Orders across Borders: From difference to diversity and cross-cutting cleavages.

Paul Drechsel, Mainz

Orders across Borders: From difference to diversity and cross-cutting cleavages.

Paul Drechsel, Mainz

Promotionskolleg ‚FORMATIONS OF THE GLOBAL‘

Welterfahrung – Weltentwürfe – Weltöffentlichkeiten

Universität Mannheim, Philosophische Fakultät

Tagung: (B)ORDERS. Re-Imagining Cultural, Political, and Media Spaces inA Globalizing World

(Sept 3-4, 2010, Kloster Bronnbach)

Promotionskolleg ‚FORMATIONS OF THE GLOBAL‘

Welterfahrung – Weltentwürfe – Weltöffentlichkeiten

Universität Mannheim, Philosophische Fakultät

Tagung: (B)ORDERS. Re-Imagining Cultural, Political, and Media Spaces inA Globalizing World

(Sept 3-4, 2010, Kloster Bronnbach)

Two decades ago I began my yearlong study of the

cultural variety of South Africa. My paradigm

at the beginning was the standard theory of culture.

Cultures as more or less holistic entities. There are

plenty of such cultures, and I was equipped with some

nebulous concepts of intercultural and transcultural

relationships, also of globalization.

Two decades ago I began my yearlong study of the

cultural variety of South Africa. My paradigm

at the beginning was the standard theory of culture.

Cultures as more or less holistic entities. There are

plenty of such cultures, and I was equipped with some

nebulous concepts of intercultural and transcultural

relationships, also of globalization.

I learned very fast that nothing I had studied and lectured

in Germany was suitable to explain the highly segregated

and at the same time highly fluid cultural variety of South

Africa.

The first half year was a hell of participant observation.

Before I was going mad I sat back and studied the history

of this country and its society.

I learned very fast that nothing I had studied and lectured

in Germany was suitable to explain the highly segregated

and at the same time highly fluid cultural variety of South

Africa.

The first half year was a hell of participant observation.

Before I was going mad I sat back and studied the history

of this country and its society.

The result was a better order in my brain but not yet a

theory able to explain the confusing cultural reality of

South Africa.

Next I tried to cooperate with social anthropologist at

South African universities, hoping that they would know

what is going on in the field of cultures. To my surprise I

learned that they, too, could not explain their own cultural

reality.

The result was a better order in my brain but not yet a

theory able to explain the confusing cultural reality of

South Africa.

Next I tried to cooperate with social anthropologist at

South African universities, hoping that they would know

what is going on in the field of cultures. To my surprise I

learned that they, too, could not explain their own cultural

reality.

Then I supported a master-project for a student to study and

explain the intercultural relationships of white and black

people (cultures) in a special location where he came from.

To tell the truth, we both learned step by step what was

going on, but at the end he only found a very fragile theory

about ‘cultural switching’, something like we change our

T-shirts.

Then I supported a master-project for a student to study and

explain the intercultural relationships of white and black

people (cultures) in a special location where he came from.

To tell the truth, we both learned step by step what was

going on, but at the end he only found a very fragile theory

about ‘cultural switching’, something like we change our

T-shirts.

It was clear to us, that South Africans, Black and Whites,

were and still are masters of cultural switching. But what

was this ‘cultural switching’? We could not find a

satisfactory theoretical answer. Then I learned something

from social and cultural geography. I developed a

nationwide study to find out how the people themselves

defined their culture, their cultural locations, and their

cultural relationships.

It was clear to us, that South Africans, Black and Whites,

were and still are masters of cultural switching. But what

was this ‘cultural switching’? We could not find a

satisfactory theoretical answer. Then I learned something

from social and cultural geography. I developed a

nationwide study to find out how the people themselves

defined their culture, their cultural locations, and their

cultural relationships.

For that I worked with special questionnaires and GIS:

Geographic Information Systems. After thorough

empirical research I finally got an impression of what

was going on in this country. I found out that all those

theories about inter- and transcultural relationships and

also inter- and transcultural management were only valid

for developed and highly developed countries in the

global context.

For that I worked with special questionnaires and GIS:

Geographic Information Systems. After thorough

empirical research I finally got an impression of what

was going on in this country. I found out that all those

theories about inter- and transcultural relationships and

also inter- and transcultural management were only valid

for developed and highly developed countries in the

global context.

I made the irritating experience that some types of cultures

are not able and their people are not willing to be in some

inter- or transcultural relationships. I made this experience

roughly at the same time when South Africa designed its

democratic constitution. Here, in the domain of modern

democratic politics, I learned how politicians tried to solve

a dangerous problem caused by traditional cultures.

I made the irritating experience that some types of cultures

are not able and their people are not willing to be in some

inter- or transcultural relationships. I made this experience

roughly at the same time when South Africa designed its

democratic constitution. Here, in the domain of modern

democratic politics, I learned how politicians tried to solve

a dangerous problem caused by traditional cultures.

The simple solution proposed by the Constitution was

“No solution”!

What does this mean? The constitution simply fixed a

socio-political reality of completely opposed social and

cultural realities which we call since long time as modern

and traditional societies and cultures.

As a consequence, the democratic Constitution of South

Africa has a democratic and an un-democratic part.

The simple solution proposed by the Constitution was

“No solution”!

What does this mean? The constitution simply fixed a

socio-political reality of completely opposed social and

cultural realities which we call since long time as modern

and traditional societies and cultures.

As a consequence, the democratic Constitution of South

Africa has a democratic and an un-democratic part.

In the one part we find the modern cultures, in the other

part the traditional cultures. It was funny to observe that

this contrariety led to the invention of a third political

chamber for so-called traditional leaders. This system has

worked ever since, but only with the help of some daily

amnesia and with what I define as ‘cultural switching’.

A good example is President Zuma: For example his

modern part is his monogamous life, in Pretoria, Cape

Town or Johannesburg, his traditional part is his

polygamous life in Qua Zulu-Natal.

In the one part we find the modern cultures, in the other

part the traditional cultures. It was funny to observe that

this contrariety led to the invention of a third political

chamber for so-called traditional leaders. This system has

worked ever since, but only with the help of some daily

amnesia and with what I define as ‘cultural switching’.

A good example is President Zuma: For example his

modern part is his monogamous life, in Pretoria, Cape

Town or Johannesburg, his traditional part is his

polygamous life in Qua Zulu-Natal.

One might argue that you cannot be both, traditional and

modern, but he is! And he is not the only one; the whole

country is doing the same, and is even outdoing its

President.

Anyway, how can these phenomena be explained by a

comprehensive theory?

From my friend Prof. De Wet Schutte I learned by chance

about the book Spiral Dynamics (1996) written by the

psychologists Don Edward Beck and Christopher C.

Gowan.

One might argue that you cannot be both, traditional and

modern, but he is! And he is not the only one; the whole

country is doing the same, and is even outdoing its

President.

Anyway, how can these phenomena be explained by a

comprehensive theory?

From my friend Prof. De Wet Schutte I learned by chance

about the book Spiral Dynamics (1996) written by the

psychologists Don Edward Beck and Christopher C.

Gowan.

Based on experiments of the psychologist Clare W. Graves

they developed a theory about

eight ideal types of psychic dispositions

which are related to

eight ideal types of cultural, social and political structures.

The following figure is similar to the classification

of Durkheim’s mechanic or organic solidarity

or Tönnies’ dichotomy of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

Based on experiments of the psychologist Clare W. Graves

they developed a theory about

eight ideal types of psychic dispositions

which are related to

eight ideal types of cultural, social and political structures.

The following figure is similar to the classification

of Durkheim’s mechanic or organic solidarity

or Tönnies’ dichotomy of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

GemeinschaftMechanic Solidarity

GesellschaftOrganic solidarity

The following presentation rearranges these ideal-types in

another order.

The following presentation rearranges these ideal-types in

another order.

This is the typical model of a linear evolution,

something of a ‘stairway to heaven’.

One day, my friend Prof. Henk Pauw from Nelson

Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth

and I developed this now so-called

Drechsel-Pauw-Curve (DP-curve):

This is the typical model of a linear evolution,

something of a ‘stairway to heaven’.

One day, my friend Prof. Henk Pauw from Nelson

Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth

and I developed this now so-called

Drechsel-Pauw-Curve (DP-curve):

DP-Curve: Eight Ideal types of socio-political systems and cultures

Band

Tribe

Empire

Patrimonial organisation

Modern Organisation

Teamorganisation

Process organization

Network organization

Increasing Complexitylow

Centralisation

high

(beige)

(purple)

(red)

(blue) (orange)

(green)

(yellow)

(turquois)

Incr

easi

ng

colle

ctiv

ity

Increasing

individuality

hig

hH

iera

rch

ylo w

With this curve I was able to structure the cultural

reality of South Africa. But it was not yet a

comprehensive theory.

I developed a model of the phylogenetical sequence of

these ideal-types of cultures as presented in the following

figure:

With this curve I was able to structure the cultural

reality of South Africa. But it was not yet a

comprehensive theory.

I developed a model of the phylogenetical sequence of

these ideal-types of cultures as presented in the following

figure:

Phylogenesis of the eight ideal-types of social structures and cultures

This model of the divers ideal-types of cultures

and societies developed phylogenetically, is not

yet a model of our present days cultural realities.

The following ontogenetic model is more adequate:

This model of the divers ideal-types of cultures

and societies developed phylogenetically, is not

yet a model of our present days cultural realities.

The following ontogenetic model is more adequate:

purple

red

blueorange

green

yellow

turquoises

Ontogenetic Model of the combined Ideal types of societies and cultures

I assume it is not easy to grasp the cultural content of

these ideal-types of cultures.

In order to get a better impression I would like to offer

a sequence of cartoons which are self-explaining:

I assume it is not easy to grasp the cultural content of

these ideal-types of cultures.

In order to get a better impression I would like to offer

a sequence of cartoons which are self-explaining:

Band Societies

Disposition system 1 – Band- Centers around satisfaction of biological basic needs - food-gathering centered - Form protective and supportive bands driven by emotions, little reasoning - Little awareness of self as a distinct being - Minimal impact on or control over environment

© Don Edward Beck 1990

Tribe

Disposition system 2 – Tribal- Obey mystical spirit beings - Allegiance to elders, custom, clan - Preserve sacred places, objects, rituals, seek harmony with nature’s power, - No separation between politics and religion - Bond together to endure and find safety driven by collectivism and communalism - Subsistence living

© Don Edward Beck 1990

Disposition system 3 – Empire- A world of haves and have-nots - Fight remorselessly and without guilt - Corruption and violence are normal - elimination of competitors - survival of the fittest - Don’t worry about consequences that may not come

Empire

© Don Edward Beck 1990

Authority structure-Rational Hierarchy/Theocracy

Disposition system 4 – Authority- Find meaning and purpose in living - Enforce principles of righteous living - Truth provides structure, order and stability - Control impulsivity and respond to guilt - Divine plan assigns people to their places - Subjecting the self to directions of legitimized authority - Striving for purpose, reason and direction in life © Don Edward Beck 1990

Modern Democracies/Enterprise structure

Disposition system 5 – Strategic- The world is full of opportunities - Absolute ideological standards replaced by pragmatism - Strive for autonomy and independence - Progress through searching out the best solutions - strive to win in competition - Enhance living through science and technology - Seek out ‘the good life’ and material abundance © Don Edward Beck 1990

Disposition system 6 – Team - Bringing diverse people together, willingness to share common experience (group spirit), - tolerance of different views, values and life-styles - Share society’s resources among all - Reach decisions through consensus - Tolerate and manage different value-systems - Continuous change and life-long interest in learning 

Postmodern Societies

© Don Edward Beck 1990

Disposition system 7 – Process - Approach issues in a systemic way - Demands integrative and open systems - Focus on functionality, competence, flexibility, spontaneity - Find natural mix of conflicting truths and uncertainties - Discovering personal freedom without excesses of self-interest - Experience diversity as a resource

Postmodern Cultural Creatives

© Don Edward Beck 1990

Type VIII cannot yet be displayed because we cannot yet imagine it Disposition system 8 – Network - Global networking as routine and global order a reality (the art of being local worldwide) - Make use of the good of all living entities as integrated systems - Expanded use of human brain/mind tools and competencies - Blending and harmonizing a strong collective of individuals - Self is part of larger, conscious whole that also serves self

Regarding the empirical situation in South Africathe DP-curve of these ideal-types was a better theoretical

model than what I used before. It offered a contrariety or something like an anti-symmetry regarding cultures.

That was exactly what I was looking for.

This contrariety has been well known from the history of political systems since the time of the Neolithic.

Regarding the empirical situation in South Africathe DP-curve of these ideal-types was a better theoretical

model than what I used before. It offered a contrariety or something like an anti-symmetry regarding cultures.

That was exactly what I was looking for.

This contrariety has been well known from the history of political systems since the time of the Neolithic.

Now I would like to present a model for the contrary

logic of these ideal-types of cultures based on the

ontogenetic model of the left and right side of the

DP-curve.

By the way I would like to mention that the organization

theory of the St. Gallen Management-theory is also

based on this model.

Now I would like to present a model for the contrary

logic of these ideal-types of cultures based on the

ontogenetic model of the left and right side of the

DP-curve.

By the way I would like to mention that the organization

theory of the St. Gallen Management-theory is also

based on this model.

With the DP-curve and the two illustrations, we have a

better theoretical model. The world of cultures is

distributed along the logic of these two anti-symmetric

relationships.

Real cultural relationships on the left side can for example

be found in Russia, Arabian countries, North Korea, but

also some Latin American and African nations.

Models for cultural relationships on the right side of the

DP-curve can be found in modern democracies.

With the DP-curve and the two illustrations, we have a

better theoretical model. The world of cultures is

distributed along the logic of these two anti-symmetric

relationships.

Real cultural relationships on the left side can for example

be found in Russia, Arabian countries, North Korea, but

also some Latin American and African nations.

Models for cultural relationships on the right side of the

DP-curve can be found in modern democracies.

But there are different kinds of democracy.

Modern democracies differ in how they handle their anti-

symmetric parts as part of their cultural diversity. For

example in the United States of America everyone must be

an American, other than that he/she can be whatever he/she

likes.

In Germany we know there are some cultural islands of

immigrants which will not fit in with the democratic

structure of the national culture, and some of them are not

willing to adapt culturally to the dominant culture.

But there are different kinds of democracy.

Modern democracies differ in how they handle their anti-

symmetric parts as part of their cultural diversity. For

example in the United States of America everyone must be

an American, other than that he/she can be whatever he/she

likes.

In Germany we know there are some cultural islands of

immigrants which will not fit in with the democratic

structure of the national culture, and some of them are not

willing to adapt culturally to the dominant culture.

In South Africa there is an extreme:

The democratically based constitution guaranties

exclusive separated so-called ‘traditional cultures’,

which are basically un-democratic,

because they are based on communal law

and the rules of hereditary chiefs.

Why is this relevant for cultural relationships?

For an answer let me offer a political model for the

left and the right side of the DP-curve.

In South Africa there is an extreme:

The democratically based constitution guaranties

exclusive separated so-called ‘traditional cultures’,

which are basically un-democratic,

because they are based on communal law

and the rules of hereditary chiefs.

Why is this relevant for cultural relationships?

For an answer let me offer a political model for the

left and the right side of the DP-curve.

The ethnolinguists Penelope Brown and Stephan Levinson

have studied speech-acts in the context of a Politics of

Politeness. (1997)

Apart from some special rhetorical politeness strategies,

which in themselves are very interesting, they developed

a political theory which can be seen as analogous to the

DP-curve:

The ethnolinguists Penelope Brown and Stephan Levinson

have studied speech-acts in the context of a Politics of

Politeness. (1997)

Apart from some special rhetorical politeness strategies,

which in themselves are very interesting, they developed

a political theory which can be seen as analogous to the

DP-curve:

  

High power/low social distance High power/high social distance

   Low power/low social distance Low power/high social distance

 

Anarchy

Hierarchy

Polyarchy

The quintessence of the left side versus the right side

is low versus high social distance.

Why is this dichotomy relevant?

My answer: It is collectivity versus individuality.

I hope that a simple model will explain it:

The quintessence of the left side versus the right side

is low versus high social distance.

Why is this dichotomy relevant?

My answer: It is collectivity versus individuality.

I hope that a simple model will explain it:

Hierarchy based on segmentation and stratification

The triangles are members of societies/cultures. At top is a singularindividual as the ruler. All the others are subjects (underlings) on different levels.

Despite segmentation, stratification and hierarchy the

cultures on the left side of the DP-curve are based on

collectivity, expressed by low social distance.

We know this pattern changed in history.

The inverse model is the following:

Despite segmentation, stratification and hierarchy the

cultures on the left side of the DP-curve are based on

collectivity, expressed by low social distance.

We know this pattern changed in history.

The inverse model is the following:

Integrated Individualism = democraciesmodern Cultures and Societies

Equality based on individuality

The triangles are individual members of societies/cultures. There is no singular individual at the top as the sigular ruler.

All members are subjects and at the same time rulers.

It is common knowledge that these societies/cultures

are politically based on a Division of Power, Separation

of Church and State, Private Property Rights, Individual

Rights, Freedom of Speech and Belief, Equal Rights,

Free Choice of Mate.

Therefore they appear as cultures or social systems

based on individuality with high social distance!

It is common knowledge that these societies/cultures

are politically based on a Division of Power, Separation

of Church and State, Private Property Rights, Individual

Rights, Freedom of Speech and Belief, Equal Rights,

Free Choice of Mate.

Therefore they appear as cultures or social systems

based on individuality with high social distance!

We can observe the same division between these

structurally different types of societies or cultures

in science.

This is usually hidden by scientific amnesia.

This division is illustrated by the following

DP-curve of Social Sciences

We can observe the same division between these

structurally different types of societies or cultures

in science.

This is usually hidden by scientific amnesia.

This division is illustrated by the following

DP-curve of Social Sciences

  

Sociology Sociology/Economic SciencesHistory Political Sciences etc.

  

EthnologySocial anthropologyPrehistory 

Ideal-Types of Societies, Politics and Cultures in Social Sciences

Anarchy

Hierarchy

Polyarchy

That is the order of cultures and social systems

according to ‘academia’.

Between Sociology and Ethnology is rarely any exchange

or discussion. They represent two completely different

‘academic realities’ because they refer to completely

different types of cultures and societies!

Why should cultures behave differently from science?

That is the order of cultures and social systems

according to ‘academia’.

Between Sociology and Ethnology is rarely any exchange

or discussion. They represent two completely different

‘academic realities’ because they refer to completely

different types of cultures and societies!

Why should cultures behave differently from science?

The topic of my speech is

Orders across Borders: From difference to diversity

and cross-cutting cleavages.

How does my presented theory until now fit in with this

topic?

For an answer let me come back to the logic of the DP-

curve: It is evident that the cultures on the left side of the

DP-curve are very ‘different’, compared with those on the

right side.

The topic of my speech is

Orders across Borders: From difference to diversity

and cross-cutting cleavages.

How does my presented theory until now fit in with this

topic?

For an answer let me come back to the logic of the DP-

curve: It is evident that the cultures on the left side of the

DP-curve are very ‘different’, compared with those on the

right side.

They are based on fundamental ‘differences’ because they

are based on holistic collectivities! Usually, this is seen

positively.

But ‘difference’ means that they are ‘closed-club’-

cultures’, and these cultures mutually exclude each others!

They cannot interact in a sense of exchange, because they

are not permeable.

This is it what induces the ‘cultural holism’, preferred by

Social Anthropology and separating it from Sociology.

They are based on fundamental ‘differences’ because they

are based on holistic collectivities! Usually, this is seen

positively.

But ‘difference’ means that they are ‘closed-club’-

cultures’, and these cultures mutually exclude each others!

They cannot interact in a sense of exchange, because they

are not permeable.

This is it what induces the ‘cultural holism’, preferred by

Social Anthropology and separating it from Sociology.

The cultures of Papua New Guinea would be a good

example of those closed-club cultures. People living in

valleys or on hills are each other’s enemies and partly

speak completely different languages.

People from those cultures, if ever, can only switch

through or over their differences, because there is no in-

between; otherwise there is war.

The cultures of Papua New Guinea would be a good

example of those closed-club cultures. People living in

valleys or on hills are each other’s enemies and partly

speak completely different languages.

People from those cultures, if ever, can only switch

through or over their differences, because there is no in-

between; otherwise there is war.

Well, the cultures on the right side of the DP-curve are all

similar, because they are based on individuality.

Why is this so important?

Because people of these cultures do not first look for holistic

wholes, but on the contrary, if at all, they expect individual

people with different cultural habits.

Culture is for them like a commodity in the market.

I will not deny the relevance of culture for these types of

societies, but it is no longer the transcendental cultural

preorder of the world, but stuff for manipulation and change.

Well, the cultures on the right side of the DP-curve are all

similar, because they are based on individuality.

Why is this so important?

Because people of these cultures do not first look for holistic

wholes, but on the contrary, if at all, they expect individual

people with different cultural habits.

Culture is for them like a commodity in the market.

I will not deny the relevance of culture for these types of

societies, but it is no longer the transcendental cultural

preorder of the world, but stuff for manipulation and change.

As a consequence these cultures are more flexible and

permeable.

They appear as ‘diversities’, something like open sets,

interchangeable and able to permeate each other.

This can also be studied in South Africa in the interchange

between Afrikaans speaking Whites and English speaking

Whites, as well as in the interchange between Whites and

the new Black and Coloured middle class.

As a consequence these cultures are more flexible and

permeable.

They appear as ‘diversities’, something like open sets,

interchangeable and able to permeate each other.

This can also be studied in South Africa in the interchange

between Afrikaans speaking Whites and English speaking

Whites, as well as in the interchange between Whites and

the new Black and Coloured middle class.

But these interchanges based on diversities cannot be

observed when interrelationships between modern cultures

and traditional cultures are observed. Here an interchange

is impossible, only a brutal switch from one solitary world

to another, where both have nothing to do with each other.

This appears in South Africa in the legal system. For

example for the modern sector the modern Dutch-Roman

law is valid, in the traditional sector the ‘customary law’

and the rule of the chiefs.

But these interchanges based on diversities cannot be

observed when interrelationships between modern cultures

and traditional cultures are observed. Here an interchange

is impossible, only a brutal switch from one solitary world

to another, where both have nothing to do with each other.

This appears in South Africa in the legal system. For

example for the modern sector the modern Dutch-Roman

law is valid, in the traditional sector the ‘customary law’

and the rule of the chiefs.

But on a higher level, all cultures, despite their possible

dynamics, tend to be conservative. Why is that?

Because they are based on standardizations of

communications, thinking, feeling and actions.

These standardizations generate something of a normative

system; and most important they generate a ‘system as

culture’, which is always something of a closed shop

business.

But on a higher level, all cultures, despite their possible

dynamics, tend to be conservative. Why is that?

Because they are based on standardizations of

communications, thinking, feeling and actions.

These standardizations generate something of a normative

system; and most important they generate a ‘system as

culture’, which is always something of a closed shop

business.

Therefore, even the most postmodern individuals have

their stable culture, regardless whether they like it or not.

(A commune of postmodern anarchist is nevertheless a

‘commune’!)

And the so called ‘cultural creatives’, our most recent

cultural stuff, behave and act globally as if they were a

cultural type.

But because they belong to ‘open cultures’ they have to

develop some kind of switching-abilities.

Therefore, even the most postmodern individuals have

their stable culture, regardless whether they like it or not.

(A commune of postmodern anarchist is nevertheless a

‘commune’!)

And the so called ‘cultural creatives’, our most recent

cultural stuff, behave and act globally as if they were a

cultural type.

But because they belong to ‘open cultures’ they have to

develop some kind of switching-abilities.

These switching-abilities I call ‘cross-cutting cleavages’.

This term was first applied by political scientist in the

United States. It was theoretically developed by Douglas

W. Rae and Michael J. Taylor in their book Analysis of

Political Cleavage (1970)

The problem for this theory was not culture, but

democracy. Rae and Taylor asked why it was possible that

people with very diverse orientations could live peacefully

in democracies despite their cleavages.

These switching-abilities I call ‘cross-cutting cleavages’.

This term was first applied by political scientist in the

United States. It was theoretically developed by Douglas

W. Rae and Michael J. Taylor in their book Analysis of

Political Cleavage (1970)

The problem for this theory was not culture, but

democracy. Rae and Taylor asked why it was possible that

people with very diverse orientations could live peacefully

in democracies despite their cleavages.

Rae and Taylor invented the ‘cross-cuttings’ of a special

kind, namely positive and negative relationships; some

relationships that ‘match’ and some that don’t.

For example, a teacher can be a member of the Catholic

Church, a member of the tennis club in his middle-class

suburb, and also a member of a left party, a member of an

abortionist group, and a supporter of the war in

Afghanistan – why not?

Rae and Taylor invented the ‘cross-cuttings’ of a special

kind, namely positive and negative relationships; some

relationships that ‘match’ and some that don’t.

For example, a teacher can be a member of the Catholic

Church, a member of the tennis club in his middle-class

suburb, and also a member of a left party, a member of an

abortionist group, and a supporter of the war in

Afghanistan – why not?

The idea behind this ‘cross-cuttings’ is simply the match

of related and contrary properties. This can easily be

transferred to cultures.

In his work on cultural collectives Klaus P. Hansen

offers an example of a fictitious tennis club at Passau.

Four members from completely different subcultures are

united in one collective or culture called ‘Tennis Club

Passau’.

The idea behind this ‘cross-cuttings’ is simply the match

of related and contrary properties. This can easily be

transferred to cultures.

In his work on cultural collectives Klaus P. Hansen

offers an example of a fictitious tennis club at Passau.

Four members from completely different subcultures are

united in one collective or culture called ‘Tennis Club

Passau’.

All their different attitudes and habits are based on

properties of some collectivities, which in turn are based

on the mentioned standardizations, which means

based on cultures.

And they have to cross-cut their cleavages – the matching

and the not-matching, but individually!

Rhetorically seen this task is something like an oxymoron.

All their different attitudes and habits are based on

properties of some collectivities, which in turn are based

on the mentioned standardizations, which means

based on cultures.

And they have to cross-cut their cleavages – the matching

and the not-matching, but individually!

Rhetorically seen this task is something like an oxymoron.

We can extend this model of ‘cross-cutting cleavages’

into the global context. It is possible in and with all

cultures that are open for it! This is the condition!

This means it is possible in all cultures which are in one

way or another modernized and individualized. But it is

difficult and nearly impossible with and for people from

so-called traditional cultures. We know this from

experiences, modern societies world-wide have the greatest

problems with people from traditional societies, e.g.

immigrants and refugees.

We can extend this model of ‘cross-cutting cleavages’

into the global context. It is possible in and with all

cultures that are open for it! This is the condition!

This means it is possible in all cultures which are in one

way or another modernized and individualized. But it is

difficult and nearly impossible with and for people from

so-called traditional cultures. We know this from

experiences, modern societies world-wide have the greatest

problems with people from traditional societies, e.g.

immigrants and refugees.

D i

f f e

r e

n c

e s

D i v e r s i t i e s Differences

Cross-cutting clevages

Switching

Switc

hing

This not-understanding and lack of proper inter- or trans-

relationships are a danger for the world peace. One could

muse about a remedy.

The logic would be simple and straight: Open these

cultures, that is, modernize them!

But there it is: the resistance of people from traditional

cultures to become modern and future-oriented is backed

by science. Why? Because Social Anthropology, Cultural

Anthropology, and partly also Sociology are trying to

perpetuate these pre-modern types of culture.

This not-understanding and lack of proper inter- or trans-

relationships are a danger for the world peace. One could

muse about a remedy.

The logic would be simple and straight: Open these

cultures, that is, modernize them!

But there it is: the resistance of people from traditional

cultures to become modern and future-oriented is backed

by science. Why? Because Social Anthropology, Cultural

Anthropology, and partly also Sociology are trying to

perpetuate these pre-modern types of culture.

After all, traditional pre-modern societies are the object of

their science. Subsequently, most social and cultural

anthropologists defend this traditional living.

Given my knowledge about the reality of South Africa, I

can only warn against such an attitude. Seen as a

commodity, traditional cultures are not bad for tourism, but

seen politically they are very dangerous for democracies.

We should know what we want: Modern democratic

cultures or back to the un-democratic roots in pre-history.

After all, traditional pre-modern societies are the object of

their science. Subsequently, most social and cultural

anthropologists defend this traditional living.

Given my knowledge about the reality of South Africa, I

can only warn against such an attitude. Seen as a

commodity, traditional cultures are not bad for tourism, but

seen politically they are very dangerous for democracies.

We should know what we want: Modern democratic

cultures or back to the un-democratic roots in pre-history.

I plead in favor of modern cultures, and therefore for

diversity and cross-cutting cleavages, and not for

differences!

As a consequence, the so-called traditional cultures will be dissolved.

But one should be aware of what I suggest: A dissolutionof traditional cultures in order to create modern cultures based on diversities and cross-cutting cleavages of individuals – and not collectivities!

Thank you very much for your interest

I plead in favor of modern cultures, and therefore for

diversity and cross-cutting cleavages, and not for

differences!

As a consequence, the so-called traditional cultures will be dissolved.

But one should be aware of what I suggest: A dissolutionof traditional cultures in order to create modern cultures based on diversities and cross-cutting cleavages of individuals – and not collectivities!

Thank you very much for your interest