Is the merger of culture inevitable?

To a great extent, but not completely.

The U.S. is a large country with free travel and communication within it's boarders. But the culture across the U.S. is not completely uniform - as evidenced by Paris Hilton's show "The Simple Life".

I imagine as time passes and satellite TV and the internet become more and more available, the cultural differences will continue to shrink.

Re: Is the merger of culture inevitable?
Congratulations, Ros, what a great topic!

I disagree that cultures emerge due to isolation.
Greatest cultures were based in the interaction with other cultures, in relations of acceptance or conflict.
See the case of Mileto. It was a city with an intense comercial and cultural relation with Egypt and Assiria. Tales would never be able to predict the eclipse of the sun without the registers of the babylonic priests.
German composers like Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, would never be able to take symphonic music to its perfection, without the activity of the italian masters of the XVIII century, that created the concept of orchestra, like Corelli, Vivaldi, Samartini.
A culture is strong and alive when confronted with other cultures, but based on its own national or geographic identity.

When a nation becomes isolated and closed to external influences, its culture is dead, nothing more than a mechanic ritual, not questionable.

But in our time of globalization, we see that nacional or even regional cultures slowly disappear. And, until now, nothing has replaced them. We live in a non-cultural time - rock music, television, unusual glorification of sports and above all the divinization of money and profit that you americans promote.
But our specie is creative. I think we are in a transition period. Other forms of culture will emerge, questioning, demolishing pedestals, as true culture always does.

Yes, Val, sometmes cultural differences are emphasized and exaggerated as a consequence of close contact with other groups. The differences represent a conscientious effort by each group to differentiate itself from others, perhaps in order to reinforce group boundaries and internal unity and cohesion. "WE are different from THEM", gives emphasis to our WE-NESS. I have noticed that in the highland region of the Mexican state of Chiapas, Indian communities that are farthest from the signorial Spanish colonial city of San Cristobal de las Casas resemble in some ways the culture of the non-Indian (Ladino) of San Cristobal more closely than do the Indian communities closer to and surrounding the city. The Indians of these satellite communities who interact more with the Ladinos in terms of economic ties and political relations wear "Indian costumes" and practice more exotic religious rituals than do the more isolated groups who wear clothing pretty much like that of the national rural working class and focus on more traditional Catholic rituals. There is lilttle doubt that, in this location at least, it is contact rather than isolation that promotes cultural differentiation.

There will certainly be some graying, but various cultures are too evolved to their respective climates to truly merge. I don't think you'll see the Danakil and the Inuit peoples living side by side anytime soon.

There are barriers of language and religion. "Inter-cultural" civilization would be possible, with individual culutures being intact. For this, one should stop aggressive attitude toward other cultures.

Nobody
I agree with that, but the differences, the cultural shocks, are good, in general, for both sides. Culture in a society reflects aspects of cultures from other societies, even in a relation of refusal.
But, yes, sometimes societies close themselves to exterior influence. See Sparta. No real culture. Only rituals. What's left of Sparta? When they were obliged to enter the Peloponesisan war, and open themselves to the exterior, they have disappeared in 50 years. The same goes to civilizations like the Mayas, that were fossilezed, and very vulnerable when spanish conquerors arrived.
I believe in the confront and interaction of cultures, but at the same time, any culture must be implanted in it's national or regional personality.But today we see the destruction of those patterns, in a sort of globalized infra-culture. In my previous reply I said that americans are the great responsibles, but I forgot to say that you also are victims of the situation. Your culture is not coca-cola or multinationals.
And in reaction to that we see, what is terrible, in my opinion, countries or even communities that close themselves to external influences: see the Taliban and other fondamentalists. They believe to preserve their values and identity by that process. Indeed they are destroying them.

Yes, Val, it would seem that all cultures are products both of invention and borrowing ("diffusion") from other cultures. This "closing of a culture to outside influences" is to a large extent what we see in the phenomenon of ethnicity. Even within complex multi-ethnic societies we see, as I suggested for Chiapas, peoples defining themselves by way of CONTRAST to characteristics ascribed to other (usually competing) groups. But I see much of the cultures of ethnic communities to be more a matter of ideology than genuine culture. Culture is what we practice unconsciously; ideology is what we practice consciously, even conscientiously. The former consist largely of habits of action, institutions of great historical depth (as opposed to fads and fashions) and tacit presuppositions about life. Ideologies are practiced self-consciously as ceremonies of one's ancestors. These institutions are of less historical depth and sometimes have to be re-learned by readings the writings of historians and anthropologists. For example, on Cinco de Mayo (a date not celebrated widely in Mexico, mostly in the state of Puebla) as practiced by Mexican Americans (and all americans looking for an excuse to get drunk or make a buck--as on St. Patrick's Day) is ideological in nature, an opportunity to stress ethnic boundaries. The Mexican-Americans' actual culture is what they do and think in their everyday lives, without knowing it, for the most part.

In the cultures that still remain, ….Do you think, through generations, the culture remained exactly the same? It may happen much slower, but, unless you are completely isolated from the rest of the world, it's hard to imagine.
Even, in the remotest parts of the world, the reality of a child, must have changed quite drastically in the past few centuries.. from, what a kid may have been exposed to, centuries ago. Effecting the way they think and see the world, Naturally....


In spite, of the attention on the current heighten ideological differences……I think technologies like the internet, travel and business, are going to be reasons why, the world will merge.
Traveling to unknown cultures, is quite common these days. More and more westerners are embrasing eastern religions....all this happenning, without force.
People are connecting through ideas, so comfortably on the internet. We assume, any one of us could be from a country, most of us may not have even heard of. Who would have thought!
People are willing to travel to different cultures, learn a language, make relationships with people there,…. to make a good deal, in a business.
Slowly, it may seem…..perhaps, not that slowly, when, seen from the future… we are changing Naturally. Our ideologies will follow…

NICU, good post. I agree with what you say. The hypothetical extreme of a totally isolated and/or completely traditional society STILL undergoes what anthropologists call "cultural drift." An analogy for drift is the career of a rumor. Even when people try to reproduce an idea or belief, their effort always involves some degree of deviation (or variation, no matter how imperceptible). With time, the cumulative effect of drift results in culture change. All cultures change; what varies is the rate of change. And you are right, in regard to the increased rate of change, to point to increased capacity for travel and communication (e.g., airplanes and internet).

To me, the merger of cultures is inevitable. The changes may be slight, but the mere knowledge of another way of doing something has the effect of changing people, even if they choose not to emulate something, the act of avoiding it alters behavior.

I often hear people lament the loss of the American Indian culture, a culture which I admire in many ways. Most people object to the brutality and aggression under which that culture succumbed, as though the American Indian culture might have survived if it hadn't been for an aggressive land grab. But I wonder if the end result was inevitible. Would American Indian culture have survived even with the mere exposure to Euroeans. I doubt it. Surely the world would have been different, but AmerIndian culture would be deeply changed just the same.

Today I see Japanese businessmen wearing western business suits, and Dunkin Donuts in Indonesia. White kids are learning to rap from Ice-T, and Shrek is dubbed into Korean. These things aren't the result of aggression, but exposure and desire and competition.

What causes some aspects of a given culture to dominate and replace other aspects of another culture? Are there certain underlying values in particular cultural norms which tend to spread and grow, while others wither and are forgotten?

Following...

Gosh, I was hoping some folks would post.