On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Keith Hudson wrote:
> To this extent there is a global culture. Nevertheless,
> cultural diversity may be growing. Perhaps we are looking in the wrong
> places for it. For the active, curious, intelligent 30% of the population
> there have never been as many different sorts of specialist organisations
> as today. For example, in Bath 50 years ago there was only one choir (that
> is, a secular choral society as opposed to church choirs). Today, even
> though there hasn't been any significant growth in the number of active
> singers, there are over 20 choirs -- each one with a different type
> repertoire.
It's clear that 4 years after WWII, the people of Bath had more basic things
to do than singing in a choir... Also, I would suggest that the increase in
opportunities is largely due to technology and increased leisure-time.
The question is, are the 20 choirs of Bath much different from the 20 choirs
of other towns ? There may be 20 brands of toothpaste in the supermarket,
but it can hardly be called "cultural diversity" if the supermarkets in
other regions carry basically the *same* 20 brands of toothpaste...
(Okay Brad, the Japanese store may carry a 21st "corn toothpaste" ;-})
> Yes, one can always find examples (particularly in the US where there is
> such a well-developed lobby system) where some industries have got an
> inside track with government departments and are able to persuade the
> government to help them with subsidies, protection from imports, etc. But,
> by and large, most business steers away from involvement with government,
> even from asking favours, because as soon as they do so, civil servants
> start meddling in their affairs.
I guess the larger problem is that it's increasingly *vice-versa* --
corporations are meddling in the state's affairs... so they don't steer
away from it, but actively meddle more and more (not only in the U$ -- just
think of the thousands of industry lobbyists in Bruxelles..).
> (CR)
> >Please don't confuse "nation-state" with "imperialist state".
>
> I think it's being pedantic to differentiate between "nation-state" with
> "imperialist state". Whether a country is inimical to its domestic
> populations or to both its domestic populations and foreign ones, either
> state is undesirable.
The question is whether this nation-state is "inimical to its domestic
populations" in the first place. You're right, though, that an imperialist
state is likely to be inimical to both its domestic populations and foreign
ones...
Anyway, the problem of our time is that *corporations* are increasingly
inimical to populations...
> What seems to be happening is that everybody is learning English -- that
> takes care of globalisation; but also speaking their own language -- and
> this, of course, may be a regional or local language and not the official
> one.
In my region, the "second language" that people once learned was the
language of their neighboring region. Now it is English. This means
that neighbors won't communicate with each other in the native language
of one of them, but in English, which is a foreign language for both of
them. This will increase the "misunderstandings" and decrease the sense
of community among neighbors.
Chris
