Orders across Borders:
From difference to diversity
and cross-cutting cleavages.
Paul Drechsel, Mainz
Promotionskolleg ‚FORMATIONS OF THE GLOBAL‘
Welterfahrung – Weltentwürfe – Weltöffentlichkeiten
Universität Mannheim, Philosophische Fakultät
Tagung: (B)ORDERS. Re-Imagining Cultural, Political, and Media Spaces in
A Globalizing World
(Sept 3-4, 2010, Kloster Bronnbach)
Two decades ago I began my yearlong study of the
cultural variety of South Africa. My paradigm
at the beginning was the standard theory of culture.
Cultures as more or less holistic entities. There are
plenty of such cultures, and I was equipped with some
nebulous concepts of intercultural and transcultural
relationships, also of globalization.
I learned very fast that nothing I had studied and lectured
in Germany was suitable to explain the highly segregated
and at the same time highly fluid cultural variety of South
Africa.
The first half year was a hell of participant observation.
Before I was going mad I sat back and studied the history
of this country and its society.
The result was a better order in my brain but not yet a
theory able to explain the confusing cultural reality of
South Africa.
Next I tried to cooperate with social anthropologist at
South African universities, hoping that they would know
what is going on in the field of cultures. To my surprise I
learned that they, too, could not explain their own cultural
reality.
Then I supported a master-project for a student to study and
explain the intercultural relationships of white and black
people (cultures) in a special location where he came from.
To tell the truth, we both learned step by step what was
going on, but at the end he only found a very fragile theory
about ‘cultural switching’, something like we change our Tshirts.
It was clear to us, that South Africans, Black and Whites,
were and still are masters of cultural switching. But what
was this ‘cultural switching’? We could not find a
satisfactory theoretical answer. Then I learned something
from social and cultural geography. I developed a
nationwide study to find out how the people themselves
defined their culture, their cultural locations, and their
cultural relationships.
For that I worked with special questionnaires and GIS:
Geographic
Information
Systems.
After
thorough
empirical research I finally got an impression of what
was going on in this country. I found out that all those
theories about inter- and transcultural relationships and
also inter- and transcultural management were only valid
for developed and highly developed countries in the
global context.
I made the irritating experience that some types of cultures
are not able and their people are not willing to be in some
inter- or transcultural relationships. I made this experience
roughly at the same time when South Africa designed its
democratic constitution. Here, in the domain of modern
democratic politics, I learned how politicians tried to solve
a dangerous problem caused by traditional cultures.
The simple solution proposed by the Constitution was
“No solution”!
What does this mean? The constitution simply fixed a
socio-political reality of completely opposed social and
cultural realities which we call since long time as modern
and traditional societies and cultures.
As a consequence, the democratic Constitution of South
Africa has a democratic and an un-democratic part.
In the one part we find the modern cultures, in the other
part the traditional cultures. It was funny to observe that
this contrariety led to the invention of a third political
chamber for so-called traditional leaders. This system has
worked ever since, but only with the help of some daily
amnesia and with what I define as ‘cultural switching’.
A good example is President Zuma: For example his
modern part is his monogamous life, in Pretoria, Cape
Town or Johannesburg, his traditional part is his
polygamous life in Qua Zulu-Natal.
One might argue that you cannot be both, traditional and
modern, but he is! And he is not the only one; the whole
country is doing the same, and is even outdoing its
President.
Anyway, how can these phenomena be explained by a
comprehensive theory?
From my friend Prof. De Wet Schutte I learned by chance
about the book Spiral Dynamics (1996) written by the
psychologists Don Edward Beck and Christopher C.
Gowan.
Based on experiments of the psychologist Clare W. Graves
they developed a theory about
eight ideal types of psychic dispositions
which are related to
eight ideal types of cultural, social and political structures.
The following figure is similar to the classification
of Durkheim’s mechanic or organic solidarity
or Tönnies’ dichotomy of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
Gemeinschaft
Mechanic Solidarity
Gesellschaft
Organic solidarity
The following presentation rearranges these ideal-types in
another order.
This is the typical model of a linear evolution,
something of a ‘stairway to heaven’.
One day, my friend Prof. Henk Pauw from Nelson
Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth
and I developed this now so-called
Drechsel-Pauw-Curve (DP-curve):
DP-Curve: Eight Ideal types of socio-political systems and cultures
Centralisation
(blue)
(orange)
high
Modern Organisation
Patrimonial organisation
(red)
(green)
Hierarchy
Teamorganisation
Empire
(yellow)
Process organization
(purple)
Tribe
(turquois)
low
(beige)
Band
low
Network organization
Increasing Complexity
high
With this curve I was able to structure the cultural
reality of South Africa. But it was not yet a
comprehensive theory.
I developed a model of the phylogenetical sequence of
these ideal-types of cultures as presented in the following
figure:
Phylogenesis of the eight ideal-types of social structures and cultures
This model of the divers ideal-types of cultures
and societies developed phylogenetically, is not
yet a model of our present days cultural realities.
The following ontogenetic model is more adequate:
Ontogenetic Model of the combined Ideal types of societies and cultures
orange
blue
red
green
yellow
purple
turquoises
I assume it is not easy to grasp the cultural content of
these ideal-types of cultures.
In order to get a better impression I would like to offer
a sequence of cartoons which are self-explaining:
Band Societies
Disposition system 1 – Band
- Centers around satisfaction of biological basic needs
- food-gathering centered
- Form protective and supportive bands driven by emotions, little reasoning
- Little awareness of self as a distinct being
- Minimal impact on or control over environment
© Don Edward Beck 1990
Tribe
Disposition system 2 – Tribal
- Obey mystical spirit beings
- Allegiance to elders, custom, clan
- Preserve sacred places, objects, rituals, seek harmony with nature’s power,
- No separation between politics and religion
- Bond together to endure and find safety driven by collectivism and communalism
- Subsistence living
© Don Edward Beck 1990
Empire
Disposition system 3 – Empire
- A world of haves and have-nots
- Fight remorselessly and without guilt
- Corruption and violence are normal
- elimination of competitors
- survival of the fittest
- Don’t worry about consequences that may not come
© Don Edward Beck 1990
Authority structure-Rational Hierarchy/Theocracy
Disposition system 4 – Authority
- Find meaning and purpose in living
- Enforce principles of righteous living
- Truth provides structure, order and stability
- Control impulsivity and respond to guilt
- Divine plan assigns people to their places
- Subjecting the self to directions of legitimized authority
- Striving for purpose, reason and direction in life
© Don Edward Beck 1990
Modern Democracies/Enterprise structure
Disposition system 5 – Strategic
- The world is full of opportunities
- Absolute ideological standards replaced by pragmatism
- Strive for autonomy and independence
- Progress through searching out the best solutions
- strive to win in competition
- Enhance living through science and technology
- Seek out ‘the good life’ and material abundance
© Don Edward Beck 1990
Postmodern Societies
Disposition system 6 – Team
- Bringing diverse people together, willingness to share common experience (group spirit),
- tolerance of different views, values and life-styles
- Share society’s resources among all
- Reach decisions through consensus
- Tolerate and manage different value-systems
- Continuous change and life-long interest in learning
© Don Edward Beck 1990
Postmodern Cultural Creatives
Disposition system 7 – Process
- Approach issues in a systemic way
- Demands integrative and open systems
- Focus on functionality, competence, flexibility, spontaneity
- Find natural mix of conflicting truths and uncertainties
- Discovering personal freedom without excesses of self-interest
- Experience diversity as a resource
© Don Edward Beck 1990
Type VIII cannot yet be displayed because we cannot yet
imagine it
Disposition system 8 – Network
- Global networking as routine and global order a reality (the art of being local worldwide)
- Make use of the good of all living entities as integrated systems
- Expanded use of human brain/mind tools and competencies
- Blending and harmonizing a strong collective of individuals
- Self is part of larger, conscious whole that also serves self
Regarding the empirical situation in South Africa
the DP-curve of these ideal-types was a better theoretical
model than what I used before. It offered a contrariety
or something like an anti-symmetry regarding cultures.
That was exactly what I was looking for.
This contrariety has been well known from the history
of political systems since the time of the Neolithic.
Now I would like to present a model for the contrary
logic of these ideal-types of cultures based on the
ontogenetic model of the left and right side of the
DP-curve.
By the way I would like to mention that the organization
theory of the St. Gallen Management-theory is also
based on this model.
With the DP-curve and the two illustrations, we have a
better theoretical model. The world of cultures is
distributed along the logic of these two anti-symmetric
relationships.
Real cultural relationships on the left side can for example
be found in Russia, Arabian countries, North Korea, but
also some Latin American and African nations.
Models for cultural relationships on the right side of the
DP-curve can be found in modern democracies.
But there are different kinds of democracy.
Modern democracies differ in how they handle their antisymmetric parts as part of their cultural diversity. For
example in the United States of America everyone must be
an American, other than that he/she can be whatever he/she
likes.
In Germany we know there are some cultural islands of
immigrants which will not fit in with the democratic
structure of the national culture, and some of them are not
willing to adapt culturally to the dominant culture.
In South Africa there is an extreme:
The democratically based constitution guaranties
exclusive separated so-called ‘traditional cultures’,
which are basically un-democratic,
because they are based on communal law
and the rules of hereditary chiefs.
Why is this relevant for cultural relationships?
For an answer let me offer a political model for the
left and the right side of the DP-curve.
The ethnolinguists Penelope Brown and Stephan Levinson
have studied speech-acts in the context of a Politics of
Politeness. (1997)
Apart from some special rhetorical politeness strategies,
which in themselves are very interesting, they developed
a political theory which can be seen as analogous to the
DP-curve:
Hierarchy
High power/low social distance
Low power/low social distance
Anarchy
High power/high social distance
Low power/high social distance
Polyarchy
The quintessence of the left side versus the right side
is low versus high social distance.
Why is this dichotomy relevant?
My answer: It is collectivity versus individuality.
I hope that a simple model will explain it:
Hierarchy based on segmentation and stratification
The triangles are members of societies/cultures. At top is a singular
individual as the ruler. All the others are subjects (underlings) on different levels.
Despite segmentation, stratification and hierarchy the
cultures on the left side of the DP-curve are based on
collectivity, expressed by low social distance.
We know this pattern changed in history.
The inverse model is the following:
Equality based on individuality
Integrated Individualism = democracies
modern Cultures and Societies
The triangles are individual members of societies/cultures.
There is no singular individual at the top as the sigular ruler.
All members are subjects and at the same time rulers.
It is common knowledge that these societies/cultures
are politically based on a Division of Power, Separation
of Church and State, Private Property Rights, Individual
Rights, Freedom of Speech and Belief, Equal Rights,
Free Choice of Mate.
Therefore they appear as cultures or social systems
based on individuality with high social distance!
We can observe the same division between these
structurally different types of societies or cultures
in science.
This is usually hidden by scientific amnesia.
This division is illustrated by the following
DP-curve of Social Sciences
Ideal-Types of Societies, Politics and Cultures in Social Sciences
Hierarchy
Sociology
History
Ethnology
Social anthropology
Prehistory
Anarchy
Sociology/Economic Sciences
Political Sciences etc.
Polyarchy
That is the order of cultures and social systems
according to ‘academia’.
Between Sociology and Ethnology is rarely any exchange
or discussion. They represent two completely different
‘academic realities’ because they refer to completely
different types of cultures and societies!
Why should cultures behave differently from science?
The topic of my speech is
Orders across Borders: From difference to diversity
and cross-cutting cleavages.
How does my presented theory until now fit in with this
topic?
For an answer let me come back to the logic of the DP-
curve: It is evident that the cultures on the left side of the
DP-curve are very ‘different’, compared with those on the
right side.
They are based on fundamental ‘differences’ because they
are based on holistic collectivities! Usually, this is seen
positively.
But ‘difference’ means that they are ‘closed-club’cultures’, and these cultures mutually exclude each others!
They cannot interact in a sense of exchange, because they
are not permeable.
This is it what induces the ‘cultural holism’, preferred by
Social Anthropology and separating it from Sociology.
The cultures of Papua New Guinea would be a good
example of those closed-club cultures. People living in
valleys or on hills are each other’s enemies and partly
speak completely different languages.
People from those cultures, if ever, can only switch
through or over their differences, because there is no in-
between; otherwise there is war.
Well, the cultures on the right side of the DP-curve are all
similar, because they are based on individuality.
Why is this so important?
Because people of these cultures do not first look for holistic
wholes, but on the contrary, if at all, they expect individual
people with different cultural habits.
Culture is for them like a commodity in the market.
I will not deny the relevance of culture for these types of
societies, but it is no longer the transcendental cultural
preorder of the world, but stuff for manipulation and change.
As a consequence these cultures are more flexible and
permeable.
They appear as ‘diversities’, something like open sets,
interchangeable and able to permeate each other.
This can also be studied in South Africa in the interchange
between Afrikaans speaking Whites and English speaking
Whites, as well as in the interchange between Whites and
the new Black and Coloured middle class.
But these interchanges based on diversities cannot be
observed when interrelationships between modern cultures
and traditional cultures are observed. Here an interchange is
impossible, only a brutal switch from one solitary world to
another, where both have nothing to do with each other.
This appears in South Africa in the legal system. For
example for the modern sector the modern Dutch-Roman
law is valid, in the traditional sector the ‘customary law’
and the rule of the chiefs.
But on a higher level, all cultures, despite their possible
dynamics, tend to be conservative. Why is that?
Because
they
are
based
on
standardizations
of
communications, thinking, feeling and actions.
These standardizations generate something of a normative
system; and most important they generate a ‘system as
culture’, which is always something of a closed shop
business.
Therefore, even the most postmodern individuals have
their stable culture, regardless whether they like it or not.
(A commune of postmodern anarchist is nevertheless a
‘commune’!)
And the so called ‘cultural creatives’, our most recent
cultural stuff, behave and act globally as if they were a
cultural type.
But because they belong to ‘open cultures’ they have to
develop some kind of switching-abilities.
These switching-abilities I call ‘cross-cutting cleavages’.
This term was first applied by political scientist in the
United States. It was theoretically developed by Douglas
W. Rae and Michael J. Taylor in their book Analysis of
Political Cleavage (1970)
The problem for this theory was not culture, but
democracy. Rae and Taylor asked why it was possible that
people with very diverse orientations could live peacefully
in democracies despite their cleavages.
Rae and Taylor invented the ‘cross-cuttings’ of a special
kind, namely positive and negative relationships; some
relationships that ‘match’ and some that don’t.
For example, a teacher can be a member of the Catholic
Church, a member of the tennis club in his middle-class
suburb, and also a member of a left party, a member of an
abortionist group, and a supporter of the war in
Afghanistan – why not?
The idea behind this ‘cross-cuttings’ is simply the match
of related and contrary properties. This can easily be
transferred to cultures.
In his work on cultural collectives Klaus P. Hansen
offers an example of a fictitious tennis club at Passau.
Four members from completely different subcultures are
united in one collective or culture called ‘Tennis Club
Passau’.
All their different attitudes and habits are based on
properties of some collectivities, which in turn are based
on the mentioned standardizations, which means
based on cultures.
And they have to cross-cut their cleavages – the matching
and the not-matching, but individually!
Rhetorically seen this task is something like an oxymoron.
We can extend this model of ‘cross-cutting cleavages’
into the global context. It is possible in and with all
cultures that are open for it! This is the condition!
This means it is possible in all cultures which are in one
way or another modernized and individualized. But it is
difficult and nearly impossible with and for people from
so-called traditional cultures. We know this from
experiences, modern societies world-wide have the greatest
problems with people from traditional societies, e.g.
immigrants and refugees.
Differences
Switching
This not-understanding and lack of proper inter- or transrelationships are a danger for the world peace. One could
muse about a remedy.
The logic would be simple and straight: Open these
cultures, that is, modernize them!
But there it is: the resistance of people from traditional
cultures to become modern and future-oriented is backed
by science. Why? Because Social Anthropology, Cultural
Anthropology, and partly also Sociology are trying to
perpetuate these pre-modern types of culture.
After all, traditional pre-modern societies are the object of
their science. Subsequently, most social and cultural
anthropologists defend this traditional living.
Given my knowledge about the reality of South Africa, I
can only warn against such an attitude. Seen as a
commodity, traditional cultures are not bad for tourism, but
seen politically they are very dangerous for democracies.
We should know what we want: Modern democratic
cultures or back to the un-democratic roots in pre-history.
I plead in favor of modern cultures, and therefore for
diversity and cross-cutting cleavages, and not for
differences!
As a consequence, the so-called traditional cultures will be
dissolved.
But one should be aware of what I suggest: A dissolution
of traditional cultures in order to create modern cultures
based on diversities and cross-cutting cleavages of
individuals – and not collectivities!
Thank you very much for your interest