Is Western culture bad for the world?

[Glenski]

To get back to the original post, there are 3 immensely disparate questions posed. I think Andrew needs to focus more.

Is Western culture bad for the world?
Too broad. Please define "Western culture", "bad", and "for the world". I'm serious.


What does Western culture have that isn't available locally?
Assuming "Western culture" means all the non-Japanese cultures I recently posted above, and that "have" means contains as a regularly accepted thing, and that locally means in Japan, my reply is this.
Many religions and all the baggage they contain.
Puritan values (in some cases), especially of morality and sex
Different social and business ethics

Are we creating a "McWorld"?
What is this supposed to mean in terms of English (which is what you seem to have directed it toward)? Is it a bad or good thing to have such a McWorld? Do you mean a world in which only one language is demanded in order to function well? Function in what areas -- business, science, what? Do you mean McWorld should or should not require that all English should be used (spoken/written) identically regardless of country?

 

[Haruspex]

This is beginning to mix language and aspects of culture (such as the 3 I just mentioned). I agree that the knowledge of another language (such as English) can do those things Derfel wrote, but the language itself doesn't. Perhaps that's semantics.

But why are we nearly equating adopting English with adopting western culture? Moreover, the "west" includes more than anglophone countries and their respective cultures.

To most of the people not already located in western countries with official languages other than English, entry into the west is, in part, via the English language. There are exceptions, but attempting or 'dreaming of' learning English in countries where the west has an allure is very much the norm. That people pursue other paths does not vitiate the fact that it is the norm. Certainly, you can learn a language in isolation, but it's rarely the purpose of a person doing the learning. If you're learning English, you do so because you either want to use it in conjunction with traveling, or leverage its cultural weight domestically. I could learn Navajo or Tagalog, but I don't wish to gain access to the respective cultures for the price I would have to pay.

I had to look this one up ... A parsec is equivalent to 3.26 light years and since a light year is the distance light travels in 1 year 9.4 trillion km, 1 parsec equals 30.8 trillion km. Parsec is a combination of 2 words, parallax (par) and arc second (sec).

Parallax means something looks like it changed its location because you changed yours. For example, if you stand on your porch and look across the street, you will see a house on your left and a house on your right. If you go across the street and look at the same houses from your neighbor's backyard, they will be on the opposite sides. Did the houses move? Of course not. You changed your location. Since you are in a different place, facing a different direction, they appear to be in different places. Likewise, two different people, in two different parts of the world, might see the exact same event in the sky or outer space; yet, it might appear entirely different due to their locations.

Maybe the term "Western culture" is a parallax depending on your view of the world.

I must confess, I knew it was a measurement in astronomy, but I only had a vague idea of the nature of parsec when I chose to use it.

you still have not answered my question about why choosing a language seems to equate to an entire culture.
Moreover, outside of Asia is far more than the anglophone countries. Why don't you include Scandinavia, Slavic countries, Latin American countries, Middle East, etc.?

I think it would be best to think of the west as the countries that inherited enlightenment values that have comparatively developed human rights regimes and comparatively liberal values.

I couldn't understand why some posters mix language with culture !
Maybe it depends on culture, Derfel said his culture was not as good as western so he switched to Western culture, As for my culture and language Western culture effect was slightly effective not like other cultures/languages.
Arabic language is the richest language so English Vocabulary doesn't need to be import to Arabic because Arabic also has same Vocabulary originally in Arabic.
Western culture did not effect Arabic culture either so i think this topic doesn't go on all cultures/languages.

Well, I believe Arabic isn't called Arabic because Germans and Inuits speak it, right? It's because Arabs spoke it and speak it to this day. If you truly wish to immerse yourself in the culture, you will have to learn the language. If you learn Arabic, you will likely use it in some manner connected with the culture. It's not very likely that after attaining fluency in Arabic, you will seclude yourself in a cave and live the rest of your life as a hermit, never again returning to the language you spent so much time learning. Languages and cultures are part and parcel.

The size of a language's vocabulary is hard to measure, because different languages are structurally different. Deciding to include compound words would be unfair towards languages more heavy on the morphemes, and excluding them might feel unfair towards languages which make heavy use of compound words. There's hardly a reliable way to measure 'richness'. On the other hand, there's always utility. I seriously doubt that any language, currently, can come near to English in terms of linguistic and cultural utility.

English incorporates a sizeable part of Latin and Greek, the two most important languages (even if Latin is a little on the dead side) for the purposes of medicine, engineering, science, law... actually for most academic pursuits. Scientific and technological research mainly happens in English, and even when that's not the case, it gets translated into English very frequently and swiftly. New words are quickly assimilated or coined. English speaking countries offer some of the best higher educational programmes and English affords the widest and most varied range of networking opportunities. I could keep banging on about the merits of English, but you get the point.

Your vocabulary is parsecs ahead of most other people !

Hahaha, thank you! That's a clever pun.

 

[Dotanbatan]

I agree with most of Derfel's points above but will go back to the OP for my take on the questions it raised.

'What does Western culture have that isn't available locally?'

There seems to be some confusion about what 'Western Culture' means.
I think it could be best defined as the culture of those nations that have English as a first language (UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand) and the European countries who engaged in exploration, trade, and religious / imperial colonisation over the last 400 or so years.
Countries that are not in the above group tend to view the countries from this group as 'Western'.

In reality of course the individual cultures within the group are quite different e.g Portugal vs Scotland, Australia vs France. The one thing that is shared by all of them is a historic development of its systems – government, law, education from the Christian faith in one of its many forms.
As the OP questions were originally raised as a discussion seed for EFL students (from what I gather), it is something that would have a slightly different meaning and therefore answer depending on the nationality of the student.
In other words, a very good question - broad and elusive but one that has certainly got us forum members responding!

The second question:
Are we creating a "McWorld"?

English, for instance, is supposedly the global tongue. In reality, English is fragmenting into distinct new dialects with hundreds of millions of speakers: Hinglish (Hindi English), Nigerian English, Filipino English and Singapore's Chinese-English hybrid, Singlish.
"McWorld" would refer to American culture and influence so it is wrong to associate it too closely with the differing forms of English now spoken around the world.

I don't think there is anything that can stop the English juggernaut now - not even the emerging influence of China. The simple fact is that English is the global language and will become even more important in the future. There is much that I don't like about its spread around the world but it will not destroy cultures, it will just be part of the evolution of that particular culture in the same way that Latin influenced Europe or Chinese influenced the Far East.

So…… back to the OP title:
Is Western culture bad for the world?

That would need about 300 pages to answer properly!
But I'll keep my response short.
Yes and, ehh, ummm, …… No!

 

[johnnyG]

The inner circle countries no longer "own" English in the way that Japan owns Japanese. The language=culture (culture=language) link is gone. An old, dated statistic is that there are more newspapers published in English in India than in the UK. Combine India and China, and there are undoubtedly more speakers of English there than in all of the inner circle countries combined. That makes it hard to connect English to any given "culture."

A person can learn English, but without conscious (and perhaps strenuous effort), that person will not gain any cultural literacy regarding the inner circle countries (US, UK, Canada, Oz, NZ).

I like to characterize two forces acting on English as centrifugal and centripetal. The centrifugal force acting on the language is the Balkanizing one, and if you focus on that you'll say that English is fragmenting and will continue to do so, and that this makes it impossible for English to become a world language--English will go the way of Latin and the Romance languages. But there are also centripetal, centralizing, homogenizing forces--obviously any media, but also trade/economics, travel, and so on.

Barring some cataclysm like a huge solar flare or nuclear holocaust, I think the latter trend will win out. English will continue its momentum toward becoming a more complete world language. But since it is no longer owned, that says nothing about the spread of western culture.

 

[Glenski]

To most of the people not already located in western countries with official languages other than English, entry into the west is, in part, via the English language. There are exceptions,

Yes, actually quite a few of them, if I understand what you mean by this complicated sentence!

but attempting or 'dreaming of' learning English in countries where the west has an allure is very much the norm.

One doesn't have to emigrate to those countries to need English. And, using it in one's own country doesn't mean adopting western cultural values, which is what I thought was one point that Andrew was trying to make. Is that about right, Andrew?

If you're learning English, you do so because you either want to use it in conjunction with traveling, or leverage its cultural weight domestically. I could learn Navajo or Tagalog, but I don't wish to gain access to the respective cultures for the price I would have to pay.

You will pick up some of the culture associated with a language regardless of that. And, just because one wants to travel abroad or have a foreign friend, and thinks that learning some English will help, that still doesn't mean one will have to adopt a large amount of western culture in the process.

I think it would be best to think of the west as the countries that inherited enlightenment values that have comparatively developed human rights regimes and comparatively liberal values.

Which would then change Andrew's POV away from just anglophone countries.

I seriously doubt that any language, currently, can come near to English in terms of linguistic and cultural utility.

The French, diplomats, and businessmen might argue that French is better. Some say it was the international language (for things like treaties) because of its clarity, a very critical utility.

English speaking countries offer some of the best higher educational programmes

There is reason to doubt that claim. Just look at the U.S.

I could keep banging on about the merits of English, but you get the point.

Yes, I don't doubt that it has its merits. I just have a hard time understanding what McWorld means to Andrew.

English, for instance, is supposedly the global tongue.

Yes, for business and science mostly.

In reality, English is fragmenting into distinct new dialects with hundreds of millions of speakers: Hinglish (Hindi English), Nigerian English, Filipino English and Singapore's Chinese-English hybrid, Singlish.

I would delete the "in reality" phrase and just lump it all under the growing term World Englishes. Period.

"McWorld" would refer to American culture and influence so it is wrong to associate it too closely with the differing forms of English now spoken around the world.

Depending on where you are referring (Japan or India, for example), that might mean the US or UK. Still waiting for Andrew's definition.

The inner circle countries no longer "own" English in the way that Japan owns Japanese. The language=culture (culture=language) link is gone. An old, dated statistic is that there are more newspapers published in English in India than in the UK. Combine India and China, and there are undoubtedly more speakers of English there than in all of the inner circle countries combined. That makes it hard to connect English to any given "culture."

100% correct. Thanks for making that point. I was about to.

 

[Andrew McKean]

Dear Friends,
Thank you all for your interesting and robust comments. With hindsight I probably should have phrased the questions differently. Yes, they were aimed at EFL readers and do highlight my limited academic skills. My normal teaching environment is with ESL students, mainly in Islamic countries, via Facebook and Skype.

Quoting from Wikipedia:
"McWorld is a term referring to the spreading of McDonald's restaurants throughout the world as the result of globalisation, and more generally to the effects of international 'McDonaldisation' of services and commercialisation of goods as an element of globalisation as a whole. Critics claim that fast food chain restaurants such as McDonald's are destructive towards many aspects of the indigenous cultures in countries where they have been introduced.

In March 1992, an article first published in The Atlantic Monthly by Rutgers political science professor Benjamin Barber entitled "Jihad vs. McWorld", described international commercialisation as one of two great clashing forces of the 21st century, the other being tribalistic fundamentalism. According to his writing, there are four imperatives which constitute the McWorld: a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information technology imperative, and an ecological imperative. The four imperatives are transnational, transideological, transcultural and ecological. The contracting idea of McWorld, the Jihad, unlike those four imperatives, stress identity of each community. The clashing forces result from what Barber explains as the two core doctrines of our age: globalism and retribalisation. It was expanded and published in 1995, and became a bestselling book.

McWorld does not necessarily relate to democracy. It cares about the elements of democracy, but only to the degree that it promotes economic production and consumption. In the book, Barber explains that liberalisation of nation state oriented markets to a globalised market does not seem democratic. Democracy and liberal capitalism are terms commonly used as a correlation; how democracy leads to capitalist economy and vice versa. However Barber argues that multinational corporations pursuing profits outside their home country due to competition has less correlation with open society."

 

[Hezam]

If you learn Arabic, you will likely use it in some manner connected with the culture. It's not very likely that after attaining fluency in Arabic, you will seclude yourself in a cave and live the rest of your life as a hermit,.

You shouldn't read alibaba's story.

The size of a language's vocabulary is hard to measure, because different languages are structurally different. Deciding to include compound words would be unfair towards languages more heavy on the morphemes, and excluding them might feel unfair towards languages which make heavy use of compound words. There's hardly a reliable way to measure 'richness'. On the other hand, there's always utility. I seriously doubt that any language, currently, can come near to English in terms of linguistic and cultural utility.

Ask Arabic language teacher.

English incorporates a sizeable part of Latin and Greek, the two most important languages (even if Latin is a little on the dead side) for the purposes of medicine, engineering, science, law... actually for most academic pursuits. Scientific and technological research mainly happens in English, and even when that's not the case, it gets translated into English very frequently and swiftly. New words are quickly assimilated or coined. English speaking countries offer some of the best higher educational programmes and English affords the widest and most varied range of networking opportunities. I could keep banging on about the merits of English, but you get the point..

I wonder if you ever heard or knew that Arabic was the global language for science, medicine, astronomy, law, engineering etc ?
Arabic language is an endless ocean of vocabulary, You can talk about anything that invented in the 20th-21th century without using a single english word.
Language is like any programing languages or coding, Its purpose is to make comunication easier, Do you understand my point ?

Andrew McKean[/B]]Dear Friends,
Thank you all for your interesting and robust comments. With hindsight I probably should have phrased the questions differently. Yes, they were aimed at EFL readers and do highlight my limited academic skills. My normal teaching environment is with ESL students, mainly in Islamic countries, via Facebook and Skype.

Interesting, i would like to know more about it.

 

[Andrew McKean]

Hello Hezam,

At the risk of being branded a spammer here is a link to my Facebook ESL page:

https://fb.com/sgs4com

Regards,

Andrew