The myth of culture reloaded. Examples of its inexistence and borders of my thesis By Timo Schmitz, Philosopher As pointed out in many, many of my articles, I reject the idea of culture or at least its common usage as done today. The foundation of the term was very good and well-thought. The old Greek distinguished between nature and culture. Nature is what is there, thus naturally given, culture is what is man-made, thus not naturally given. Well, as so many things are man-made, what exactly is culture? Manufacturing might be, cars, toys, buildings all these things are man-made. Even the classification in men and women and the invention of gender roles (I disproved the natural existence of gender and gender roles in several articles, thus do not want to repeat it in depth in here), thus must be culture according to the old Greek. However, as they do not exist in nature, we can see this mental classifications such as gender as inexistent, as they are not there. They are ghosts in our brain. The created things that are there, such as the manufactured goods, are called economy. The different laws that exist anywhere in the world can be subsumed as contract for living together, something socially essential probably! But even laws have borders in their use and can be misused. Anyways, in nowadays popular speech, culture might be food (which is funny, as most food such as animals and vegetables are nature), it might be a different civilisation (which is also funny, since in fact humans are equal, thus where is the man-made difference despite the foundation of a particuliar country and its identity?) and other things, such as different moral views or behavior around the world. The nonsense of classifying culture as such is evident. For instance, if someone is of British culture or French culture, then what does it mean? Culture is a word to create categories, stereotypes, cliches. One can easily prove that: if the culture is the same in one country, a union of countries or a continent, then all people have to behave equally in the same situations and have the same views. As this is not the case, we cannot talk of culture. Instead, we should talk of mentality. Mentality knows no borders, it means, someone in another place in the world can have the same mentality as you have, no matter where one lives. As there is no connection between culture and education, one cannot say that people are educated in a certain culture. Although states and institutions try to teach a certain model role, so does the society, but everyone is free to choose to follow the model or
of my thesis -2- not. Someone can choose him- or herself what to think, to do, to believe, to achieve, etc. We can prove it easily as well: even if a country educates its people to be non-racist and society shows dislike towards racism, there are still many racist people, racist organisations or even racist parties in that country. It shows that these people have another mentality then the nonracist people. But still they exist. The inexistence of culture can also be seen in the fact, that all kind of mentalities can be found in all countries. There are all kinds of religions, all kinds of political views, all kinds of moral views, all kinds of attitudes in every country of the world. Someone might say that a feature of European culture is the refusal of the death penalty, while stating that in other cultures, it is broadly accepted. Now let s do an imaginary example to show that this statement is not true: If the news announced that a bloody murder took place in which a fanatic killed a young innocent child, and a few days or weeks later one made a poll on the death sentence for rapists and killers, how many people in Europe would agree to it? Probably much more, then one can imagine now. On the contrary, in the United States where the death penalty still widely exists, how many people refuse it or fight against it? A lot of more people, then we might imagine! This image of culture exists because of prejudices that are spread through sensational media, through social media, through old outdated images, through racism ( our culture, their culture ) and through nationalism, as well as religious ingrouping ( our culture has only believers of XYZ ), and good-selling lies (sensations about North Korea sell better than hard facts). Somebody in Germany who says that French people have growing racism because of so many Front National voters, should take a lot at the growth of the AfD, who has articulated racist views and is placed in the right-winged spectrum. Someone who points out that there is Islamist fanatism, should not forget that there is Christian fanatism in the USA, and even Buddhist fanatics can be found in Myanmar. Someone who points out that Muslim women have no freedom to decide over their sexuality should not forget that even the Christian Mormons reject sex before marriage. We can see that there is not just one single American, European, Japanese, African, Indian, Chinese, Russian culture, but that there are many different mentalities, that can be found all around the globe. In some countries, it is still difficult to be socially accepted if someone marries somebody of another skin color, and many people say that it is most widespread that white people reject marriages with black people (see USA and South Africa), but there is also the tendency in some countries that people have a pride of their skin colour and don t want them to marry white people (see Zimbabwe, both Koreas, and partially
of my thesis -3- in India). However, what most people forget when doing their culture classification, is the fact that all human-beings are equal. Nowadays, most people don t doubt the fact when it is said in a sentence, but when it comes to practical issues, the culture box is opened and people are judged for their origin. As we can see, racism exists all over the world, all religions have liberal and conserative factions, all countries have all kinds of political thought (one does not have a certain political thought because he comes from one area), one can find everywhere good people and bad people (not everyone from a particuliar country is a criminal, uneducated, religious conservative or a potential danger for the whole humanity). People categorise in cultures, because they are in fear. People fear things they don t know, people they don t know, religions they don t know, traditions they don t know, although they are already well-established among us. For instance, Germany is the country with the thirdlargest population of Yezids (after Syria and Iraq), and already had been, even before the refugee crisis began. But just now as all the refugees are coming, people suddenly hear of the religion, and they are afraid because no one explains them their content. But even further, nobody explains them that already so many Yezids were within German society and no one ever noticed it. People always judge the Romani from Bulgaria and Romania, but no one notices that there are 300,000 in France and 100,000 in Germany and no one notices their existence, because they are that well integrated that they could be your neighbour and you wouldn t notice it. They often have names in the language of the country where they live and are fluent in the language spoken locally. They just live their tradition at home, but they are not assimilated. They are even that incognito that Great Britain s estimation of their Romani varies between 100,000 and 300,000. However, my refusal of culture also has limits. Until now I could explain everything with mentality: people might have a happy mentality in one city, a bad mentality in another city, a happy mentality in one province, but even within this province people might have a religious mentality or a non-religious mentality. They might have a collectivist mentality or individual mentality, but even within a so-called collectivist society, people can choose individual mentality and organise with people who have the same thought no one is synchronised, no where. But the image of culture lives from the idea that all people in a sphere are the same ( the ghost of a community of values ). But as this is not the case, culture becomes obsolete, because it only describes narrow-minded assumptions of a place or group of people which in fact have a strong variance, even that strong that culture as such can t be measured anymore and all kinds of the so-called culture can be found in every place (as proved above). Not every
of my thesis -4- German drinks beer everyday, not every French prefers wine. Pizza and spaghetti can be found around the world, as much as Russian chocolate and Arabic coffee. So as there is no denominator in a society, culture is inexistent. This also means, that all people who emphasize a certain similarity (such as same religion and define themselves as religious) must have an equally comparable mentality towards the same situation. Thus, in theory, Buddhists in every country must share the same traditions, as they don t rely on where they are, same as Christians must be everywhere the same Christians, since they all believe in the same book (which means they share the same rules and values), and the local place where they are plays no factor on it. I call it the principle of equality (Gleichwertigkeitsprinzip). However, here comes a small problem. If one compares the religious activity of Christianity in different countries even only on the surface, than one finds many differences. For instance, Christians in the USA emphasize on virginity, while Christians in Western and Central Europe merely go to church, but design their private life after their own will, thus leave religion apart. In this case, virginity plays no role, and relationships are probably just slightly Christian-influenced, and determined by the fact that both share the same religion. In Eastern Europe there is a very strict believe in God, and people in Poland, Belarus, Russia, Romania and Moldova often have a strong sense in holidays, piety and the belief that everything depends on God. At the same time, the believe in the Bible is more important than acting according to it. People often just care about themselves, thus egoism is very widespread. In Vietnam, Christians follow folk traditions, such as spirit belief, and also use incense sticks as they are known from Buddhism. At the same time, good behavior and good deeds are very important. The Christian values are put together with the traditional values, and societal support and honesty play an important role. In China, they use the term dao as creator in the Old Testament in their translation. At the same time Buddhism in Asia is often very religious. In Thailand and Laos, it is joined together with local traditional belief. The belief in gods and spirits is very widespread. In Japan and Korea, meditation is more important than canonical scripture and cosmology. In China and Vietnam, prayers and sermons are very popular and many forms of Buddhism are mixed together. In Europe however, it is rather considered to be of philosophical nature and Buddhist cosmology almost plays no role for most believers. In addition, dharma lectures are seemingly more important than prayers or sermons. Western Buddhism developed into several branches that are mostly exclusively found in the West (but is strongly inspired by its Asian counterparts) and is secularised, thus called Secular Buddhism. Secular Buddhism emphasises the strict segregation of state and church, as it can be found in Asia, too. Religion
of my thesis -5- should stay a private matter and no religion should be solely encouraged or prefered by the state. At the same time, Secular Buddhism does not rule out sprituality. Its followers might venerate bodhisattvas or believe in prominent Buddhist figures, but unlike Buddhists in Asia, rituals do not play any role. Instead, the teaching and practise is more important. In contrary, Atheist Buddhists reject any religious influence, such as the belief in spirits, gods, cosmology or any transcendent elements, but only focus on the Buddhist principles to attain enlightenment. However, Buddhism in Asia also developed according to modernity and science, and thus branches such as Buddhist Humanism and Buddhist Socialism (as can be found in Korea, China, Myanmar, India and Thailand) evolved. Underworld spirits and dao in Christianity, Atheism and refusal of rituals in Buddhism? Doesn t it seem to be a cultural difference? Especially as the belief in underworld spirits and the use of incense sticks in Vietnam comes from traditional belief, as well as the role of the dao as creator in China. In Western culture, it does not exist as such. As the Chinese people are traditionally used to the belief that the dao is the creator, is it difficult for them to believe in a creator or heaven that is beyond what they knew before? And the refusal of buddha worlds and Buddhist myths in the West, does it mean that Westerners cannot think in different layers and imagine places beyond space and time, that cannot just be described with heaven and associated to the sky? Do they lack the capability to think in higher dimensions, in places of uncertainty? Here we reach the borders of the culture term as mentioned above. Seemingly there is culture. Isn t it? At first, let s talk of Christianity as introduced above. The American Christians cited above are fanatics (in my point of view), who take the bible literally. However, not everyone in the USA shares this view. Not every American insists on virginity or traditional clothes or holidays, although some areas do. This shows that it is a local phenomena, not a cultural one. We cannot put this stigma on the whole American culture, but just to some groups, which shows the inexistence of culture, once again. The same goes to Christianity in Eastern Europe. We can not say that all people in Eastern Europe are egoists or arrogant. There might be a stronger rescue yourself and don t trust others easily -mentality, but this just counts for certain people. The same mentality can be found by people in the rest of Europe, even in the rest of the world, too. In some parts of Asia, this kind of mentality might be more less (like in China where politeness is most important), and in some areas might be spread stronger (such as in India, where castes de facto still play a role). The moderate views on Christianity in Western and Central Europe are very impressive, however, even in this area you find religious
of my thesis -6- fanatic people who insist on going to church every Sunday and promote Biblical morality. There is even religious education in German schools, which to my understanding, hinders the possibility of people to think broader and keeps up religious stances which make it impossible to think critically and multi-perspective concerning important issues, such as abortion, which as I think, is often just regarded one-sided. So still there is the question, are the religious ritual differences a result of culture? A teacher once said to me No matter which religion one adopts in the West, whether it is Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religion, one still stays Christian-influenced, and vice versa. So are German Buddhists Christian-influenced and Vietnamese Christians Buddhist-influenced through culture? A prominent example for this thesis is the term natural law. While even Buddhists in the West take up this term, the term natural law is unknown in other so-called cultural spheres, as it was introduced by Christian (and to a certain degree also by pre- Christian European) philosophers. Anyways, I deny the term culture here for one important reason. Our religious views interact with our mentality, and of course, our environment can have an impact on our mentality, however we can always correct our mentality and refuse things that were taught by our environment before (we can even get rid off childhood habits after decades of keeping them). Therefore, people who accept the view of their environment that spirits and ghosts exist, might also incorporate it into their religious views. We shouldn t see it as something bad that we add things from our mentality to religion, and so even Buddhists in the West take up the Western term natural law or divine plan, and Christians in the East might take up the belief in ghosts and ancestral worshipping. However, a Buddhist who takes up stances of Christianity (mostly without even recognising that it is a Christian stance) is no bad Buddhist, but at the same time it doesn t make him Christian at all, since despite small Christianised features that were taken up through society (but transformed into a Buddhist understanding), the believer does not believe in anything Christian at all. And so, an Asian might believe in ghosts, but that doesn t make him a bad Christian, it just shows he cares about his society and keeps up his traditions. Maybe, the example of Vietnam shows that we shouldn t categorize that much. We try to put people in boxes, and that is bad. Religion is just a very small part of human life, thus we shall not expect that they put aside their mentality. To disprove that keeping up societal values and beliefs witihin one s own chosen belief is a form of culture I want to show two examples. First, the fact that there is no culture is often used by American sects. They try to export their fanatism to other countries and often try to keep it pure. Thus, the native mentality one has is called superstitious and they try to make
of my thesis -7- their believers get rid off it, and in this way, if one comapres a Christian church in South Korea with a Christian church in the USA of the same branch, one might see no significant difference, although South Korea is not a Christian country (and never was). Their two main religions are Buddhism and shamanism, but shamanism was labled as superstitious and unworthy for decades and in this way, church institutions made people change their mentality completely, since the traditional belief was discouraged for a long time. As a result, several countries made laws to avoid that these sects can discourage the societal order, by making laws that say that religious freedom is given as long as the believer of no other religion is endangered in following his belief (most prominently China is a good example for this model, as everybody can belief at home what he or she wants, as well as in churches and temples; but public proselytism is not welcomed except in media to reach believers). However, religion everywhere in the world has one thing in common, if it is a wellestablished (even seen as native) religion: People follow it because everybody does. The personal views are put aside and societal views are added to mentality without being aware. If people are made aware of their religious stance in mentality, they start to think more critically and multi-perspectivised on it. But here one can see that there is no culture, since people can adopt the way they want, wherever they are, and they can change their whole character many times in life, this shows that one is not living in a cultural cage. Even further, since all native religions are made for following, and people who choose not to believe in the native religion adopt the new religion in the way it benefits him or her the most shows again the principle of equality (Gleichwertigkeitsprinzip). Thus, we can say Christianity is equal in Europe and Asia, and Buddhism is equal in Europe and Asia, but it is adopted to one s own personal mentality, that can change many times and we can find people who think in the same way everywhere around the world, thus culture and culural spheres are a myth. Annotation: The term natural law might come from Europe, but this does not mean that there is no equal principle in Asia. Taoism and Buddhism have natural laws as well, they just call it differently. Thus, if someone calls the natural laws of Buddhism as natural law, one might use a term from the West, but it does not mean that this person also believes in the Western natural law. People always tend to name things in a way they already know comparable principles. Therefore, naming and understanding something are two different categories. People can name something with one name, but understand two different things among it. The way we
of my thesis -8- name things might derive from mentality, but since we probably understand it differently even in one place, we cannot use linguistic terms as a proof for culture. We can only prove the popularity among all social classes, political views and religions of this one word in this way. Sometimes, even one and the same thing is named differently, such as divine will in the West and fate in the East, but still a different naming is no proof for culture, since both parts of the world, believe in the basic concept. Timo Schmitz. Published on 11 September 2016 http://schmitztimo.wordpress.com Suggestion for citation: Schmitz, Timo: The myth of culture reloaded. Examples of its inexistence and borders of my thesis, selfpublished online article, 11 September 2016, http://schmitztimo.wordpress.com