Sustaining
the Variety of Life
A frequent criticism
of the popular television series Star Trek: The Next Generation
centered around the unremarkable physical appearance of its various
alien species. In nearly every episode, the crew of the starship
Enterprise would encounter a "new" civilization-- a
society of life-forms that had supposedly developed in complete
isolation from other worlds. Amazingly, the overwhelming majority
of these aliens barely differed in appearance from humans, typically
distinguished by a small wrinkle on their forehead or nose. This
absurdity prompted a critic on Trek's own website to dub them
"Forehead Aliens of the Week." Even more preposterous
than their physical similarity to humans, however, was the utter
lack of divergent philosophies and sociopolitical ideals exhibited
by these "aliens." Most displayed emotions and value
systems not just identical to humans, but to 21st century Western
humans. The series' portrayals do not begin to approach the magnitude
of social and political differences that exist between different
human cultures on present-day Earth and throughout human history,
let alone the unimaginable uniqueness an alien species would unquestionably
possess.
Such blatant ethnocentrism seems remarkably obtuse for a series
whose audience was generally well-informed (albeit slightly geeky).
But just as the original Star Trek series was guilty of reflecting
the racial and gender biases of the 1960's, so too did the contemporary
series mirror a fundamental ethnocentrism inherent in popular
culture today. Even modern social scientists tend to subscribe
to principles that undervalue cultural diversity. Scholars obviously
respect cultural and social differences, and therefore recognize
the need to preserve cultural diversity, but the prevailing social
scientific ideology maintains that a certain psychic unity binds
each human mind. While culture is no longer always considered
an extraneous variable, it is still treated as an external influence.
The assumption is that all humans are the same "deep down,"
and that cultural divergences are secondary or superficial. This
can largely be attributed to the Platonic and Judeo-Christian
dualistic foundation upon which Western academia still rests.
These dubious principles reverberate throughout society, and are
manifest in our negligent foreign policy. A society whose academic
underpinning is psychological universalism is predisposed to undervaluing
cultural diversity. If a people are the same everywhere, then
the significance of displacing "primitive" and "superstitious"
belief systems diminishes.
This is clearly the case, as today's policymakers exhibit a blithe
disregard for psychodiversity. Authorities in both developed and
developing countries are failing to curb the destruction of the
unique cultures endemic to their regions. The majority of the
human population can now be categorized as belonging to the same
essential culture. Hunter-gatherer tribes presently account for
less than one percent of the human population. Even the lines
between the proverbial East and West are being blurred, as ancient
empires like Japan openly advance their efforts to "Westernize."
Little is being done to impede these changes. The rampant spread
of postindustrial materialistic culture is deemed "progress;"
the cultures it supplants, obsolete. Indeed, the aforementioned
ethnocentric worldview may soon become reality.
University of Chicago scholar Richard Shweder is at the forefront
of a resurgent discipline that challenges the traditional Platonism
underlying modern psychology. Shweder asserts that culture, environmental
factors, and belief systems are inextricable from an accurate
conception of individual mental processes. He characterizes the
existence of diverse sociocultural environments as multiple objective
realities. He refers to them as "intentional worlds,"
stating that they are "real, factual, and forceful, but only
so long as...mental representations are directed at [them]."
The notion that a pure essence of humanity is present at the core
of each mind is an anachronism. Shweder's view, although against
convention, is much more grounded in reality. By his reasoning,
futurists who ask whether humanity will endure may need to revise
their operative question, instead asking which humanity will endure.
The answer will likely depend on the outcome of an assault on
psychodiversity that dates back to the beginning of civilization,
when regional tribes first began to coalesce into ordered city-states.
The assault has continued without interruption, highlighted by
Roman and Chinese imperialism, European colonialism, and economic
globalization. Now, carried on the wings of capitalism and Christianity,
Western materialism is gobbling up cultural diversity as fast
as Brazilian farmers devour the Rain Forest. The expansion is
aided by a number of current mechanisms. Total commitment to surplus-producing
agriculture results in population spikes and the subsequent "crowding
out" or absorption of neighboring peoples. Corporations force
their way into new "markets" seeking cheap labor and
untapped customer bases. Further, developed countries boast a
sort of mass mediocrity-- the baseline level of existence for
the largest social class exceeds that of most rival systems--
and thus gains favor among the masses. The appeal of material
possession and individual autonomy are also powerful seductive
forces. Even political rhetoric precipitates cultural destruction,
as the use of the term developing country presupposes a mandate
for social change.
The ramifications of the destruction of psychodiversity are profound
and far-reaching. Supplanting cultures that have existed with
relative stability for centuries or even millennia places the
ecosystem and, ironically, the nascent global economy at risk.
Conversion to new economic principles and abandonment of timeworn
traditions usually causes overpopulation and poverty, and leaves
the populace itself distressed and vulnerable.
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche railed against cultural
unification and pluralistic society, warning of the inevitable
conflicts associated with "many souls dwelling within a single
breast." Although Nietzsche may have overstated the significance
of mixed cultural descent, he presciently identified the dangers
of cultural uniformity posed by a phenomenon he labeled "herd
morality." As a group continues to grow in size and homogeneity,
and external threats comparatively lessen, a widespread desire
emerges to reduce internal threats and thereby insure the perpetuity
of the status quo. Exceptional ability in any form becomes an
object of reproach, rather than reverence. The herd instinct threatens
the existence of dynamic intellectualism, locking humanity into
a consensus worldview governed by arbitrary values that, accurate
or not, are universally accepted. Herd morality permeates American
culture and many of its subcultures today. If the destruction
of psychodiversity remains unchecked, the damaging effects of
herd morality could increase exponentially. Already, ecological
conditions such as global warming and deforestation can be partially
attributed to the unquestioned acceptance of actions that promote
economic growth, as well as the unwavering conformity to value
systems that preserve human life at all cost.
Further, much like biodiversity, psychodiversity has intrinsic
value. A mandate for its protection should not require the illustration
of the instrumental negativities related to its destruction. Shweder's
principle of intentional worlds compounds that value, as the loss
of a unique culture is, in essence, the death of an entire world.
Written
By Les Beldo
|
Back
|