Understanding Cultural Identities Beyond State Boundaries

When talking about cultures, its rarely useful to talk in terms of states or ‘countries’. Most countries will have a number of substantial cultures. And I’m not talking about ‘sub-cultures’, but broad, large scale cultures that a significant portion of the state population will subscribe to.

This is true most of non-peace of Westphalia countries, where in Europe, where the concept of the state originated. However it’s also true for even many European countries too. Think of the Basque region of modern day Spain. Northern and Southern Italians. Scots, the English and Welsh. Some Western theorists have suggested that the concept or notion of a ‘state’ is a wholeheartedly unnatural and artificial creation. A concept that does not come ‘naturally’ to humanity (keep this concept of ‘natural’ in mind for future posts – its an important post-enlightenment guiding principle). We in the west have grown up with maps with certain bureaucratic boundaries emblazoned on them. We generally take them as a norm. But, to some at least, they’re definitely not.

This is even more true for non-occidental countries. Think of China, where the Yangtze river divides two peoples of very different cultural identities – one fair skinned, tall, eating a diet incorporating a lot of wheat and speaking one language against the other, darker skinned, shorter in stature, eating a diet principally of rice and speaking a number of different dialects. IF I was to make this description to you about any two peoples, you’d probably, rightly in my opinion, guess that they were two very different cultures. But on a map, and in the common vernacular, they’re not. But the only ‘thing’ keeping these two cultures together is a shared Government, and State boundaries.

I’ve used China as an example here, but there are countless others. Sudan. India. Myanmar. Canada etc etc. And the fact is that most people, societies or cultures, at least in the 21st century, do not actively think in terms of a national identity, but usually an ethnic, religious or lingual one – which, often, loosely feeds into a state cultural identity.

This concept of a ‘state’ is a very western conception as well. So in thinking in culturally neutral terms, it’s not exactly fair to analyse, for example the China who have historically thought in terms of concentric circles of influence, by rough/hard boundaries. Heck, even today, you can see China has ‘border disputes’ (a very culturally western way of analysing the situation) with many of its neighbours. But in the Chinese tradition, this is nothing particularly new. They have always viewed the ‘outter reaches’ of their Middle Kingdom as being somewhat amorphous, having been forced to think in terms of hard state lines by an ascendant west.

What people usually refer to when they’re talking about a ‘state’ culture, is a national culture. A nation can, and often is, very different to a state. As an example, you might say the UK is a state of nations. The nations being Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. The State being Britain or the United Kingdom. Speaking in terms of national culture is ok, and probably even appropriate. However it’s important to understand that the pure overlay of national boundaries, with state boundaries is a rarity. In such circumstances, we call that a ‘nation state’. But they’re arguably not that common.

Further to the above, there is a mixed bag of states known as ‘settler states’. There are four of them in the world; New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the United States. The cultural identity of settler states, and how they differ from their occidental parents, and indigenous heritage is…. a difficult topic. Not necessarily because it is filled with social or cultural injustice (and it may be), but more because these states are so ‘new’ on the cultural landscape, it’s hard to even gauge what their cultural identity even is. It is, along with all developing Cultures of the Mind, very much in the throws of evolution. However, very different to their primarily European histories, the settler states have indigenous cultural identities and histories to navigate. How these states manage to achieve this, or if they consider it a worthwhile consideration at all, is another topic entirely.

Suffice to say – thinking in terms of “state” culture is rarely a good idea. There is a time and place to think in terms of ‘states’. But it’s rarely in the field of meaningful cultural analysis. It is feasible to think in terms of ‘state culture’ however it’s such a glib and blunt instrument, it’s barely worth the effort.