A Global Transition to Neo-Occidental Culture: A Normative Ideal

In case it hasn’t been made clear in previous posts, it should be pointed out now that my views of Neo-Occidental culture it is inherently normative in nature. That most, if no all, cultures around the world will eventually follow the Neo-Occident down the path of the Culture of the Mind, away from the ‘collectivist’ orientated Culture of the Senses. And, depending on your episteme, this change towards a more Neo-Occidental culture may be considered a good thing, or a bad thing. I don’t propose it is either. Not here anyway. It is a very nuanced discussion. But the important point here is that the Neo-Occidental culture, five hundred years young, is the future direction of most cultures around the world. And here’s why; 
 
Let’s start with a bit of history That way we can place Neo-Occidental culture in its appropriate context: 
 
As discussed previously, the Neo-Occident culture has it’s origins in the humanist movement. An important part of this movement was the revolutionary establishment of non-religious educational institutions. What’s important or significant about this, and why do we consider it ‘revolutionary’? Well it facilitated the growth and development fo institutionalized (read; expedited to the masses) specialist knowledge to ‘the next generation’ that wasn’t beholden to the teachings of a hierarchical social order. Nothing was off limits in this scenario. Where previously, one would require self-restraint in observance and respect to the Ecclesiastic order (not to mention God!), now ideas and individuals were the targets of scholastic cannibalism. No holds barred. And it was this, along with technological innovations such as the affordable printing press, that allowed ideas, skills and information began to incubate and intensify. This ultimately culminated in the genesis of skills, ideas and the associated, what we would today call, ‘professions’ that enabled the industrial revolution in England.  
 
So we can see the germ of specialisation in the industrial age. This germ enabled the deepest thinkers, with the ‘best’ ideas, to flourish, socially and economically, in society. And of course, the equality of opportunity in this era was far from ideal, this opportunity to ‘think and grow rich’ was certainly not available to everyone. The common folk were still toiling in the fields, or as it were in the era, in the factories. Or in the mines, to extract resources to feed those factories. However we can see the benefits of technical skills and knowledge beginning to emerge. Those with the specialist knowledge affected the biggest changes in their working environments. Yielding the greatest efficiencies, leading to better industrial security, which leads to greater political and social stability. Which, as discussed in other posts, to a large extent is what the human race, and thereby culture, is intensely preoccupied with – our existential insecurity and angst, and importantly, ways to address it. 
 
The industrial revolution then evolved into what we know today, the information age. Where once again, even more and intensified specialised skills and knowledge garnered even more tangible and longer lasting bulwarks against insecurity and the unknown. This time, unlike it‘s revolutionary industrial predecessor, it yielded far more egalitarian, equality of opportunity orientated , outcomes. Most people were more ‘secure’, and most people enjoyed a reasonable quality of life. And in the utilitarian perspective, this was a great outcome. The social, economic and political (through political stability) of the industrial and information ages are undeniable. And so too is the insecurity associated with the ‘other’ who appears, from one’s own vantage point, to be growing stronger, wealthier, happier… perhaps at the expense of one’s own strength, wealth and happiness. Or at least, that’s the fear. 
 
Because in an information aged economy, specialised knowledge and ideas are most important. Where once upon a time, it might be argued that the economic machine was fuelled by the blood of the workers, now it was theoretical concepts and innovation that served as the seed for significant economic growth. And for every specialist lost to a competing community, is one unit of security that is lost for one’s own community. This occurs in droves in today’s world and is colloquially known as ‘brain drain’, and is arguably a weapon of information age warfare. 
 
But how is this relevant to the postulate that the Culture of the Mind is a normative cultural ideal? Because I hope by now I’ve shown how that existential angst, and fear of the ‘other’ and the unknown, drives communities of people to seek out ways to maximise their security, by whatever culturally appropriate means necessary. This may mean, for example, that in a ’collectivist’ orientated Culture of the Senses, they may seek the means to achieve the best outcomes from the Information age, that fits in and aligns with who they are – a hierarchical, top-down orientated culture. It does not help existential angst and anxiety to throw away your cultural identity (which, as discussed earlier, serves as a bulwark itself against uncertainty and insecurity), in the pursuit of economic security. That is, until they are no longer have a choice. 
 
Because we can see that information age economies, with its emphasis on thoughts, ideas, concepts and rationality, might naturally find more outcome favour in societies that are naturally predisposed to thinking, generating ideas and concepts, and that promotes rationality as a matter of course. A matter of cultural identity. And we can see here, how the culture of the Neo-Occident, the Culture of the Mind, may have some intuitive advantages in this economic epoch. And how, and why, there may be incentive for other cultures to adapt and grow, or resist change and possibly perish. 
 
 We can begin to see how cultures that are, for better or worse, unencumbered by the behavioural obligations of traditional collectivist and conformity orientated Cultures of the Sense. These new cultures are free to delve as deeply into their own minds as necessary, to reimagine the status quo, to grow, adapt and thrive. These are the exact qualities of the Neo-Occident. Individuals in these cultures are ‘more free’ to promote innovation and (positive?) change. They drive development and growth – aided by the cultural norms of their country. What is good for these thinkers, becomes good for their economy. What is good for their economy is good for their societal well-being Or so the train of thought goes. 
 
So what then becomes of the Cultures of the Senses? In a truly globalised economy, there are society-wide risks associated by becoming competitively inert. Most societies recognise this. And which is why there has been earnest discussions about the ‘westernisation’ of the rest of the world. There has been conscious collective movements among countries to do this, then equally there have been conscious collective counter movements to resist it. The nature of their cultural identity is very much becoming increasingly debatable. In itself, this is the very foundations of a humanist movement. 
 
If one thing can be said with some degree of certainty, is that here it can be seen how there is a some degree of pressure or imperative for a culture to evolve. To embrace, incorporate elements of or even assimilate into a Neo-Occidental, Western culture or, in my terms, a Culture of the Mind. Those that do not, risk challenges to their prosperity and to their ability to provide as much financial security to its people. This doesn’t necessarily mean that every Culture of the Senses will, holus bolus, change into a Culture of the Mind, although it is quite possible this will happen, but it means that most cultures will begin to actively incorporate elements of the Culture of Mind into their own. And those that refuse to change, will, while under the auspices of the Information age economy, languish in the doldrums of economic irrelevance. And may, ultimately, perish. 
 
It is arguable that many non-occidental cultures have already embarked on this path. We might see, at first, say for example an Eastern culture will accept the parts of Neo-Occidentalism that are commensurate with the existing culture. Maybe something like ideational bandwagoning, which already happens to some extent. But embracing this element will only go so far in minimising challenges and threats to security as the societies that are completely free to embrace innovation remain  at the vanguard of economic development continue their economic, social and eventually military dominance. It stands to reason that the obvious solution, that in order to thrive, a society must incorporate as much of Western Cultural values as possible. This will, ultimately, come as a result of increasing social and political pressure for increased societal and existential security. Of course, this change may take on an animus of it’s own. The movement may snowball into something that was never originally intended. But that’s precisely how the Occident started too. Brunelleschi didn’t think he was changing the structure of the world with his perspective in art. Nor did his followers or fans. But the seed was planted. And the snowball free to gather momentum. 
 
The important point here is there will be social and political pressures and desires to begin to incorporate more elements of the Culture of the Mind than may have originally been planned, or comfortable doing, to better enhance their own positions. Maybe it will manifest in adopting values such as individual rationality. Or maybe the acknowledgement of the collective need for pluralism and recognition of each and every individuals equality to their sovereign. Incorporating these elements into a ‘collectivist’ culture, will be difficult. And, if successful, will, in all likelihood, fundamentally erode the foundations of the Culture of the Senses, and will begin the 500 year transition to, what we know today, as the Culture of the Mind. Unwittingly initiated and achieved by trying to achieve social, political and economic security. 
 
This is how the Culture of the Mind is a culturally normative. The ideas spread. And snowball. They take on a nature of their own. The intricate relationship between culture and financial security (or economy, in the typical vernacular) will ultimately yield increasing adoption of Neo-Occidental culture. It may take several hundred years to play out, but it will happen. If there was no need for security, it may not. But ultimately, at the heart of most cultures, the need to quell the existential anxiety at our core, drives us for certainty and stability. And this means, in a post-industrial era, embracing post-enlightenment cultural values. The Neo-Occidental culture. 
 
The trajectory towards Neo-Occidental culture as a normative ideal reflects a profound evolution in societal aspirations and adaptations. Rooted in the humanist movement’s embrace of specialized knowledge and rationality, this cultural shift has propelled economies and societies towards unprecedented growth and stability. As global interconnectedness intensifies, cultures face a pivotal choice: to integrate elements of the Culture of the Mind or risk irrelevance in an increasingly information-driven world. This transition, driven by a universal quest for security and progress, underscores the enduring influence of cultural values on economic outcomes and societal well-being, heralding a future where adaptation to Neo-Occidental norms may prove pivotal for survival and prosperity on a global scale.