Let's define what a "Western" Society is. What does a Western society insinuate about its citizens? Finally, is it time to evolve to a post-Western society or are we currently far from a platonic Western Society and should focus on first becoming one.
Remember, Plato and the Greeks first developed the concept for a Western society more than 2000 years ago.
Posts
I've always thought of Western society encompassing America & its style of life/society. That would encompass Europe, as well. But I'm sure that's coming from a biased viewpoint. Describing it as 'Western' could also have easily come from Europe originally or Greece.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, I've always considered it to consist of a few main points - namely democracy(/republic), capitalism, and possibly religion (Christendom in contrast to Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism).
How do you mean the Greeks first developed the concept for a Western society? Do you mean they had concepts in use today? If not, I don't think I'd refer to it as a Western society, necessarily.
Wiki:
ReplyDeleteAccordingly, the basic definition of what constitutes "the West" varies, expanding and contracting over time, in relation to various historical circumstances. Some historians[who?] believe the West originated in the northern and eastern Mediterranean with ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Over time, their associated empires grew first to the east and south, conquering and absorbing many older great civilizations; later, they grew to the north and west to include Western Europe.
Other historians, such as Carroll Quigley (Evolution of Civilizations), contend that Western Civilization was born around 400 AD, after the total collapse of the Western Roman Empire, leaving a vacuum for new ideas to flourish that were impossible in Classical societies. In either view, between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Renaissance, the West experienced a period of considerable decline,[2] known as the Middle Ages, which include the Dark Ages and the Crusades. The knowledge of the ancient Western world was partly preserved during this period due to the survival of the Eastern Roman Empire; it was also greatly expanded by the Arabs mostly by the concurrent ascendency of the Islamic Golden Age.[3] The Arab importation of both the Ancient and new technology from the Middle East and the Orient to Renaissance Europe represented “one of the largest technology transfers in world history.”[4][5]
I think your description is adequate. By Greeks, I mean in Plato's The Republic he discusses the creation of a society with freedoms and classes and democracy. In his mind this will espouse a "just" society.
ReplyDeleteI will focus more on the citizen roles of a Western society. A lot of respect (or assumptions) is given to the intellectual capacity of citizens in a Western society. Because they are free to choose leaders, religions, and in effect which companies succeed via consumer demand they must have a vision of a greater good for their communities and not just themselves. They must self-educate and consider the consequences of their decisions. They must accept the randomness in society (i.e., violent crime) that are inherent to such societal freedoms. Because Western society offers choices to its citizens, exclusionary groups will inevitably form (i.e., religious groups, political groups), but the citizens must overcome exclusionary impulses when dealing with one-another in terms of business and public affairs.
Hopefully you can add to this. But what happens when citizens decide to become lazy because the system works to facilitate ignorance (you have the right to vote, which also means you have the right to vote without educating yourself on the issues or the candidates)?
Can we come to a concensus on whether what we have described above is what America is? If so, do you see us moving past this (i.e., our freedoms allow us to make too many wrong decisions so some of them must be taken away like the right to eat trans-fat)?
ReplyDeleteIf this is not the U.S. system, what can we do to get there?
Oh we've already passed the point where we have to restrict freedom. Again, it's not a real democracy it's a representative democracy (or a republic I'm not sure on the distinction). It started less than completely free but how the general feeling is that America is a "free country" is maybe the greatest delusion in history.
ReplyDeleteAlso, considering the situation, the democracy we have is probably the right one (people aren't ready for more freedom).
ReplyDeleteI'd like to go back to Jarrod's point that because people are free to choose their leaders, religion, and the companies that succeed, they must have a vision of greater good for the communities rather than for themselves. Also that they must self-educate and consider the consequences of their actions. I think 'must' is too strong of a word. Plenty of people don't have a vision of anything but for themselves, and do not consider the 'greater good' at all.
ReplyDeleteWhen you mention that they also must accept randomness such as violent crime, I'm reminded of a dichotomy I thought of the other day. If I remember the quote correctly, Benjamin Franklin said that (paraphrasing), "Those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither." But is that not the central tenet of social contract theory? If so, what is the optimal amount of freedom to sacrifice?
As to what happens when people become too lazy, I imagine the situation would often be that personal freedoms will typically erode until people realize what they've lost and start fighting back (via either election or revolt).
A good discussion for another blog post indeed (Freedoms and Safety). To summarize the discussion so far:
ReplyDeleteA Western society allows its citizens (directly or indirectly) to choose political leaders, religions, and a market system while encompassing a liberal view on the arts, sciences, and humanities.
A Western society works best when its citizens are engaged in the political/decision-making process and understand their freedoms come with a certain amount of sacrifice of security.
A Western society works best when there is a vision for a greater communal good and not necessarily a "me first" attitude.
Finally, it would appear to an outsider that the U.S. is not a platonic Western Society due to a poltical ambivalence/indifference, a fear of the unknown or uncontrollable and therefore less freedom, a tendancy to indulge exclusionary impulses and judge, and finally an appeal of the celebrity or "me first" attitude.
I don't think individual freedoms can be fully expressed in the current climate. We have to take into account economic systems to understand this. Let's figure out what the individual would have to do (as we seem to agree freedom requires responsibility, greater/est freedom requires great responsibility) to satisfy the responsibilities needed to secure his own freedom. For instance, how much news would a person have to understand to make decisions about the future of the country? Would every individual need the knowledge of the president (think about all the briefings he receives and the information he has access to)?
ReplyDeleteTrue democracy again is every person voting on every decision before the country. It's like the Borg maybe, from Star Trek.
And so, the answer is no. People are not ready for that kind of individual responsibility. Not until we bridge the gap between the rich and the poor (through technology most likely) do I see this happening.
ReplyDelete