Cultural Repercussions of a Paradigm Shift

Without doubt, the west is undergoing a change. Certain philosophers are identifying this change as a major paradigm shift, from modern to post-modern thinking; while others see this change simply as the necessary consummation of modernity. Regardless of the exact terminology one would employ, it is no doubt that an all-encompassing change is just over the horizon for the west, and the world as a whole.

Change isn't something about which we should be surprised. By nature, culture is dynamic. Change is inevitable, as humans learn from past mistakes; grow from those experiences; adapt to new cultural and ideological tides; and adopt new beliefs, values, and symbols from the international community. However, even though culture is dynamic, it hasn't always been so quick to change, as it is now.

So, can stability be maintained in a fast-paced dynamic community (world-wide or local)?

If we examine the civilizations that lasted long periods of time, one thing is evident: they remained fairly static, usually under the leadership of a dynastic line (I am not advocating dynastic rule). Yes, there were changes. But the changes that the Ming and Ching dynasties faced were slight, subtle, and for the most part very similar to China's past cultural structures. The Ottoman Empire lasted for about 600 years, give-or-take a few (14th century to early 20th), while undergoing many changes in leadership. But it wasn't until the 19th century when things began to fall apart (because of massive cultural changes) for the Ottomans; and things fell fast and hard, leading ultimately to the demise of the empire around the end of WWI. The Byzantine Empire, whom the Ottomans eventually conquered in the mid 15th century by conquering Constantinople, also remained as a relatively stable empire for many centuries, while undergoing very little change up until the end, when they faced drastic cultural changes. Of course there are many other examples throughout history that follow this same trend (and of course there are always a few exceptions to the majority rule).

Now let's turn our focus to the "proudly-boasting" dynamic communities of the modern period (specifically the west); because, I think I have begun to notice something fascinating. As cultural anthropologist Conrad Phillip Kottak points out in his book Mirror for Humanity, culture is not only dynamic, but it is also integrated.

Cultures are not haphazard collections of customs and beliefs. Cultures are integrated, patterned systems. If one part of the system (the overall economy [religion, ideology, value systems, etc.], for instance) changes, other parts change as well (45).

And when these changes confront us, there are two results: adaptive behavior or maladaptive behavior. As Kottak goes on to explain, adaptive behavior very often produces negative repercussions, maladaptive behavior.

Sometimes, adaptive behavior that offers short-term benefits to particular subgroups or individuals may harm the environment and threaten the group's long-term survival. Economic growth may benefit some people while it depletes resources needed for society at large or for future generations... [And] by-products of... "beneficial" technology [automobiles, air conditioners, etc] often create new problems [air pollution, depleted ozone layer, global warming] (48).

So before I go any further, let me organize my thoughts into a syllogism:

If:

- Cultures exist, and

- The West is considered a culture, and

- Existing cultures are necessarily dynamic, and

- Existing dynamic cultures face negative repercussions, due to changes

Then:

- The West - an existing culture - is necessarily a dynamic culture that faces negative repercussions due to change.

Now this may not seem like anything to write home about. But really it is fascinating. For all the vaunted talk about the "positive" aspects of post-modernism in academia (relativism, moral neutrality, open-mindedness, free-thought, etc.), it seems as though the west is running headlong into a ditch. Let me try to explain. Modern "western" culture has never faced a paradigm shift such as the one that it now faces. Ever since the Enlightenment, certain beliefs, values, "laws", and rules governed, were fixed. But now, these once standard truths/realities that were so essential to modern life are losing importance, and soon may fall out of existence. Granted, there have been many subtle societal shifts, with substantial effects; but nothing that sweeps across the board in the same way that this paradigm shift, based on post-modern relativistic thought, could. A whole new way of thinking is now surfacing, not just in theory but practically. Just imagine what could happen. Are we ready to deal with such changes? Can we as a culture survive a major shift? Or will the ensuing reactions be so maladaptive that we crumble into the annuls like the Ottomans?

I really have no definitive closing thoughts, since this is just something that I was thinking about while I was at Starbucks and had to put to paper before I forgot. But let me run for a minute in closing.

One more syllogism:

If:

- The West is facing a major paradigm shift, such as has never been seen before.

- Any shift in any aspect of culture will produce an integrated effect.

- Maladaptive results are to be expected from a shift in a single aspect of any given culture.

- The current shift in the West directly affects multiple areas of our culture.

Then:

- The West is staring at possible repercussions, stemmed from an integrated paradigm shift, that could produce undesirable effects, with great magnitude in every area of our culture, due to the fact that each individual aspect of culture is necessarily linked with the integrated whole.