning of the word ‘culture’ will be helpful, because the building-blocks of civilisations are cultures. Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving.
(Definition obtained from the website https://www.tamu.edu/faculty/choudhury/culture.html).
In the Western civilisation well-known cultures include the German culture, the Italian culture and the British culture (mostly the Western culture has emanated from Western Europe [more specifically, the areas surrounding the Mediterranean], although decedents are obviously present around the globe today). In the Eastern civilisation the Japanese and Chinese culture could be distinguished (to mentioned but two [which I have clustered together for the purposes of this article, because a scholar like Samuel Huntington actually draws a distinction between the two]). In the African culture the example of the Nguni people could be cited, which include Zulu, Xhosa, Ndebele and Swazi tribes. (There may be many more – I am not an expert, and merely want to make a point).
Western civilisation owes its millenniums-long dominance to superior military strategy and technology. Through the years, it was technological excellence and military might that safeguard and secure the dominance of the Western civilisation. The two elements were always intertwined and inseparable; it was due to the military might of the Western nations that they were able to occupy most parts the known world, and through this occupation, they brutality oppressed and (in the process) suppressed the possibility of technological advancements in other civilisations that might have enabled them to compete with the West. But then the ability to gain and maintain military dominance was based on the technological dominance of the West. Technology and military dominance was inseparable, and enabled dominance.
Now, however, the dominance of Western civilisation is under severe pressure.
3. Demise of the Western Civilisation
The roots of the demise of the dominance of the Western civilisation can be traced back to those enablers that allowed it to become dominant, namely technology and military might. Technology has advanced to such a level where it has led to globalisation, implying that the Western civilisation cannot possibly retain its technological dominance, because the nature of today’s advanced technology is that it is so advanced, characterised by massification and spread (reach), that it cannot be closeted in a specific civilisation, culture or nation-state.
Also, technological advancement in military has produced such destructive capability that it has for all practical purposes illuminated military might as a determinant of dominance. Conventional military clashes are limited to a ‘tactical’, rather a ‘strategic’ level (that is, only to the level where it does not really impact on dominance-relations in the global order, or among main actors [nation-state], or between competing civilisations).
Furthermore, the simple reality of changing demographics and a transformed global value system are contributing to the demise of the dominance of the Western civilisation. In an increasingly globalised world, numbers matter, and numerically the participants in the Western civilisation are decreasing at a staggering rate. The sophistication of Western culture (collectively speaking); both in terms of medical advances (contraception medication), as well as responses to perceptions about family care and the interpretation of gender roles, are rapidly diminishing the demographic presence of Westerners in most countries they have occupied during the wave of colonialization of the preceding few centuries.
For the purposes of this article, I am going to refer to the collective “race” in the Western civilisation as Caucasians; which is not necessarily correct, because practitioners of a specific culture are not defined in terms of race.
Nevertheless, in the absence of a more appropriate measure to make the point, the statistics tell us that, in 1950, approximately 27,98% of the world’s population was Caucasians. By 2060 it is predicted to be less than 10%. The birth-rate among Caucasians is the lowest in the world; in fact, all demographic groups in the United States are growing their numbers, except for the Whites, who’s numbers are actually decreasing. This is a global trend – even the bastion of the White world, Europe, could have White minority populations by 2060. In Germany, approximately 35% of children under the age of 5 years have an immigrant background.
Are we witnessing the final days of a civilisation that has dominated the world since (at least) 331BC? It seems so.
4. Global Values
After the Second World War, a new global order has arisen out of the ashes of death and destruction caused by the violence resulting from a philosophy largely based on notions of racial superiority. Traditional mainstream values in Western culture, such as colonialism and racial superiority, were replaced by a strong liberalisation tide emphasising human rights, dignity and equality. The ideology of liberalism, but especially humanism, swept over the Western world, and at its roots was a rejection of exactly the traditional values and political-economic models that has led to the mechanisms to retain the dominance of the Western culture, namely the pre-Second World War accepted norms of socio-political conduct.
Humanism places the human being at the centre of existence – and also presume that all humans have the same intrinsic value. Discrimination must therefore be rejected; any and all manifestation there – including discrimination based on religious values that have traditionally conferred subordinate roles (and importance) to women and children (and salves).
Liberalism’s vision is a world-order where culture does not matter enough to cause conflict, where individuals live together in harmony, in spite of cultural differences. Slowly but steadily a now ‘civilisation,’ free of the conflict resulting from in-fighting among cultural identities will emerge. In short: the emphasis must be on individuals, and protecting individual rights, rather than focusing on groups, such as cultural identities. The argument is that the protection of individual rights will be enough to prevent destructive conflict.
It cannot be denied that the struggle for domination include an element of struggle for the ability to determine the dominant value system in a given space (and increasingly this "space" is the globe). Whichever cultural identity (or then, civilisation) operates in a paradigm they understand; and, in the process, improve their chances of domination.
5. Nation-states
Theoretically, at least, it is not inconceivable that we could build a “civilisation of humanity.”
Nation-states, as we know them today, have development in one of two ways; some, like Germany, was the result of the integration of peoples living in different self-governing geographical spaces into a single state. In such instances, shared culture was the driver for the forming of the nation-state. Others, like France, resulted from people of diverse cultural orientation being forced into a single nation-state through overwhelming power (of military superior rulers), with a national identity slowly developing over time as a result of a common destiny, symbols and cultural identity that has gradually merged (such as a common language and even, over the scope of many years, a common destiny and history).
Several of the more recently added nation-states that have joined the fray of the global futurity of nations have been the products of Western colonialization, including the United State of America, Canada, Australia and Niue-Zealand. All of these societies developed into nation-states as a result of the latter phenomenon mentioned in the preceding paragraph (similar to France’s experience) namely as diverse cultures in a shared geographical space developing a shared national identity.
However, and this is a critical point, all of them were dominated by the same civilisation, namely a Western one; either through demographic domination (for instance, the USA, where peoples from the ranks of the Western civilisation have traditionally been numerically dominant), or through military domination (until recently, South Africa, where White South Africans from European decent had dominated politically and economically, through oppressive military force).
I am not so sure that it will be so easy to integrate diverse civilisations into the same nation-state as it was with integrating different cultures with very much similar and related symbols, related languages, habits and so forth into a nation-state with shared loyalties and symbols (like France). It will take many years, and much conflict, to construct a ‘civilisation of humanity.’
Quite frankly, in South Africa this process is failing; one dominant civilisation has simply been replaced by another. The only difference is that the Western civilisation (consisting mostly of White South Africans [although some other racial groups may also self-define in terms of a similar cultural identity) represents no substantial threat to the dominant African civilisation (as was the case, in reverse, in the country pre-1994). In fact, the transformed power-relations in society has evolved to such an extend that there is a real and relatively strong impetus in this country that the African civilisation must get rid of the last resemblances of the Western civilisation in “their” space. This is reflected in, among others, the gradual re-defining of the organisational culture in the ANC from a non-racial political party, to one specifically focused on the plight of African Blacks. (To illustrates this point, the Party's statement following the adoption of the decision that land must be expropriated without compensation, included the sentiments that the land in SA belong to Africans and Blacks; an almost dramatic departure of the much more inclusive principle since 1994, namely that SA belongs to all who live in it, Black and White). Again, it boils down to the argument of a battle for dominance between culturally-defined civilisation (which, in this instance, also has racial dimensions).
6. Shifting Paradigms
It is naive to think that the entrenched cultural identity that has developed over thousands and millions of years could be wished away with the blink of an eye. The transition between cultural dominance always implies a shift of paradigmatic plates. For one thing: There is simple too much history built into the conflicting fault-lines of civilisations. For instance, the integration of different cultural identities in one geographical nation-state does not end the competition for domination. ‘Winner’ versus ‘looser’ relationships are ever present. Initially this competition played itself out on a micro level, like within the Western civilisation of the United States, with the arrival of the Italian or Irish waves of immigrants (which already caused considerable conflict in American society at the time). However, when this phenomenon span over civilisations, the entrenched fault-lines are much deeper, and the associated conflict therefore much more intense and severe.
The notion of loyalty to a geographical space, leading up to shared symbols and devotion, creating a ‘common American’, or ‘common South African’ (shared) identity, is questionable.
The problem with geography-based philosophies is that they are often shaped and entrenched subconsciously, and that no law or brute force could make it happen; in fact, brutality only further entrench resentment and “winner versus looser” perceptions. Such reasoning is to assume that loyalty to space and geography supersedes loyalty to cultural identity. If one wants to create a new ‘civilisation of humanity,’ you will have to change an institutionalised system of thought and behaviour, including the paradigm according to which children are raised, how they are indoctrinated by society, how they are taught in school and how (and what) they are exposed to by the dominant narrative, and this will have to be done continuously (and not through piecemeal interventions targeting nation-building). The point is actually that a new culture will have to be bred, born and cultivated.
The ultimate, core requirement for the birth of such a new, re-defined culture, will be unconditional equality among participating civilisations. In essence, what will be required, is a clean slate. If you don't start there, you will always have someone feeling aggrieved; experiencing "redress" or the reshaping of power-relations as oppression practiced against the cultural group they represents (or feel aligned to).
This is where the whole effort normally derails and is still-born, because there is always a historical legacy to consider.
The reality of past oppression of cultures and civilisations, and the impact thereof on the ability to compete on equal footing today, cannot be wished away by liberal thought and ideals. (Liberal implying the dictionary-meaning of the word, namely equality and individual freedom, and not meant as a degrading ideological concept). Those that had to suffer through centuries and carries deep-rooted perceptions (some rightfully, some wrongfully), passed on from generation to generation, of being on the receiving end of centuries of wrongdoing won’t simply forget it, and will demand redress. One example of this will be the global debate about the impact of colonialism and racial oppression on the demographic spread of inequality and poverty in the world today.
However, there is little use in proposing that the ‘solution’ to deal with this problem, is to create now forms of discrimination. New (and often "reversed") ‘winner-versus-loser’ inter-civilization scenarios are created in the process of attempting to correct imbalances resulting from the brutality (and injustices) of past domination. For instance, in America, and in South Africa, the rise in dominance (and power) of the African and African American civilisations in society has not resulted in equal treatment of all civilisations, but has brought with it ‘affirmative action’, ‘transformation’ and ‘redress’; new battle-lines have been drawn, new relationships of dominance have been created.
As long as this dominance-relationships are entrenched in a society, perceptions of ‘winning’ and ‘loosing’ will remain, and the conflict will continue. American voters voted for Trump because of the threat of losing privileges (which will be 'transferred' to other cultural formations in society in terms of the 'liberal' agenda. It is dubious whether state interventions in the economic - and social fiber of societies, like affirmative action, is promoting equality; what it is definitely doing, is to create a new narrative of preference, discrimination and transformed inter-civilsation 'rules;' new expectations of the societal norm.
7. Donald Trump … (and Barack Obama)
In the context of members of currently dominated cultural groups, the ideals of liberalism are most popular among those segments of society that have the institutional means to shield themselves from the impact of shifting patterns of domination among civilisation; such as, in the case of the USA, educated White Americans with college degrees. For these segments of society, the ideals of equality on an individual level (that is, liberalism) are lucrative, because it is fair and bring hope of long-lasting peace and justice (as long as they are not personally affected negatively by it, I must add). Naturally the bulk of the resistance come from those segments within a civilisation that is most exposed and vulnerably to competition for dominance among competing civilisations, because of their lack of shielding guarantees, such as poorly educated workers. They do not need to fear the impact of demands resulting from shifting power-relationships among civilisation, such as affirmative action and preferential allocation of economic opportunities; their dominance in the context of the social regime that rules inter-civilisation dominance is shielding them (such as qualifications and mastery of the knowledge required to be competitive).
It could be argued that Trump won the Presidential election by the thinnest of threats, with extremely narrow wins in key battleground states, and without the popular vote. However, the trend line is still unmistakable, with or without considering Trump’s win:
Some of the most brutal and ugliest incidents of racial violence since the civil rights movement happened under Obama’s Presidency. There is furthermore a hardening of attitudes, mostly probably spreading from a worsening of the divide in underlying ideological believe-systems in the American society, that has reached epic proportions.
For the first time since I (granted, as an outsider) started following American politics, have picked-up expressions like “destroy” the other; the days of soil-searching after election defeats are apparently at an end. As the demographic trends (the cultural make-up of the American society) change more-and-more fundamentally, the shield of invisibility that participants in the dominant civilization has relied on to make it 'safe' for them to pursue the ideals of equality and personal freedom is gradually evaporating, and the resistance against the re-alignment of power-relations intensifies. One sign of this was Trump winning over states in the 2016 Presidential elections that have traditionally been overwhelmingly loyal to the Democratic Party.
After Obama won the Presidential election, there was no (or very little) introspection in the Republican Party about what could be done to won back lost support attributed to Obama’s policies – they (Republicans) just simply went all-out to undermine (and quite honestly, often deliberately disrespecting) him wherever and whenever they had the chance. Similarly, after Donald Trump’s election, there was virtually no attempt on the side of liberal America to understand the policy reasons for his victory, other than contemptuous references to ‘White men’ suffering economic difficulties and therefore voting against the Washington establishment (which, it must immediately qualified were in any case not as bad as those of other segments of the population); instead, the focus was entirely on destroying his character and his person, and on organising civil resistance to anything and everything he may do).
Sometimes I shake my head in disbelief, and cannot resist asking the question: Does conservative America and liberal America (to use randomly popular references to ideological concepts, rather than scientifically correct ones) really still belong together, in one country?
Resentment born resentment; now it’s the time of the Republicans to revenge the Obama phenomenon and wipe all evidence of its existence off the face of America’s political order. Tomorrow, when the reality of demographic shifts has finally caught up with the ‘fly-over states,’ it will be the turn of the Democrats to have their revenge.
Donald Trump is a strange character and I don't necessarily think that he will win re-election (for instance, really he does not act with Presidential dignity - especially not for the symbol of the richest and most powerful country on earth). However, it must also be said that the Republicans' performance in the mid-term elections in November (in spite of Trump's obvious character flaws) surprised me, and (I think) has proven a resilience in the American voters' public that confirmed the arguments raised in this post. In my own country, I am drawing the same conclusions from the rise of populism, and the hardening of attitudes against minorities, resulting in policies such as land expropriation without compensation.
I cannot see that the conflict between civilisations, which is as old as humankind itself, will stop anytime soon. Chances are much bigger that, due to increasing globalisation and technological advances, conflict will steadily manifest on the level of civilisations, rather than nation-states. But hey, good news to non-Westerners; the resistance seen in the USA and Europe against shifting power-relationship among civilisations will be short-lived, and are symptomatic of the inevitable demise of the dominance of the Western civilisation. It is like a wounded man’s final convulsions before he dies. Negative growth-rates, unstoppable technological transformations and a globalised world order will eventually lead to the transfer of dominance to a non-Western culture (and, in terms of time in world history) it won’t be long.
Comments