I am joking, seriously.
That’s the whole point of World Wide Talker here.
It is very interesting to see my friends having a cultural discussion, I saw it go from personal to cultural, and then went to political, which drives back to the culture, and end with personal issues again.
Just like taking a roller coaster ride and very interesting to see how the culture affecting the person’s participation in the conversation.
There are cultures that are more expressive, and there are cultures that are more sophisticated, this reflects in person as well. And when building the argument, the expressive culture will tend to put opinion upon issues while sophisticated culture, or let say a sophisticated person, will tend to hold back in terms of defining issues.
Well, my point is, the funny bit is that we can always end the discussion with cultural differentiation.
So what next?
There was a film post in the tube station, one of my friends doesn’t know any of the casts of this Hollywood movie while I know some of them, and my other friend knows all of them. For the record, none of us are British or American. My friend who doesn’t know any of the Hollywood casts is very proud of herself, which I have no problem with that.
Yet this shows different attitude towards cultural recognition, I, as the part of recognising the existence of certain culture and not making a big deal out of it, while there is complete support or acceptance for some people, and resistance on the other hand. And I really like this idea that the Chinese is neutral. I mean, this is very cultural, Chinese culture is so neutral that we are so neutral in everything, even when expressing opinions.
Anyway, back to the topic, in one way, conflict arises not because of cultural differentiation, but a culture that would like to make a differentiated culture become the same. If I can use the phrase, it’s something like ‘cultural domination’, culturally, this culture itself has the tradition to convert people from other cultures into its own culture. And this argument in this sense, IS a cultural differentiation.
Now comes to the term ‘cultural imperialism’. In regards of cultural imperialism, I remember a friend said there has been no wars between countries, but wars between civilisations. I support this theory, personally. And I would say that’s why they invented Media as the weapon. On one hand, cultural imperialism provided the opportunity for international communication, that people from different cultural/social background can have common interest to talk about because of Hollywood is spreading internationally. On the other hand, it changes the social values in a society that will eventually diminish the culture there.
Here is the interesting part, what media does, is that it defines and judges issues which has no right or wrong in the first place.(Facebook has all the information explosion about Boston and other things happening in Afghanistan and maybe Iran as well) Meanwhile, same thing is happening in cultural studies, sociology studies, or even anthropology studies. I mean, how can you build up arguments of one culture or one society based with the standard of another culture or society? (then it comes to the purpose of cultural imperialism and cultural invasion)
But of course we share some common acknowledgements in humanity in general, and that’s when ‘science’ steps in.
As a ‘science supporter’, the greatest part for me is that, Science, seems more definite than any other humanity studies. And if we consider Science as a culture, then it would be the most dominant one, especially when some people say that ‘science’ is a believe as well.