| by David Brooks, New York Times
August 10, 2005
Let's say you are an 18-year-old kid with a really big brain. You're
trying to figure out which field of study you should devote your life
to, so you can understand the forces that will be shaping history for
decades to come.
Go into the field that barely exists: cultural geography. Study why and
how people cluster, why certain national traits endure over centuries,
why certain cultures embrace technology and economic growth and others
resist them.
This is the line of inquiry that is now impolite to pursue. The gospel
of multiculturalism preaches that all groups and cultures are equally
wonderful. There are a certain number of close-minded thugs, especially
on university campuses, who accuse anybody who asks intelligent
questions about groups and enduring traits of being racist or sexist.
The economists and scientists tend to assume that material factors drive
history - resources and brain chemistry - because that's what they can
measure and count.
But none of this helps explain a crucial feature of our time: while
global economies are converging, cultures are diverging, and the
widening cultural differences are leading us into a period of conflict,
inequality and segmentation.
Not long ago, people said that globalization and the revolution in
communications technology would bring us all together. But the opposite
is true. People are taking advantage of freedom and technology to create
new groups and cultural zones. Old national identities and behavior
patterns are proving surprisingly durable. People are moving into
self-segregating communities with people like themselves, and building
invisible and sometimes visible barriers to keep strangers out.
If you look just around the United States you find amazing cultural
segmentation. We in America have been "globalized" (meaning economically
integrated) for centuries, and yet far from converging into some
homogeneous culture, we are actually diverging into lifestyle segments.
The music, news, magazine and television markets have all segmented, so
there are fewer cultural unifiers like Life magazine or Walter Cronkite.
Forty-million Americans move every year, and they generally move in with
people like themselves, so as the late James Chapin used to say, every
place becomes more like itself. Crunchy places like Boulder attract
crunchy types and become crunchier. Conservative places like suburban
Georgia attract conservatives and become more so.
Not long ago, many people worked on farms or in factories, so they had
similar lifestyles. But now the economy rewards specialization, so
workplaces and lifestyles diverge. The military and civilian cultures
diverge. In the political world, Democrats and Republicans seem to live
on different planets.
Meanwhile, if you look around the world you see how often events are
driven by groups that reject the globalized culture. Islamic extremists
reject the modern cultures of Europe, and have created a hyperaggressive
fantasy version of traditional Islamic purity. In a much different and
less violent way, some American Jews have moved to Hebron and become
hyper-Zionists.
From Africa to Seattle, religiously orthodox students reject what they
see as the amoral mainstream culture, and carve out defiant revival
movements. From Rome to Oregon, antiglobalization types create their own
subcultures.
The members of these and many other groups didn't inherit their
identities. They took advantage of modernity, affluence and freedom to
become practitioners of a do-it-yourself tribalism. They are part of a
great reshuffling of identities, and the creation of new, often more
rigid groupings. They have the zeal of converts.
Meanwhile, transnational dreams like European unification and Arab unity
falter, and behavior patterns across nations diverge. For example,
fertility rates between countries like the U.S. and Canada are
diverging. Work habits between the U.S. and Europe are diverging. Global
inequality widens as some nations with certain cultural traits prosper
and others with other traits don't.
People like Max Weber, Edward Banfield, Samuel Huntington, Lawrence
Harrison and Thomas Sowell have given us an inkling of how to think
about this stuff, but for the most part, this is open ground.
If you are 18 and you've got that big brain, the whole field of cultural
geography is waiting for you.
|