In National Histories the More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by markg91359

I would maintain that despite all the troubles this world has faced that there has been a steady march to both democracy and prosperity since the end of World War II.

I read your post and there is much good material there. Still, though, I think that despite the adoption of democratic forms, most of these countries are closer to there old default modes. France is the best example. It keeps veering between monarchic type rule as exemplified by Louis, Napoleon and DeGaulle (as well as the rulers of the late 19th Century and the Dreyfusse era) and the revolutionaries.

[Avondalist]

You are critiquing institutionalism, the school of thought that social and political institutions are the dominant differentiator between differing states and their standards of living. Institutionalism is the consensus view in academe.

I am also a critic of institutionalism, mainly because it is a solution that maps so perfectly onto the toolbox of political scientists. It seems self-serving.

Institutionalism also has major flaws when it discounts cultural and to a lesser extent genetic differences. Genetic differences are a factor, but culture matters more IMO.

Cultural bedrock is very sticky and hard to change. It's hard to even identify, especially from the inside. It's like the fish who doesn't know what water is. However, there have been great cultural changes in the past; they take centuries to come about.

People like to focus on institutionalism because it offers a superficially easy way to effect change. Just change the laws, or bureaucracies, or basic law, and restart the machinery of society. That's much easier to swallow than realizing, for example, that Islam needs a reformation which will be bloody and long.

Cultural innovations like the northwest European family structure or east Asian reverence for education emerged deep in history and still reverberate to today.

Institutionalism has its place, but a good scientist recognizes when a model fails and looks for alternatives. Even if those alternatives challenge the zeitgeist. Cultural influences, genetic influences, geographic influences, even Great Man influences, should not be ignored.

[SunGrins]

I think there are some constants in a nation's history based on class structure, culture, national ethnicity, and religion. Those things are typically stable and not fluid. Change happens slowly in an incremental fashion. When change takes place quickly internally or is imposed from the outside there is often conflict or collapse. The Reformation might be an example. The European discovery of the new world is another catalyst. WW-II and the end of colonialism is another. When several of the steady factors change at once there is accelerated conflict. Centuries ago the perception of threatening change was sometimes initiated or spread by rumors or superstition. Today the internet and popular or mainstream media offer a means of manipulating the popular perception of how things are, or are not, changing. I don't see a great deal of difference over those many years except that today the manipulation seems organized and almost nonstop and will deepen and prolong conflicts when, perhaps, the issues are not worth the heightened concern.

[jbgusa]

Both excellent posts.

Originally Posted by Avondalist

Cultural bedrock is very sticky and hard to change. It's hard to even identify, especially from the inside. It's like the fish who doesn't know what water is. However, there have been great cultural changes in the past; they take centuries to come about.

People like to focus on institutionalism because it offers a superficially easy way to effect change. Just change the laws, or bureaucracies, or basic law, and restart the machinery of society. That's much easier to swallow than realizing, for example, that Islam needs a reformation which will be bloody and long.

Cultural innovations like the northwest European family structure or east Asian reverence for education emerged deep in history and still reverberate to today.

Institutionalism has its place, but a good scientist recognizes when a model fails and looks for alternatives. Even if those alternatives challenge the zeitgeist. Cultural influences, genetic influences, geographic influences, even Great Man influences, should not be ignored.

I agree that institutionalism does not change much. An example is Japan. The imposition of democratic forms by General MacArthur did improve things. Japan is no longer a lethal threat to world peace. But it is nor truly democratic. The Liberal Democratic Party has a hammerlock on political and economic life. Even occasional opposition interludes don't reach much deeper than the top leadership.

"Cultural bedrock" explains a lot more. It explains the Jewish and Asian reverence for education, and both of their adoption of the "northwest European family structure" in both East Asia and in the Jewish religion. The two naturally go together. Whether it's genetic or not I'll leave to people like Dr. Shockley and people who were opposed to him. It is probably one of many factors. For the impact of revolutionary developments see below.

Originally Posted by SunGrins

I think there are some constants in a nation's history based on class structure, culture, national ethnicity, and religion. Those things are typically stable and not fluid. Change happens slowly in an incremental fashion. When change takes place quickly internally or is imposed from the outside there is often conflict or collapse. The Reformation might be an example. The European discovery of the new world is another catalyst. WW-II and the end of colonialism is another. When several of the steady factors change at once there is accelerated conflict. Centuries ago the perception of threatening change was sometimes initiated or spread by rumors or superstition. Today the internet and popular or mainstream media offer a means of manipulating the popular perception of how things are, or are not, changing. I don't see a great deal of difference over those many years except that today the manipulation seems organized and almost nonstop and will deepen and prolong conflicts when, perhaps, the issues are not worth the heightened concern.

For this portion of my post I will focus on the highlighted section. It have Europeans who wanted to break the stagnation and class consciousness a ready alternative. That is why I get very upset when some American "thinkers" and "leaders" look up to Europe.

That is to be expected since Europe gives rise to most, but not all culture and art. American composers such as Aaron Copeland and Charles Ives take a far back seat to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Stravinsky (who did flee to the U.S.). The U.S. can take advantage of the artistry without adopting European norms. After all there was a massive emigration from Europe to the U.S. almost as soon as the U.S. became truly accessible with the development of speedy and reliable ocean travel. The emigration was overwhelmingly of the smarter and more dynamic people. This caused positive changes in the U.S. and Canada and negative changes in the countries losing their best and brightest. This may well have accelerated the dive into world war and lunacy. Europe's avoidance of a repeat performance has only been due to the "wet blanket" of U.S. occupation, under the guise of NATO.

The U.S. does not have the mercantilist tradition that Europe does. That is why Covid lockdowns and the Paris Climate Accords meet far more resistance here.