[This is Chapter Fourteen of Murphey’s book The Emerging Crisis of Economic Displacement.]

 

Chapter Fourteen

 

THE CHALLENGE TO OTHER CULTURES

 

            The odd brevity of this chapter deserves some explanation.  In my plan for the book, I wanted to discuss in detail the situation of western civilization, which is why that became the subject of the preceding chapter.  We know, at the same time, that many peoples around the world are just as concerned about the fate of their own cultures.  For me to make the discussion of their situation a mere part of a chapter on something else, such as an appendage to my discussion of western society, would hardly give their cultures the respect and importance they deserve.  Hence, I have set apart a separate chapter as a mark of that respect.  The brevity comes from my having relatively little to say about those other societies, since I am not intimately familiar with them.  There is no substitute for knowledge about the specifics of any given culture.  What are its needs?  What do its people consider most worth retaining about it?  What is its local politics and history?  Even these questions are far too superficial.  

            There are three things, at least, to note that arise out of what we have been discussing:

            1.  The incoming of highly productive non-labor-intensive technology will pose for them the same combination of potential well-being and economic disaster as I have described for the United States, except that in their case the disaster may be even more pronounced.  Unless they are prepared to take part in the global competition of extremely low-cost, technologically-produced agricultural and industrial products and services, their economies may be totally decimated.  Even if they find it possible to compete, they will face the same problem of extreme polarization between people who have incomes and those who do not. 

            The inability of the market to serve as an instrument for distribution will make it necessary for each viable political entity to respond.  Hopefully, at the very least, if market mechanisms can't assure the survival of their people, those entities will be able to use the technology to produce goods and services directly for distribution.  Whether this will be done, and whether the statist potential that arises from doing it can be contained, will have to be worked out within each society. 

            This won't be easy.  History, including much that is going on in the world today, tells us that we can't assume that there will everywhere be a benign intention to raise everybody up and live well together.  Abuses of the most horrible kind are possible if such things as the lust for power or the expression of ethnic rivalries predominate.

            An associated problem is that many of the "nations" especially of the Middle East and of Africa aren't really homogeneous groupings of people who care about each other; i.e., they aren't actually nations in the true sense.  Their boundaries were drawn by colonial powers for administrative purposes, or by historical push and shove, with some tribes split between countries and others thrown together that are not at all compatible.  This is often compounded by a multiplicity of languages.  The conflict within the former Yugoslavia, which isn't even in Africa or the Middle East, is a case in point.

            And there is an issue of an entirely different order: each society will be faced with a question of what sort of civilization will result from a population that is not for the most part engaged in work.  Where will things fall along the continuum?  Will "freedom from work" produce a high culture, or (at the other pole) something depraved and dissolute, or something in between?  We will get into this in Chapter 21, but more by way of raising the issue than providing answers.             

            2.  Unless these problems result in a society's being insulated from the outside world (which may occur so far as the products of other nations are concerned if there are few means to buy them, but will be impossible with regard to communication), it will become harder and harder to maintain any cultural uniqueness.  Mass world communications, sports, entertainment, travel and computer resources will introduce new ways of living and of thinking and will all mitigate against anything like a "closed society."  Cato the Elder wanted to keep out Greek ideas to shelter the Roman Republic from dissolving acids.  That proved impossible for him 2200 years ago, and it will be increasingly unthinkable in tomorrow's world.  This is what I mean by "the challenge to other cultures."  Powerful forces will tend toward a world culture.  (Again, this is a matter of concern only for those who value a specific religion, body of tradition, or way of life.  There will certainly be many who will welcome everyone's being a "citizen of the world."  These are matters of values and preferences, so there is neither a "right" nor a "wrong" about them separately from what is in the human heart.  Values and preferences are, however, extremely important to people, whose lives are framed by them.)

            3.  The need that each viable political entity will have to see to the well-being of the people within it will, on the other hand, provide the same impetus and opportunity that I discussed in the preceding chapter toward a reaffirmation of local identity.  Various authors, from Charles Murray to Anthony Harrigan, have spoken of the rich texture of life "within the little platoons" of family and community.  The necessity of local political self-sufficiency may provide the center around which the love for those things will become focused.

 

            Is there necessarily a conflict between world culture and these local reaffirmations of culture?  (When I say "local," I don't mean to suggest merely each hamlet.  The reaffirmations may be on a national, regional or even continent-wide basis and still be "local" in the sense that they are not world-wide.)

            We can hope that the two won't be at odds, but the answer isn't going to be easy.  There are certain local conditions that the international community has come to consider less than tolerable; and, perhaps even more importantly, its sensibilities on such things change over time.  This is apparent in the drive for "human rights," such as for the universal abolition of slavery or torture.  If conflict is to be avoided, a balance will need to evolve, if it can, in which local societies refrain from things that other peoples see as abuses, while at the same time the messianic impulses of those who see their mission in life as leading others to improvement are held in check.  Merely to mention it is to suggest how difficult it will be.