But for those of us who grew up in the highly-centrally-programmed cultures of the 60s and 70s you must agree that we have had an explosion of all kinds of culture since then. And we now have platforms for marginal voices, to the extent that forces that oppose our governments and way of life have a substantial following.
The effect is that there is no "we" anymore. We have a galaxy of perspectives that no longer converge on any kind of centre.
Media has changed a lot since the 70's obviously, mainly due to technology.
With the past centralized media, it was mainly controlled by professional white and jewish men, not because they were evil, but because that's just who mainly worked in large media companies, especially in positions of power. Social media means those who create media are now much younger, and social change means more women and minorities have more power in media to control cultural content. We have more ethnic minorities in our society now, and they tend to be younger, so they now have much more of a voice.
What we have now and always have had is a culture war, to control the message, whether conscious or unconscious. In international relations, the most stable type of international order is a hegemonic world, which we've had from the the early 1990's until recently with the US as the hegemonic power. The next most stable is a bi-polar order, ie: the Cold War, and now with the rise of China vs the US. The least stable is the multi-polar order, ie: WWII and prior.
When white men ruled, it was a mainly hegemonic cultural order, with minorities and women given some scraps, and not as much cultural conflict as now. Now it's becoming a multipolar order, with people of many different races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations jockeying for power based on whatever group they belong to. This has led to more cultural instability and conflict.
1) Can we sustain this ?
Who knows, we have no choice. Might not be pretty though.
2) If not, is it changing or will it change ? ie. Will the galaxy of perspectives become something else ?
Technology and demographics have a huge part in cultural change. It's possible to predict future demographics, which will be more diverse, so that will create even more cultural conflict. We have no way of predicting how technology will change in the future, and thus no way to predict the forms of media we'll consume. Seems likely to remain less centralized though.
3) How would it change ? Will it change towards some kind of equilibrium ?
I expect no equilibrium in the foreseeable future, I expect more cultural conflict as society continues to become more diverse. Different identity groups will continue to jockey for power. Why wouldn't they? People always want to control the narrative.
4) If we can/can't sustain it... how will our mental model for all of this change to accommodate this ? ie. How will we live in a community with no centre ?
Great question. I just think more bubbles will form and deepen, and we'll have to learn to live with that while putting up with our neighbours. Much easier said than done. Multiculturalism is only going to deepen. Multiculturalism means there's no center culture, and it means conflict between cultures is much more likely. Aboriginal Canada, vs anglo Canada vs french Canada...now add more cultures to the mix: Punjabi/Sikh Canada, Chinese Canada, Muslim Canada etc. I'm a Canadian nationalist because I want there to be a "center" culture, not just an "anglo Canada" and a "french Canada". Nothing wrong with having differences, but it's good to have some kind of common culture also to unify us. Trudeau is naive because he wants multiculturalism and a "post-national state", but doesn't understand the dangers inherent in that. He's an idealist. He and many others are hell-bent on eroding much of the common culture Canada has ever had. They want a multi-polar order but also expect unity. That's naive idealism. Quebec is the canary in the coalmine, because they've always rejected multiculturalism.
Home
Contact
Login
Register