Culturism:

A Word, A Value, Our Future

The first chapter of a completed 110,000 word manuscript

By

John Kenneth Press

www.pressjohn.com

pressjohn@hotmail.com

Chapter 1 – Culturism Introduced ………………………………………………1

Chapter 2 – Culturism in United States History ………….……………………21

Chapter 3 – Culturism in World History …………………...………………….51

Chapter 4 – Culturism in Anthropology …………………….…………………83

Chapter 5 – Western Culture …………………………………………………111

Chapter 6 – Culturism in Nature …………………………..…………………137

Chapter 7 – Culturism in Psychology ………………………...………………161

Chapter 8 – Culturism in Philosophy ………………………….……………..193

Chapter 9 – Culturism and Multiculturalism ………………….……………...227

Chapter 10 – Culturist Policy ……………………………….………………..251

Bibliography …………………………………………...……………………..279

CHAPTER ONE - CULTURISM INTRODUCED

Cul∙tur∙ism (cŭl-ch́әr-ĭź-әm) n.1. A philosophy, art, and science that values, manages and protects majority cultures. 2. The science and art of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. The study of culturism.

Cul∙tur∙ist (cŭl-ch́әr-ĭź-ĭst) n.1. An advocate or adherent of culturism. 2. One who engages in the art or science of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy. - adj.

Culturism generally

Culturism is a value system that recognizes and takes seriously the diversity of cultures. For example, some cultural groups have higher incomes than others. This fact has been used to paint America as racist. And, as racism and racist thought can only result in evil in a multicultural society such as ours, it should be denounced whenever it is evident. But the disparity in economic attainment between groups could also reflect cultural diversity. Culturism takes the idea that cultures matter and affect behavior seriously. One cannot say that diversity is real and important without considering that it might be strong enough to affect economic achievement. Either it diversity is important or it is not. Culturism holds that cultural diversity is very important.

The word racist is often used to discourage conversation. When immigration issues are debated, for example, those who want to limit immigration often get labeled racist. As racism is stupid and evil it totally discredits those being attacked. Again, those who would make policies based on as ridiculous a criteria as race should be denounced. But if you accept the many statistic that show different levels of achievement and types of behavior between groups you have very real and important criteria upon which to discriminate. If diversity is real, this is not imaginative. In our personal and social lives it cannot be said to be irrational to discriminate against people who have a propensity towards violence or alcoholism. America should never discriminate on the basis of race. Racism is evil, but culturism is necessary.

The immigration example above would cause some to point out that you cannot judge an individual by their group. That objection contains some truth, but in reality all policies refer to groups. When reports show that some groups go on welfare more often than others, we are not indicating that everyone in that group receives welfare. But you can target the group that needs the most assistance. Your billboards announcing welfare to work programs will be wasted in some neighborhoods. No advertising firm would say to put English billboards in a Spanish-speaking neighborhood because you never make generalizations or not everyone speaks Spanish in there. To say that no policies can or do take cultural groupings into account cannot be sustained. But we should always recall that cultural categories are generalizations. To the extent possible, judging people as individuals is a valuable American ideal. Culturism is not insensitive to our traditions or subtleties.

Culturism provides a counter balance to the ideas of absolute individualism and rights. Both have been used to disavow the rights of the larger culture. For example, individual rights are used to prevent the government from regulating decorum on public airwaves. The rights of the individual in such a case are said to overrule the rights of the culture. Culturism proposes that our culture should also be a valid consideration in policy decisions. People have a right to not be profiled. But the public has a right to be safe. Again, individualism and rights are basic to our belief system. To advocate for their removal would run counter to our entire belief system. But individualism and rights must sometimes be contextualized within the needs of the overall culture. When Western nations fall, individualism and rights lose a sanctuary.

Culturism also provides a counterbalance to the extremes of multiculturalism. This book will assume that America and Western nations have a culture. The parameters and defining characteristics of our culture will be detailed in later chapters. But suffice it here to say that our culture’s broadest outlines can be seen by taking a global perspective. China, Japan, and Korea all have racist components to their citizenship laws. We do not. Islamic cultures do not recognize the separation of church and state. We do. The killing of women who dishonor our families runs counter to our belief system. As multiculturalists would point out, we are relatively diverse. But even that is distinctive; not all cultures see diversity as a good thing. In the chapter on anthropology it will be made particularly clear that our democratic, progressive, individual-valuing culture does not represent the universal default. Not all people are striving to adopt our ways.

Since a broad range of cultures exists, there are many different culturisms and types of culturist practices. Naturally, Asian culturists should value and seek to perpetuate Asian culture. Muslim culturists should value and seek to perpetuate Islamic culture. While it would be inappropriate for us to force a dress code on our populace, it is not hypocritical for them to do so. Each type of culturism uses techniques appropriate to the value system it represents. There are as many varieties of culturism as there are cultures. Korean culturists might be concerned with reminding people about the inventor of their alphabet, King Sejong. Mexico would instead promote folklorico. Naturally, as this book has been written by a Westerner, it will focus on Western Culturism. “Culturism,” when not otherwise specified, will be used throughout this book to refer to Western Culturism. This will always be done with the awareness that it is only one form of culturism.

Finally, culturism provides us with a positive ethical system. When youth defiantly tell others that they cannot tell us what to do or say they may be legally right. But their behavior shows disrespect for the sensibilities of others and our culture. And some values are more conducive to a first-world economy than others. Later, historically based cultural values will be described and advocated. Stripping people of the right to choose their behaviors would obviously violate our historic traditions. But, again, we cannot take our individual and rights valuing culture for granted. Culturism provides a reasonable supplement to the eclipse of public necessity and sensibility enabled by our exclusive considerations of individualism and rights. Culturism teaches that some behaviors show that you understand that freedom must be earned more than others. And, again, this is not hyperbole. If we do not maintain our solvency, the right to be a bratty individual will cease to exist.

Definition by example

The harmful effects of not having a culturist orientation can be seen in the social microcosm of schools. If students are told that the reason they are doing homework has only to do with them selves as individuals, not doing it becomes a purely personal decision. Taking drugs, vulgarity, and scholastic failure are also only judged by the effects on the individual. If the individual wants to mess up his or her life it is no one else’s business. Individualism can only provide us with a weak basis for teaching morals. Culturism provides a positive reason to lead a positive life; the furthering of individualism, rights, democracy, and other truths we hold to be valuable.

Individualism is also not always conducive to mental or social health. Young people naturally want to join groups. Being a part of a team inspires joy and great effort. Being told that your work has not connection to the fate of others is not en nobl ing or inspiring. Isolation is depressing. If we do not give young people a sense of connection, they often find it in the form of gangs and other anti-social cliques. Culturism provides a sense of motivation and belonging. As such culturism is more conducive to mental health than individualism. Cultirism can provide collective mental health and a sense of community with those around you.

Culturism is a source of policy as well as a value system. A hypothetical culturist policy could require students who are caught vandalizing a school to either clean the walls or face expulsion. An overemphasis on individual rights often incapacitates efforts to protect, promote and even sustain schools as institution. Schools where students’ rights protect them from having to learn often cease to be schools in all but name. The same goes for societies in which citizens do not have to consider the public ramification of their actions; a nation of anti-social citizens cannot sustain its freedom. In fact, the legal substantiation of rights without context has allowed students to sue schools that do not meet their individual needs. These laws never take into account the ability of the school to afford the provision of individual rights. It is conceivable that at a certain point schools will not be able to afford to provide these new rights or pay for the lawsuits. Culturism would remind us that we sometimes have to look at the practical application of the individualistic rights we proclaim.

Individuals’ actions are, in fact, never entirely divorced from the cultural milieu in which they are performed. If only one teacher battles pervasive graffiti in a school, his remarks on the subject will be seen as the obsession of an individual crank. If a school has managed to create a culture in which vandalism does not occur, the individual who vandalizes the school will be seen to be the bizarre one. Individuals’ actions are nearly always evaluated against the background of cultural norms. Culturism recognizes that individual morals cannot be divorced from the cultural milieu in which they are enacted. You do not automatically help the individual by refusing to acknowledge the importance of the cultural milieu in which he or she exists. Peers and environment are always important components of individuals’ well-being.

A school’s very existence is predicated on the belief that we have communal concerns and responsibilities. We have public schools because we realize that our destinies are intertwined. Schools are not only created to help us as individuals. Societies are predicated on a collective sense of destiny. Schools are, among other things, the product of a conscious effort by society to protect society itself from degeneration and division. We will explore many factors that have been eroding our collective sense of destiny. Chief among them is the rising assertion of individualistic perspectives. We will find that our country’s concern over the shared nature of our individual fates even predates our creation of public schools. Culturism is an American tradition.

School curriculum provides another example of the way that culturism should be thought of in the larger society as another example of a policy recommended by culturism. When school is only conceived of as a matter of purely individualistic gain, there can be no core curriculum. As such, no two people will have come through school having taken the same courses or with shared understandings. As such we are disunited and do not have common understandings. Whereas schools used to inspire and give common language via shared curriculum. Not substantiating our cultural heritage means that our ideals, culture and the individuals in it are fragmented. Complex results, explored later, emerge. Culturism’s grounding in the humanities provides a shared set of artistic and political ideals that create a collective set of understanding and destiny.

Culturism is meant to be a corrective against excessive individualism. It is , however, not against individual liberty. A lack of collective sentiment has been shown to undermine our willingness to fully fund public schools. This lack of collective sentiment thus undermines our ability to fulfill our individual potentials. Contrary to what individualists tell you, thriving economies are the result of collective community efforts. As the overall economy declines, individuals have fewer opportunities. Reminding people of th e collective nature of our success bolsters both our individual and collective liberty. A sense of collective responsibility and destiny does not interfere with personal achievement; it bolsters our individual potentials. Great schools foster successful students.

Parameters of Western culturism

Western culturism is more complicated than other types of culturism. Gambling, gang membership, white collar crime, unprotected sex, pollution, the poverty that often accompanies single parenting, drugs and prostitution negatively affect our culture. In other cultures antisocial behavior is punished by draconian measures. Western culturism is much more nuanced. We cannot throw out our tradition of liberty and rights to protect our tradition of liberty and rights. Sustaining liberty and rights requires a nuanced culturist understanding by social scientists and citizens alike.

Western culturism cannot be the result of simple jingoism. Our duty to protect our culture implies that we have a duty to critically evaluate it. We have gained much through this tradition. We are better for having gotten rid of slavery and child labor. It would be disrespectful to our tradition of self-improvement to advocate that we should never be critical of our nation or of Western culture. Western culturism cannot condone “blind patriotism” and jingoism. Successful Culturism requires that we critically evaluate our circumstances and traditions.

Culturism is positive and progressive. Western culturism embraces and seeks to foster an evolving and advancing America. It should not be associated with the “culture war ” Pat Buchanan spoke of at the 1984 Republican convention. The culture war was largely an anti-homosexual, anti-abortion platform. Culturism would be shallow and unstable if it were only based on recent trends in America. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans having been anti-homosexual or anti-abortion, the culturism advocated herein is not necessarily either. That said, a thread of morality does unite our secular and Judeo-Christian traditions; since Plato we have esteemed attributes of the mind to be more valuable than those of the body. This perspective will, of course, be explored in greater detail. Suffice it to say that our cultural traditions provide a basis of morality that may be able to help heal the divisive sides of the culture war. We can have morality and still embrace progressive and evolving traditions.

American culturism increases its value by connecting itself with the entire history of Western civilization. The Western World’s heritage goes back to Greece. It is a long history. Americans gain depth, inspiration, and meaning by attaching themselves to that long tradition and identity. From Jesus, to Shakespeare to George Washington, our heritage provides us with inspiration. If America sees itself as an entity unto itself it loses two of these figures. And this connection with great philosophers, statesmen, political systems, scientists and others, makes advocating Americas success more meaningful. Furthermore it gives us traditions by which to evaluate our personal and policy decisions. Thus recognizing America’s cultural roots makes us deeper people and broader in our considerations.

Culturism is, however, a value system. Every value system holds that some behaviors are preferable to others. This cannot be avoided. Advocating peace implies a dis dain for war. Saying that people should be thin necessarily implies that they should not be fat. Like all value systems, culturism disparages that which is disrespectful of our traditions and which undermines our ability to perpetuate them. Western culturists need not concern themselves with the morality of female genital mutilation in other countries . Recognizing diversity means accepting that people in other parts of the world are entitled to promote and enjoy their own cultural value systems. But Western culturism must strongly and clearly denounce female genital mutilation in Western lands. Culturism cannot help but define some values as being outside of our traditional values.

From a Western perspective, of course, Western ways seem to be the best. However, culturism is not based upon the superiority of the West. Every culture prefers its own ways. Were the West inherently superior culturism would not be necessary. We could comfortably watch television and wait for the Western world’s inevitable triumph. The world is both diverse and competitive. Like others, we cannot help but prefer our own values; but, unfortunately, our preference for our own way of life will not guarantee its continuance. We should not expect other cultures to adopt our way of life. But it is within the parameters of the culturist purview to make sure that our values are sustainably and faithfully supported in our own lands.

Culturism recognizes a connection between cultural and national strength. If Western countries fail to stay solvent, Western culture loses ground (literally). If our culture degenerates, the economy that makes it vibrant will fade. Truly valuing individual rights and liberties necessitates valuing the countries that value individual rights and liberties. If the rest of the world sees that individualism and rights lead to cultural and national decline they will not be tempted to adopt them. If civil disturbances necessitate martial law in Western cities, the existence of our fundamental values will have been compromised. Western individuals ignore national solvency at their own peril.

The German’s actions in World War II have made us skittish about national pride. Nationalism is not a well-grounded philosophy and we should be leery of it. Culturism has parameters which are set by traditional values which are older than our nation. Western culture has been against tyranny since the Greeks first defeated the Persians. It has traditionally respected the advice of individuals in governance. Our sensitivity to the prerogatives of the individual is a longstanding and justifiable source of pride. No objective criteria exist by which to say that Western culture is any better or worse than any other culture. But all people are formed by their cultures. As Westerners we cannot help but cherish self-governance, individualism, and democracy. Nationalism’s worship of the nation because it is the nation is dangerous. Western culturism’s grounding in history and traditional values protects us from the sorts of illiberal tyrannies Western nations fear pride can lead to.

People who love their cultures have reasons to be happy and proud. This is a very natural and healthy state of mind. Of course, excessive self-regard can be pathological; it can make a culture overly complacent. Our ability to endlessly repeating “We are number one” as we sink in educational attainment shows that self-regard must be grounded in reality to not be a delusional. Equally dangerous is the fact that overly inflated self-esteem can led you to denigrate other cultures and ignore their sovereignty. Culturism advocates respecting all cultures within their own spheres of influence. As such it has a bias towards isolationism. Our culture is special because it is not a universal default. Excessive self-love can undermine your ability to be realistic and lead you to think that all other nations should be like yours.

Excessive self-love can be destructive. On the other hand, for both individuals and cultures, not having any self-regard is both sad and pathological. We have a lot to be proud of and that should constitute much of our motivation for perpetuating the Western cultural heritage. Culturism does not mean that you do not critically evaluate your culture; success requires doing so. But this self-scrutiny must be done with an eye to perpetuating, not denigrating, our culture. Cultures cannot be sustained by chauvinism. Western Culturism must be based on a realistic understanding of our history, traditions, weaknesses, and strengths.

Definition by contrasts

Currently, in English, valuing one’s culture is associated with the words “xenophobia,” “ethnocentrism,” “jingoism,” “patriotism.” “nationalism,” and “Nativism.” Each of these words is problematic for reasons that will be explored below. None of them can be used as the basis of a practical and grounded value system with which to guide society. Overall, the use of these terms actually stops us from having the dispassionate and rational discourse concerning vital social issues that a multicultural society like America desperately needs to be able to have.

The term “xenophobia” provides a good example of what is wrong with our current vocabulary. As with the other words being considered, it is not conducive to rational discourse on vital issues.

Xen∙o∙phobia (zěn΄ ә-fōb-ēä) n. An undue fear or contemptuousness of that which is foreign, esp. of strangers or foreign peoples.

Xenophobia’s being “undue” makes it irrational. Culturism is a rational value system. In seeking rational discourse, then, culturism will be a better fount of dialogue than xenophobia. “Phobia” is word used in psychology to denote irrational fear. One cannot base positive policy considerations on irrational phobias. Xenophobia is useless as an organizational tool. Culturism is not based on irrational fear s. It is a positive valuing of self and highly conducive to valuing the other cultures. Xenophobia cannot be the basis of rational policy analysis.

Culturism and xenophobia’s real difference, however, are not in their dictionary definitions. The main difference between the two terms lays in their connotations. Xenophobia is a slur. In common parlance saying that someone is xenophobic is tantamount to calling them a racist or small -minded. If they do not immediately deny that they are xenophobic, nothing they say will be considered worth listening to. The same racist and irrational connotations resonate from the concepts of ethnocentrism, jingoism and nativism. These terms cannot instigate rational conversations. Whereas they are, at best, obstacles to discussion culturism can provide a basis for lot of useful guidelines, values, and discussions.

Eth·no·cen·trism  (thn-sntrzm) n.1.Belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic group. 2. Overriding concern with race.

The problem with the term “ethnocentrism” comes from the fact that it not only connotes racism, it denotes it. The root, “ethno,” very closely linked to ethnicity, and ethnicity is very often linked to race. Culturism can amount to nothing if it gets confounded with the false, dangerous, and unfruitful concept of racism. Culturists must always be careful to explain their sincere disgust with the untenable and dangerous doctrine of racism. That being the case, an entire section of this introduction will disavow racism and show that the area in which culturism seeks to operate is clearly different. Ethnocentricism is also a slur that shuts down conversation and undermines positive values and rational policy formulation.

Jin·go·ism (jngg-zm) n. Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism..

Here again we have a word loaded with negative connotations. “Extreme” and “chauvinist” are not attributes of a reasonable ideology. And while culturism does advocate protecting one’s own culture, it does not entail belligerence towards others. Chinese culturism dictates that the Chinese take pride in their culture. Iranian culturism advocates that Iranian culture be a source of joy for the Iranians. Culturism does not imply that you seek to destroy or dominate other cultures. Quite the opposite: culturism is appreciative of the diversity that has flowered in the world. Being appreciative of international diversity, culturism is compatible with isolationism in a way that the chauvinistic concept of jingoism is not.

Pa∙tri∙ot∙ism (pā ׳ trē-ә-tĭz ׳әm) n.Love of and devotion to one’s country.

“Patriotism” is an empty word because it does not convey why you value the country you value. It includes no more content than saying your are for your country just because it is yours. It is love of country regardless of that country’s merits. Claiming patriotism in an argument is often a trick used to claim the upper ground and taint all those who would argue with you as unpatriotic. Like racism, it gets invoked to protect oneself from substantive discussion. Patriotism has rightfully been called the last refuge of scoundrels. Patriotism’s lack of content can make it dangerously loose and liable to abuse.

Culturism, by way of contrast, has content. Western culturism takes pride in our valuing individualism , rights, and liberty. Islamic culturis ts would, presumably, take pride in their successful submission to the will of Allah. Chinese culturists would presumably take pride in their implementing Confucian ideals. All cultures have their own heroes to emulate. Culturism implies historical continuity. History provides a traditional context within which actions can be judged as worthy or incongruous. Historical and cultural precedent means that McCarthyite tactics cannot be justified in the name of culturism in the way that they can under the banner of patriotism. In fact McCarthy was denounced specifically for violating our cultural traditions. Culturis ts can make assertive and nuanced arguments for aspects of their culture’s historic values. Culturism is not just loyalty to one’s country for the sake of being loyal to one’s country.

Na∙tion∙al∙ism (năsh ׳ә-nә-lĭz ׳әm) n. Devotion to the interests or culture of one’s nation. 2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.

The concept of nationalism has the same problems as patriotism; it also suffers from a lack of content . Though the dictionary definition refers to culture, nationalism is normally thought of as just being in favor of one’s nation. Thus in common usage it is akin to “geography-ism.” Being for your nation because it is your nation is not a very deep philosophy. Nationalism provides no philosophical guidance.

Furthermore, the boundaries of the concept are too small. Culture transcends nations. Western civilization is larger than any one Western nation. Thus culturism gives the Western world an equivalent to the Muslim concept of “ummah” (meaning the greater transnational Muslim community). Nationalism, as the dictionary definitions indicate, sees each nation as an isolated player. In fact nations often have shared affinities and histories. Culturism can address geo-political concerns and realities in ways that nationalism cannot.

Nationalism was created in Europe as a geo-political strategy. The idea of nations helped to create nations. The geo-political realities of the time led the early progenitors of nationalism to emphasize Western nations’ differences from each other instead of their similarities. From a global perspective, Western nations are much more similar than they are different. The overly romantic language early nationalists employed led to a fanaticism that was conducive to war. Whereas c ulturism recognizes the value of all cultures , nationalism implies bellicosity and an agenda according to which one nation should try to conquer others. Rights, liberty, and individualism are not best secured by passionate, bellicose, and fanatical states of mind. Rational discourse is the safest bedrock for Western values. Culturism provides a more appropriate basis of international relations for the modern world than nationalism.

Na∙tiv∙ism (nā ׳tĭ-vĭz ׳ әm) n. 1. A sociopolitical policy, esp. in the United States in the 19 th century, favoring the interests of native inhabitants over those of immigrants. . . . 3. The re-establishment or perpetuation of native cultural traits, esp. in opposition to acculturation.

N ativism refers to a specific political movement. Adopting this term for purposes of discussion would necessitate adopting a lot of historical baggage. The worst part of the 19 th century movement was its divisiveness. Western culture is not based on race or ethnic heritage; it is inclusive. In multi-ethnic societies such as ours, divisiveness presents extreme dangers. Culturism provides a source of unity. Those who would divide us would defeat us. Small-minded prejudice should be denounced by all people who love Western civilization.

The nativist movement focused on the shortcomings of newcomers to America. Culturism, by contrast, provides a basis upon which the failings of those who have been in this country the longest, and of those who have recently immigrated, can both be addressed. Any movement that paints immigrants as all bad and implies that those who have been in the country the longest can automatically be considered virtuous will fail on the obvious falsity of its premises. Nativism provides only one vista through which to view only one issue; immigrants bad, natives good. Culturism seeks to address many dynamics and issues that apply to the culture and populace as a whole.

Racism

Race (rās) n.1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Ra∙cism (rā ׳sĭz ׳әm) n.1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on racism.

The West’s ability to meaningfully discuss its cultural virtues and vices has been greatly hindered by our inability to distinguish culture and race. We, rightfully, want to avoid discrimination based on race. But fear of being accused of this has led to our being unable to discuss any value distinctions on any basis. We need to be able to advocate some behaviors and disparage others. Culturism is a helpful basis for such discrimination. Racism is not. Conversations based on cultural precepts can be very healthy. Conversations based on race are counterproductive and dangerous.

Racism , in essence, is discrimination based on race. Hitler’s policies were racist. He hated Jews for many historical reasons. But he ultimately thought of the historical or ideological sources of his antagonism as having a genetic basis. Jews were ultimately considered evil because they were Jews. He hated them regardless of their achievements. Whether you were a doctor or a criminal, an artist or a beggar was not important. Closer to home, we discriminated against people who were thought to have “one drop” of “African blood.” The only criterion necessary to judge people under such policies was their race. Racist policies are not only dangerous, they are ludicrous and stupid.

Education constitutes one of the many policy areas where much harm has been wrought by our not having a way to discuss cultural differences in a rational way. In a virtuous effort to avoid racism, we now emphasize it as a factor in education policy to the exclusion of other possibilities. School systems have been sued because they are said to be racist. Institutional and individual racism could conceivably be reasons that some groups go to college in higher numbers than others; however, there are other possib le explanations that merit consideration.

One implication of a culturist position is that differences in achievement could be the result of cultural diversity. Educators have, of course, addressed issues of culture. They have attributed different “learning styles” to different cultures. But when they do so they tend to conflate the learning styles with race and assume that the differences in cultural learning styles cannot have any intrinsic affect on educational attainment. The assumption is that since cultural diversity has very little significance none have any particular intrinsic result. If we would only accommodate the learning styles of the ethnic groups their achievements would be indistinguishable from other groups’ achievements. Culturists see cultural diversity as a very real and important factor in levels of educational attainment.

Without being able to consider culture as significant, modern policymakers are thrown back to addressing what are termed “achievement gaps” in terms of race. They correctly acknowledge that there are no differences in the innate capacities of different races. Having eliminated both race and culture as factors, the only explanation left is that cultures achieve differently due to institutional racism. Such conclusions doom our schools to endless lawsuits and preclude successful reform.

Fifth graders in Taipei, Taiwan spend an average of 13 hours a week on homework; their peers in Minneapolis spend slightly more than four hours. In Asian cultures not having completed one’s homework normally results in shame. Completing your homework is positively associated with academic success. Cultural differences provide a complete and satisfactory explanation as to why students in Asian countries do better at math. Culturist explanations can account for some groups doing better than others without resorting to discussions of race. And unlike race, culture can be discussed profitably.

Culture includes the beliefs and practices shared by a group. These factors are malleable. Latinos make fun of students who do well in school more than do whites do. Facts like this can explain why Latinos as a group do not do as well as other students. This has nothing to do with race. Latinos who have earned their way into higher-level courses do the same amount of homework as their white counterparts. Address ing the components of scholastic success necessitates addressing culture , values, and the behaviors involved. For people to be afraid of addressing such issues out of a fear that noting cultural differences will result in being slurred as a racist serves no one.

Education is not the only area where we cannot progress until we have frank discussions about cultural values and their impact. Some behaviors are conducive to economic achievement. Drinking and teen pregnancy have nothing to do with race. Different rates of such behaviors must, therefore, reflect cultural choices. Drinking a lot and eating fatty foods are cultural choices. Such foods are enjoyable to members of every race. The resulting shortened life expectancy cannot be profitably discussed as being due to race. No benefit can come from discussing issues in terms of race. People cannot change their race. It has no practical implications. But people can change their behavior. Those who recognize that their cultural habits are having unwanted effects can work to change them. Whereas discussing race results in animosity, discussing culture can result in positive reform efforts and frank discussions.

Having only extremely volatile words to express the valuation of one’s culture has had a tremendously deleterious effect on the Western nations. Honest discussions of cultural issues degenerate into name-calling. Thus we are left with either hatred or silence. Neither hatred nor silence is conducive to a vital culture. Culturism’s cultural specificity focus es us on important, tangible behaviors and problems in a way that we can discuss rationally and fruitfully. Being free to discuss culture, as distinct from race, allows us to address many important areas where values, behaviors, and results intersect. The term culturism provides a focus that can serve as a needed antidote in a country that finds itself unable to discuss diversity due to fear of racial implications.

Disavowal of racism

Culturism ’s potential to be confounded with rac ism necessitates a strong disclaimer. Race is a stupid concept and an inherently dangerous basis of policy. Consequently, c ulturists must do all they can to denounce racists and racism. Race is a biologically insignificant, dubious, and dangerous invented category. Individuals’ attainment in life has nothing to do with their race. Racism can hinder people. But ultimately, peoples’ beliefs and the actions that do or do not result from those beliefs determine who they are and what they will become. Cultural differences are meaningful. Race is an invalid and inconsequential factor that does not deserve the honor of having attention brought to it. .

Of course, it is obvious that significant overlap between culture and race exists. It is equally obvious that culture is not the result of race. Culture and race are only correlated with each other incidentally. People of Japanese descent who are raised in America speak English and have American values. The few people of non-Japanese extraction raised in Japan speak Japanese and live according to Japanese codes (though Japanese law prohibits them from ever becoming Japanese citizens). To say that people are who they are because of their race is racism. Racism is wrong, constitutes definitive proof of ignorance, and a reasonable basis for disqualifying anyone from policy discussions. Race does not create or constitute culture.

Race is not even a real biological category. Biologically speaking, we can best be categorized as a species. A species is commonly defined as a population that cannot interbreed with another population. All humans can interbreed. All humans are therefore of the same species. One does not ask about the race of a baboon; a baboon is a baboon. Similarly, a human is a human. Just as no two members of any species are identical, humans have superficial distinctions. It is biologically meaningless to say that cows that look different from each other are members of different races. Similarly differing environments have caused some differentiating of physical characteristics in humans. But these are not meaningful in a biological sense.

Racist books such as The Bell Curve are deplorable. This book purports to provide evidence that race and I.Q. are correlated. There is no reliable evidence that there are any mental differences between groups of humans. Even if there were some truth to such claims (which there is not) , perpetuating such ideas can only lead to horrible results. Culture and behavior are malleable; this provides a worthy justification for discussing such differences. But racial characteristics are not profitable topics of discussion. World War II proved that horrible results can come from talking about the concept of race. Books such as The Bell Curve cannot result in good and can result in a lot of horror. Racism and racists should be denounced at every opportunity.

Unlike the concept of race, meaningful conceptual distinctions can be drawn between cultures. Group values have material effects on the world those groups inhabit. Some cultures cut the hands off of thieves, while others temporarily lock them in large concrete buildings. Skin color does not chop off hands or build prisons. Race determining culture is as silly an idea as culture determining your race! Considering the dangers of racism, culturists must be very clear that cultures are not racially determined. Laws concerning behavior are necessary, but laws concerning race are reprehensible. Being able to safely discuss the importance of cultural differences requires clarity on the distinction between race and culture.

Western cultur e strives to oppose racism. Other cultures have a declared racial basis. Only those who are racially Japanese or are married to Japanese can be Japanese citizens. Even then their social participation will be legally limited. America n culture does not have a racial basis. Europeans are wisely cutting loose from their racial moorings. Western culture was almost destroyed by Hitler’s racism in World War II. Neither Jesus nor Plato would sanction racism, and racism in a multi-ethnic country like America could be destabilizing and destroy our country. Western culture’s viability is threatened by considering racial distinctions. We cannot afford to be divided by race again. By necessity Western culturism must denounce all racists, racist sentiments , racist organizations, and racial discrimination in the strongest way possible.

The organization of this book’s argument

This chapter has served as an introduction to the meaning, parameters, and potential usefulness of the term culturism. The rest of this book will flesh out the nature, basis, tools, and nuances of culturist understanding. Culturism is not new. It has a long history. The ways in which it actually manifests itself can be studied. We will look at all brands of culturism, but especially work towards an understanding of the nature of Western culturism. These investigations will suggest roles for citizens and social scientists, as understanding cultures’ effects in the world generally will suggest values and policies. By the end of this book you will be able to analyze a broad range of issues and disciplines from a culturist perspective.

Those who say that all restraints on the individual in the name of cultural health are un-American are wrong. From the Puritans to the Americanization movement we have nervously tried to forestall the degeneration of our culture. Chapter Two will provide a thumbnail sketch of the meanings and methods we have used to this end. Far from being un-American, the conscious management of our culture is an American tradition. Self-governance applies to individuals, communities, and the country at large. Our history contains many inspiring examples of culturism in action. It is not an untried or revolutionary idea. Only after seeing this can we reclaim our role as proud American culturists of the traditional stripe.

Culturism is not only an American tradition, but also an ancient and hallowed tradition in the world at large. Most cultures are and have been dedicated to their culturist mission. To understand the global cultures involved in our current cultural conflicts you must understand their ancient heritage. S tudying ancient heritages provides you with a deeper appreciation of cultures than studying recent national history ever could. Historical global studies reveal much about the ways in which culturist dynamics work generally. The third chapter will thus explore the role of such phenomena as the recent surge of nations, the rise and fall of cultures, and imperialism in world history. Amnesia is as dangerous to cultures as it is to individuals. Without memory we could not be successful individuals and we certainly cannot be successful culturists.

Fully understanding why we must adopt culturism requires a look into the fields of anthropology and archeology. Western civilization’s futuristic orientation often leaves it blind about the past. And yet much of how we view ourselves is based upon our supposed destruction of a pristine past. The fourth chapter will set the record straight; before modern civilizations the world was much bloodier and Native Americans had slaves. Diversity is real. Uncritically accepting all human diversity within our borders would entail accepting human sacrifice, selling of child brides, and gang rape. Denouncing these activities domestically means modifying our embrace of diversity and adopting a culturist basis of discrimination. An unflinching look into the bloody and disturbing nature of the average pre-Western culture will relieve us of the guilt we feel concerning the imposition of our Western ways.

After surveying the past we are ready to appreciate how special the Western culture we advocate perpetuating is. Western culture is real, but it is tricky to nail down because it is decidedly progressive. T here are, however, coherent strands that make our ancient story coherent. We have striven to liberate ourselves, in fits and spurts, from mental tyranny. We have worked to create a healthy balance of body and mind. Our pantheon of heroes, from Achilles to Martin Luther to George Washington, has been comprised of rebels. We value individualism, self-governance, and rights like no other culture does. These are the easy parts to explain. The West is also made up of both high and low culture. At some level a culture, and ours is no exception, is an ineffable complexity. But, Chapter Five will illuminate some of the Western characteristics Western culturists love.

Chapter Six will provide the ultimate grounding for culturism. The precedents of culturism in natural history show that culturism does not only reside in the minds of men. Of course, just because nature does something does not mean that humans should. We are different from spiders and apes. But we cannot entirely divorce ourselves from the natural world. Nature can suggest what some of the dynamics of a civilization might be. And it is only when we understand why and how cultures evolved that we can understand their general nature and our responsibilities. Cultures form working units out of otherwise unrelated individuals. They hold and pass on information. The primary function of brains is not to make us radical individual skeptics. We are built to absorb culture. These illuminating lessons a study of natural history can provide for culturists will be presented in Chapter Six.

It has been shown that the Western mind is very bad at putting things into contexts. We ourselves are one of the things we do not put into context. Philosophy, psychology, political science, and the understanding of individuals and communities are intricately interconnected. Psychology’s heavy emphasis on individualism is not a good basis upon which to create collective mental health. We have social needs. Our acceptance of the idea of absolute individualism has also incapacitated our ability to improve the collective mental health of our culture. One way “culturist psychologists” can do this is by advocating that public space and laws recognize public standards. Creating events that increase our collective understanding of our commonality and consciously creating social organizations are other ways our collective mental health could be improved. As with individuals we must guide our collective habits and happiness by reminding ourselves of our ideals.

The seventh chapter concerns philosophy and its place in culturism past and present. Most people are allergic to philosophy because it has come to denote abstruse arguments having nothing to do with day-to-day life. This has not always been so. Plato and Aristotle, for example, were both concerned with man in a social context. Philosophy’s focus on abstractions is relatively recent. The most recent sort of philosophical abstraction, post-modern deconstruction, is dangerous. This chapter is not included for the purpose of illuminating esoteric nuances. Abstract rights, abstract individualism and supposedly universal standards evaluation have all had tremendously destructive consequences for the Western world. These have eroded our ability to develop ethics and defend them in the way that other nations do. Philosophy will have a very positive role to play when it returns to its culturist roots.

Inevitably, culturism will be narrowly seen as a reaction to multiculturalism. To be sure, much of its significance does come about via its contrast to multiculturalism. Consequently, the penultimate chapter contains a point-by-point comparison of culturism and multiculturalism. Such a comparison can serve as a model for societal discussions concerning the comparative merits and drawbacks of each. As we shall see, culturism is not about absolutes. Culturism is advanced to help counterbalance our extremes. Our having accepted multiculturalism as the national dogma necessitates comparing the two isms before many will be prepared to seriously entertain the culturist point of view.

The tenth and final chapter of this book will detail some culturist policies. As this introduction has stressed, culturism holds that cultural health should be seen to be a legitimate concern when making policy. Non-Western countries tend do this naturally. We alone have largely forgotten the perspective that cultures have rights. However, our heavy emphasis on rights necessitates our finding a way to pragmatically balance the prerogatives of the individual with the needs of the culture. This effort will be aided by realizing that there are no philosophical absolutes. Your right to be free of eavesdropping is, for example, counterbalanced by our need for reasonable security. Our culture must assert its right to discourage some behaviors. And while many culturists will disagree about what falls inside and outside of our traditions and which policies are justified by our current situation, we would hope that no one disagrees with the goals. Western culture is a great thing and it is our duty to honor and protect it.

One policy is advocated throughout this book: embracing the use of the term “culturism.” Using this word will help to reinvigorate our public discourse. The word culturism can remind us of our traditions and our place in the world. It provides a basis of beliefs upon which we can agree and unite. Culturism is a much needed counterbalance to the divisive philosophy of absolute individual rights that has undermined our ability to distinguish right from wrong and advocate values. Culturism can help reverse the sense of division and alienation from our compatriots that multiculturalism fosters in the culture at large. It can remind us that we are all dependent upon each other. Culturism can be the basis upon which we can pressure our politicians to put Western interests first in international negotiations. Their employing culturists policies can, in turn, rejuvenate our sense of place, mission and pride. On top of all of this, adding culturism to our vocabulary can help to make our culture feel like a culture again .

Harris, J. The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. Touchstone Books. New York. 1999. p. 263.

Reich, R. The Work of Nations. Vintage Books. New York. 1992. p. 251.

Kay, J. Culture and Prosperity: Why Some Nations are Rich but Most Remain Poor. Harper Business. New York. 2005. p. 322

xenophobia. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xenophobia (accessed: January 01, 2007).

ethnocentrism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnocentrism (accessed: January 01, 2007).

jingoism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jingoism (accessed: January 01, 2007).

patriotism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriotism (accessed: January 01, 2007).

nationalism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism (accessed: January 01, 2007).

nativism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nativism (accessed: January 01, 2007).

race. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race (accessed: January 01, 2007).

racism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism (accessed: January 01, 2007).

* Hall, E. Beyond Culture. Doubleday. New York. 1989. p. 7.

Rothenberg, J. Florida Court Okays Class-Action Suits Against Schools. School Reform News. Nov 1, 1005. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17919

Symonds, W. America the Uneducated: A New Study Warns of a Slide for the U.S. as the Share of Lower Achievers Grows. Business Week. November 21, 2005. p. 89.

Delpit, L. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. The New Press. New York. 1995. p. 116.

Chong Jia-Rui. “Morphing Outrage Into Ideas.” Los Angeles Times. October 12, 2005. p. A24.

Goldberg, S. Army Training of Illiterates in World War II. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. New York. 1951. p. 261.

* Stevenson, H. and Stigler, J. The Learning Gap: Why Our Schools are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education. Simon and Schuster. New York. 1992. p. 54.

Bond, M. Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology. Oxford University Press. 1991. p. 18.

Brown Center Report on American Education. Part Two: Do Students Have Too Much Homework? http://www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/20031001.pdf

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Trends in Mathematics and Science Study, 2003. http://www.iea.nl/timss2003.html

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition,. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston and New York. 2000.

“New Study Challenges Notion about African-American and Hispanic Students’ Achievement.” Network News: Newsletter of the Minority Student Achievement Network. Winter 2003. http://www.msanetwork.org/pub/winter03.pdf

Ibid.

Gaylin, W. and Jennings, B. The Perversion of Autonomy: Coercion and Constraints in a Liberal Society. Georgetown University Press. Washington D.C. 2003. p. 8.

Kitwana, B. Why White Kids Love Hip Hop: Wankstas, Wiggers, Wannabes, and the New Reality of Race in America. Basic Civitas Books. Cambridge. p. 82.

Richerson, P. and Boyd, R. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 2005. p. 35.

* See Shain, B. The Myth of American Individualism: The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 1994. p. 252.

* Keeley, L. War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press. New York. 1996. p. 65.

De Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are. Riverhead Books. New York. 2005. p. 172.

Nisbett, R. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently. . . and Why. Free Press. New York. 2003. p. 90.

* MacIntyre, A. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press. Notre Dame. 2003. p. 52.