One thought came to my mind when I read this. Yes, it is natural and globally beneficial for a stronger and more efficient system to supplant a weaker one. The problem I see is that strong in one field does not mean strong in another. For example, just because the military power of US is higher than that of Ethiopia does not mean that the food habits of US is better than that of Ethiopia. Just because the scientific temper of country A is better than that of country B, we cannot say that the music of country A is richer than country B. The problem is that the political power (for example) overruns and destroys other fields unrelated to it, in which the weaker society might have been better. If each field is considered independently and is given global space to compete without the influence of other fields, we will get the best of all societies and cultures, in all fields. The problem today is that the political, economic, and military might pushes other fields too. So much of indigenous knowledge in "soft" fields like medicine, cuisine, music, philosophy, jewelry, religion, psychology, etc. have been lost just because those societies were weak in the "hard" fields of economy, military, etc. That way, the US is a great human experiment where the best of all over the world are invited to compete in an almost level playing field by providing a safe space (where rule of law and individual freedom is maintained fairly well), be it sports, science, technology, music, cuisine, fashion, movies, religion, philosophy, etc.
While it is true that economically and militarily powerful nations tend to be able to invest more resources on other fronts, that doesn't mean they will excel in them. You are also right that it is the superior "soft" (cultural) fields of weaker nations that are most likely to be lost to humanity.
Alas, outside of nations inspired by the Enlightenment (like the USA), few societies actively create a 'safe' space where cultural and intellectual diversity can thrive. This is why I bemoan the weakening of American civilization, not because it is the best (it isn't) but because this safe space for intellectual and cultural competition will be lost for ever. As always thanks for your insights.
I would not wholly attribute this to European Enlightenment alone. Pax-Romana brought together the European people. Cultural exchanges with India was there even during the time of Aristotle, Pythogoras and Ptolemy. It can be seen in the world maps of those times and the writings.
If we look into history, the glorious days of Arabia was when the Islamic world create the "safe space" for world cultures. Cultures from India, China, Persia, and Europe were all welcome there. Trade and cultural exchanges with every part of the known world thrived there. Before Arabia, India was in that position for several hundreds of years. Huge Universities like Nalanda, Taxila, Kashi, Ujjain, Kanchi, etc. had residential students and teachers from all over the world. There are records of Chinese and European travelers about those. Recent archeological excavations of hordes of roman coins and amphoras in various parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala that show cosmopolitan settlements in South India 2000 years back. India started losing it with the Islamic invasions and completely lost it with the fall of the Mughal empire. The paintings of Mughal courts by European artists show a good amount of presence of European traders. Areas were given by various rulers for European and Arabic settlements. After India, the center shifted to Arabia.
After Arabia, it could have been England, but they lost the opportunity due to a colonial mindset. Also, UK did not have enough land mass. If they had established uniform rule of the British Empire throughout all the colonies without discrimination, then they could have revived that cosmopolitan spirit with the huge lass mass of Africa and India under their rule. Pax-Britannica failed in this aspect.
The USA took that position, especially after the first world war. It only became stronger after the second world war and during the times of JFK. As there was plenty of land, and almost everyone were settlers from outside at different times, it created an ideal space for this experiment. If you want to attribute this to European Enlightenment, then France should have taken this place even before USA. Or at least UK should have. I would say that this is a proof that it cannot be attributed to European Enlightenment.
If I look around for alternative societies where "the best of every facet of culture" can thrive, I see Canada, Australia, and UK are trying. Canada was doing well till Trudeau came and threw the spanner in the wheel. Australia announced October as Hindu Heritage month a few weeks back. UK has been welcoming people of different cultures for a few decades. UAE and Singapore are also trying to get there. Will Brazil, Russia, India and China have such aspirations is an interesting question. Geographically, these are the best candidates after USA, Canada and Australia for this.
I hope this cosmopolitanism is not just concentrated in USA. We need a multipolar world to cater to the aspirations of the various cultures of humanity as we are moving towards 10 billion people.
Thank you for forcing me to be more specific, Gokul.
I spend a few classes to explain this in my course on Democracy and Pluralism, so forgive the long explanation. I hope it is not too clunky.
Here's how I see the ways in which societies created 'safe' inter-cultural and inter-intellectual zones across time.
1. It is true that earlier civilizations (like the Roman Empire) had rich cultural exchanges with the rest of the world. Closer to home, Indian civilization also developed in rich syncretic ways.
While it is true that some monarchs through history were receptive to 'alien' religions and philosophies, the pace of change was slow enough to not threaten them. In any case, because the authority of the ruler was weaker away from the capital, they couldn't exercise stringent control over religious and cultural practices leave alone political ideologies. This allowed these societies to be relatively 'open' to the slow adaptation of 'alien' cultural practices, ideas and technologies. This openness was rarely by design or policy.
2. Here I make a distinction between (a), pre-modern societies and (b), modern national states- be they democratic or authoritarian, liberal or illiberal.
(a). Pre-modern societies changed and transformed over time organically through contact with other cultures and civilizations. Even if rulers or the landed gentry wished to control diversity (and with it alien influences) prior to the telegraph or the railroad, they would have had limited means to do so.
(b). Modern national states, given transportation and communication advances are both easier to govern across distances and (simultaneously) more vulnerable to disruption by alien ideas. This is why states like Saudi Arabia, Russia and China (to mention only two) control access to information and ideas that can challenge their preferred ideologies.
As you well know, governing a complex modern state is wholly different from the way Queen Elizabeth the First, or Emperor Akbar (let alone Julius Caesar or Emperor Ashoka) might have governed their empires.
Today even authoritarian states have to work very hard (given the global proliferation of ideas since the mid-19th century) to keep their people's economic and political aspirations in check. Just as Soviet Russia and Communist China have demonstrated, this is possible, even if at the cost of freedoms and individual rights.
Liberal democracies, like the USA or Sweden (to name just two) are particularly disadvantaged in governing complex states. Their open societies, having very few restrictions on incoming ideas and influences, are constantly having to respond to every competing and threatening idea. And ideas can be very threatening- the Arab Spring is a perfect example of their contagion. This means, unlike authoritarian states, democratic states will always struggle to maintain order and stability. This struggle is a losing one (I explain how in my courses).
3. Until about the end of WW2, most Western states (except the USA) were relatively racially and linguistically homogenous (white). Given this, internal tensions were limited to political ideologies (communism, socialism, fascism, anarchism) and wherever the state felt sufficiently threatened it suppressed radicals and clamped down on dissent. In other words it became mess open and less free.
I single out the USA as the epitome of an Enlightenment inspired state because:
(a). The USA has been BY DESIGN committed to immigration and diversity. Which is not to say it wasn't always selective about the diversity it encouraged.
(b). It is the oldest large democracy and has a 250 year history of liberalism, so it has credibility as a truly open and free society.
(c). It is the most powerful nation in the world and is a model to most of its allies. It is difficult to see Australia or Sweden remaining a liberal democracy (and embracing cosmopolitanism) if the US becomes less liberal or it becomes weaker militarily.
(d). Unlike many other Western states (like the UK), the USA has the 1st Amendment. This emphatically protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and gives the people the right to petition the government to address grievances. Over the last 150 years this has made the USA an extremely vibrant diversity (almost to breaking point).
4. On the matter of why France or other leading Enlightenment inspired nations didn't become as pluralistic:
(a). France was linguistically and religiously homogenous (mostly Catholic). It was also deeply protective about the French language and culture- hence was not receptive (and remains antagonistic) towards diversity.
(b). Britain was another nation that was inspired by Enlightenment, but unlike the USA it was not an immigrant state and hence was always wary of too many foreign influences. Britain's welcoming of immigrants from the Commonwealth nations after 1945 was a historic oddity that they probably deeply regret now!
Regardless, I cannot see how global cosmopolitanism and our celebration of pluralism can be sustained over (even) the next 20-40 years. Also, the multipolar world will become more insecure and vulnerable. Given that it is only very strong and confident societies that can remain open and free, the coming multipolar world will be fearful and insular. Some of them may be economically and in terms of lifestyles open, but they will almost all be politically closed.
I cannot see the BRICS nations being even remotely open or cosmopolitan (except in highly illiberal ways, as in Dubai or at best Singapore). In my courses I trace the many reasons for this, so I won't repeat the reasons for them here.
Thanks for the explanation, Ashok. Interestingly, all your explanations only lead me to conclude that the cosmopolitan nature of USA is not because of European Enlightenment, but because of the unique situation of "everyone is an immigrant in this huge land mass". Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree now and revisit it afresh later.
I agree with you that it is important for humanity to preserve the cosmopolitan nature of USA. I agree that failure of USA will be a great setback to humanity. Even if USA becomes or remains powerful economically and militarily but discontinues to provide the "safe space" of various ideas and cultures of the world, that would be a failure of the "idea" of USA. I guess in return for occupying the "new" land, the people of USA, irrespective of how many centuries back they or their ancestors migrated there, have the burden of duty to maintain the cosmopolitan nature of the place and society. It would be an interpretation of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others that you want others to do unto you." Being an immigrant yourself, you have the duty to maintain the openness of the society. If you don't like it, go back to where your ancestors came from - England, France, Spain, Germany, Israel, India, China, wherever.
I agree with you that it is difficult to repeat this experiment in any other place in the world. Recently, I visited Auroville in Pondicherry, where a similar experiment is going on for the past few decades. The space was created by symbolically bringing in sand from 150 countries of the world and all states of India and depositing in an urn which is centrally placed. They have demarcated a few square kilometers of land, acquired peacefully from local villagers and also with the participation of the local villages. There was an Act in the Indian Parliament in 1988 to their Charter and cooperation to their social experiment. You should read more about it and visit them if you have not already. People from several nations, religions, races, languages, etc. have settled there doing various trades and professions. They believe in a forward evolution of humanity, without any conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the next level. Though I agree with most of their ideas and beliefs and cannot agree with some of them, I find that the experiment is worth deep study. We need many more groups and societies of people try such experiments at different scales to create several pockets of "cosmopolitan safe spaces". Some experiments will succeed, some will fail. But the more we have, the probability of some successful experiments becoming guiding light for humanity becomes higher. We cannot just depend only on one USA. That is just one of the several social experiments of "cosmopolitan safe space" at different scales all over the world.
Sorry for the inordinate delay in replying, Gokul.
1. The only reason I would give for the role of the Enlightenment in creating a liberal cosmopolitan USA is that the Founders explicitly stated these ideas- as in the American constitution. They really didn't need to- they could have explicitly stated that they would start a monarchy or a dictatorship. However their values wouldn't allow that (as evinced by George Washington's determination to relinquish his post as President after his term- an exceptional act).
Also, other immigrant cities and states like Hong Kong, Singapore, Berlin between the wars, UAE, while being multicultural were illiberal or as in Berlin's case, merely chaotic.
2. I agree with you about immigrants in the USA (or any other liberal society) having a responsibility to strengthen the country and its ethos.
However as a democrat, I would add that if the majority decide to change the constitution and laws, making the nation illiberal (like Orban in Hungary) or even a dictatorship (Putin in Russia), that is nobody else's business. Would I like it- not at all! But it is not my place to interfere. I believe that the US and EU should absolutely stop trying to spread democracy globally- it is a pointless exercise.
3. I did live in Auroville for a little over 6 months between September 1994-March 1995. I, too, was very taken up by the stated ideals and was even welcomed by many of the founders and other leading residents who showered me with opportunities and invitations. Unfortunately I decided that it was too colonial, racist (not towards me but the Tamilian villagers living amongst them), incestuous and schizoid, for me. That's when I decided to seek a more authentically liberal society in the USA. You know how that's turned out :). From reports from those who still live there, things are far worse today.
4, I agree that if we wish to retain our cosmopolitan culture, we will need many more successful examples of it around the world. I suspect that this is no longer possible to achieve at scale, as in the USA. The USA was capable of doing this only because of American hegemony after WW2.
Without another liberal champion, powerful enough to establish the global infrastructure needed to keep such societies safe- I can't see it happening. In any case the backlash against immigration and multiculturism (mostly provoked by the inability of large groups of Muslim immigrants to adapt or integrate) is here to stay. It is becoming clear that too much diversity (identity politics) is poisonous for liberal societies. Multicultural and authoritarian states like UAE will still thrive- because they allow only the kind of immigration they want to have. And there is no dissent or activism allowed.
One thought came to my mind when I read this. Yes, it is natural and globally beneficial for a stronger and more efficient system to supplant a weaker one. The problem I see is that strong in one field does not mean strong in another. For example, just because the military power of US is higher than that of Ethiopia does not mean that the food habits of US is better than that of Ethiopia. Just because the scientific temper of country A is better than that of country B, we cannot say that the music of country A is richer than country B. The problem is that the political power (for example) overruns and destroys other fields unrelated to it, in which the weaker society might have been better. If each field is considered independently and is given global space to compete without the influence of other fields, we will get the best of all societies and cultures, in all fields. The problem today is that the political, economic, and military might pushes other fields too. So much of indigenous knowledge in "soft" fields like medicine, cuisine, music, philosophy, jewelry, religion, psychology, etc. have been lost just because those societies were weak in the "hard" fields of economy, military, etc. That way, the US is a great human experiment where the best of all over the world are invited to compete in an almost level playing field by providing a safe space (where rule of law and individual freedom is maintained fairly well), be it sports, science, technology, music, cuisine, fashion, movies, religion, philosophy, etc.
You are absolutely right, Gokul.
While it is true that economically and militarily powerful nations tend to be able to invest more resources on other fronts, that doesn't mean they will excel in them. You are also right that it is the superior "soft" (cultural) fields of weaker nations that are most likely to be lost to humanity.
Alas, outside of nations inspired by the Enlightenment (like the USA), few societies actively create a 'safe' space where cultural and intellectual diversity can thrive. This is why I bemoan the weakening of American civilization, not because it is the best (it isn't) but because this safe space for intellectual and cultural competition will be lost for ever. As always thanks for your insights.
I would not wholly attribute this to European Enlightenment alone. Pax-Romana brought together the European people. Cultural exchanges with India was there even during the time of Aristotle, Pythogoras and Ptolemy. It can be seen in the world maps of those times and the writings.
If we look into history, the glorious days of Arabia was when the Islamic world create the "safe space" for world cultures. Cultures from India, China, Persia, and Europe were all welcome there. Trade and cultural exchanges with every part of the known world thrived there. Before Arabia, India was in that position for several hundreds of years. Huge Universities like Nalanda, Taxila, Kashi, Ujjain, Kanchi, etc. had residential students and teachers from all over the world. There are records of Chinese and European travelers about those. Recent archeological excavations of hordes of roman coins and amphoras in various parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala that show cosmopolitan settlements in South India 2000 years back. India started losing it with the Islamic invasions and completely lost it with the fall of the Mughal empire. The paintings of Mughal courts by European artists show a good amount of presence of European traders. Areas were given by various rulers for European and Arabic settlements. After India, the center shifted to Arabia.
After Arabia, it could have been England, but they lost the opportunity due to a colonial mindset. Also, UK did not have enough land mass. If they had established uniform rule of the British Empire throughout all the colonies without discrimination, then they could have revived that cosmopolitan spirit with the huge lass mass of Africa and India under their rule. Pax-Britannica failed in this aspect.
The USA took that position, especially after the first world war. It only became stronger after the second world war and during the times of JFK. As there was plenty of land, and almost everyone were settlers from outside at different times, it created an ideal space for this experiment. If you want to attribute this to European Enlightenment, then France should have taken this place even before USA. Or at least UK should have. I would say that this is a proof that it cannot be attributed to European Enlightenment.
If I look around for alternative societies where "the best of every facet of culture" can thrive, I see Canada, Australia, and UK are trying. Canada was doing well till Trudeau came and threw the spanner in the wheel. Australia announced October as Hindu Heritage month a few weeks back. UK has been welcoming people of different cultures for a few decades. UAE and Singapore are also trying to get there. Will Brazil, Russia, India and China have such aspirations is an interesting question. Geographically, these are the best candidates after USA, Canada and Australia for this.
I hope this cosmopolitanism is not just concentrated in USA. We need a multipolar world to cater to the aspirations of the various cultures of humanity as we are moving towards 10 billion people.
Thank you for forcing me to be more specific, Gokul.
I spend a few classes to explain this in my course on Democracy and Pluralism, so forgive the long explanation. I hope it is not too clunky.
Here's how I see the ways in which societies created 'safe' inter-cultural and inter-intellectual zones across time.
1. It is true that earlier civilizations (like the Roman Empire) had rich cultural exchanges with the rest of the world. Closer to home, Indian civilization also developed in rich syncretic ways.
While it is true that some monarchs through history were receptive to 'alien' religions and philosophies, the pace of change was slow enough to not threaten them. In any case, because the authority of the ruler was weaker away from the capital, they couldn't exercise stringent control over religious and cultural practices leave alone political ideologies. This allowed these societies to be relatively 'open' to the slow adaptation of 'alien' cultural practices, ideas and technologies. This openness was rarely by design or policy.
2. Here I make a distinction between (a), pre-modern societies and (b), modern national states- be they democratic or authoritarian, liberal or illiberal.
(a). Pre-modern societies changed and transformed over time organically through contact with other cultures and civilizations. Even if rulers or the landed gentry wished to control diversity (and with it alien influences) prior to the telegraph or the railroad, they would have had limited means to do so.
(b). Modern national states, given transportation and communication advances are both easier to govern across distances and (simultaneously) more vulnerable to disruption by alien ideas. This is why states like Saudi Arabia, Russia and China (to mention only two) control access to information and ideas that can challenge their preferred ideologies.
As you well know, governing a complex modern state is wholly different from the way Queen Elizabeth the First, or Emperor Akbar (let alone Julius Caesar or Emperor Ashoka) might have governed their empires.
Today even authoritarian states have to work very hard (given the global proliferation of ideas since the mid-19th century) to keep their people's economic and political aspirations in check. Just as Soviet Russia and Communist China have demonstrated, this is possible, even if at the cost of freedoms and individual rights.
Liberal democracies, like the USA or Sweden (to name just two) are particularly disadvantaged in governing complex states. Their open societies, having very few restrictions on incoming ideas and influences, are constantly having to respond to every competing and threatening idea. And ideas can be very threatening- the Arab Spring is a perfect example of their contagion. This means, unlike authoritarian states, democratic states will always struggle to maintain order and stability. This struggle is a losing one (I explain how in my courses).
3. Until about the end of WW2, most Western states (except the USA) were relatively racially and linguistically homogenous (white). Given this, internal tensions were limited to political ideologies (communism, socialism, fascism, anarchism) and wherever the state felt sufficiently threatened it suppressed radicals and clamped down on dissent. In other words it became mess open and less free.
I single out the USA as the epitome of an Enlightenment inspired state because:
(a). The USA has been BY DESIGN committed to immigration and diversity. Which is not to say it wasn't always selective about the diversity it encouraged.
(b). It is the oldest large democracy and has a 250 year history of liberalism, so it has credibility as a truly open and free society.
(c). It is the most powerful nation in the world and is a model to most of its allies. It is difficult to see Australia or Sweden remaining a liberal democracy (and embracing cosmopolitanism) if the US becomes less liberal or it becomes weaker militarily.
(d). Unlike many other Western states (like the UK), the USA has the 1st Amendment. This emphatically protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and gives the people the right to petition the government to address grievances. Over the last 150 years this has made the USA an extremely vibrant diversity (almost to breaking point).
4. On the matter of why France or other leading Enlightenment inspired nations didn't become as pluralistic:
(a). France was linguistically and religiously homogenous (mostly Catholic). It was also deeply protective about the French language and culture- hence was not receptive (and remains antagonistic) towards diversity.
(b). Britain was another nation that was inspired by Enlightenment, but unlike the USA it was not an immigrant state and hence was always wary of too many foreign influences. Britain's welcoming of immigrants from the Commonwealth nations after 1945 was a historic oddity that they probably deeply regret now!
Regardless, I cannot see how global cosmopolitanism and our celebration of pluralism can be sustained over (even) the next 20-40 years. Also, the multipolar world will become more insecure and vulnerable. Given that it is only very strong and confident societies that can remain open and free, the coming multipolar world will be fearful and insular. Some of them may be economically and in terms of lifestyles open, but they will almost all be politically closed.
I cannot see the BRICS nations being even remotely open or cosmopolitan (except in highly illiberal ways, as in Dubai or at best Singapore). In my courses I trace the many reasons for this, so I won't repeat the reasons for them here.
Thanks for engaging with me here, Gokul.
Thanks for the explanation, Ashok. Interestingly, all your explanations only lead me to conclude that the cosmopolitan nature of USA is not because of European Enlightenment, but because of the unique situation of "everyone is an immigrant in this huge land mass". Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree now and revisit it afresh later.
I agree with you that it is important for humanity to preserve the cosmopolitan nature of USA. I agree that failure of USA will be a great setback to humanity. Even if USA becomes or remains powerful economically and militarily but discontinues to provide the "safe space" of various ideas and cultures of the world, that would be a failure of the "idea" of USA. I guess in return for occupying the "new" land, the people of USA, irrespective of how many centuries back they or their ancestors migrated there, have the burden of duty to maintain the cosmopolitan nature of the place and society. It would be an interpretation of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others that you want others to do unto you." Being an immigrant yourself, you have the duty to maintain the openness of the society. If you don't like it, go back to where your ancestors came from - England, France, Spain, Germany, Israel, India, China, wherever.
I agree with you that it is difficult to repeat this experiment in any other place in the world. Recently, I visited Auroville in Pondicherry, where a similar experiment is going on for the past few decades. The space was created by symbolically bringing in sand from 150 countries of the world and all states of India and depositing in an urn which is centrally placed. They have demarcated a few square kilometers of land, acquired peacefully from local villagers and also with the participation of the local villages. There was an Act in the Indian Parliament in 1988 to their Charter and cooperation to their social experiment. You should read more about it and visit them if you have not already. People from several nations, religions, races, languages, etc. have settled there doing various trades and professions. They believe in a forward evolution of humanity, without any conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the next level. Though I agree with most of their ideas and beliefs and cannot agree with some of them, I find that the experiment is worth deep study. We need many more groups and societies of people try such experiments at different scales to create several pockets of "cosmopolitan safe spaces". Some experiments will succeed, some will fail. But the more we have, the probability of some successful experiments becoming guiding light for humanity becomes higher. We cannot just depend only on one USA. That is just one of the several social experiments of "cosmopolitan safe space" at different scales all over the world.
Sorry for the inordinate delay in replying, Gokul.
1. The only reason I would give for the role of the Enlightenment in creating a liberal cosmopolitan USA is that the Founders explicitly stated these ideas- as in the American constitution. They really didn't need to- they could have explicitly stated that they would start a monarchy or a dictatorship. However their values wouldn't allow that (as evinced by George Washington's determination to relinquish his post as President after his term- an exceptional act).
Also, other immigrant cities and states like Hong Kong, Singapore, Berlin between the wars, UAE, while being multicultural were illiberal or as in Berlin's case, merely chaotic.
2. I agree with you about immigrants in the USA (or any other liberal society) having a responsibility to strengthen the country and its ethos.
However as a democrat, I would add that if the majority decide to change the constitution and laws, making the nation illiberal (like Orban in Hungary) or even a dictatorship (Putin in Russia), that is nobody else's business. Would I like it- not at all! But it is not my place to interfere. I believe that the US and EU should absolutely stop trying to spread democracy globally- it is a pointless exercise.
3. I did live in Auroville for a little over 6 months between September 1994-March 1995. I, too, was very taken up by the stated ideals and was even welcomed by many of the founders and other leading residents who showered me with opportunities and invitations. Unfortunately I decided that it was too colonial, racist (not towards me but the Tamilian villagers living amongst them), incestuous and schizoid, for me. That's when I decided to seek a more authentically liberal society in the USA. You know how that's turned out :). From reports from those who still live there, things are far worse today.
4, I agree that if we wish to retain our cosmopolitan culture, we will need many more successful examples of it around the world. I suspect that this is no longer possible to achieve at scale, as in the USA. The USA was capable of doing this only because of American hegemony after WW2.
Without another liberal champion, powerful enough to establish the global infrastructure needed to keep such societies safe- I can't see it happening. In any case the backlash against immigration and multiculturism (mostly provoked by the inability of large groups of Muslim immigrants to adapt or integrate) is here to stay. It is becoming clear that too much diversity (identity politics) is poisonous for liberal societies. Multicultural and authoritarian states like UAE will still thrive- because they allow only the kind of immigration they want to have. And there is no dissent or activism allowed.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.