Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
Yeah cosmopolitan isn't necessarily any more or less "authentic" than any other characteristic. People and places change, evolve, and influence one another over time and it's been that way since time immemorial. There's nothing inherently inauthentic about that. People often misuse the concept of authenticity to refer to a snapshot in time to basically say that, "this particular moment represents the truest form or essence of the thing and any change is dilution or corruption of that essence". In reality, no one moment is any more valid or representative than another. There'd be a stronger argument if people or places were forced to change against their will, but most change happens partly or fully because people want the benefits that change brings. And these are very genuine and authentic desires.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket
Except this is exactly what happened throughout nearly all of Southeast Asia.
|
"people or places forced to change against their will" in the past describes a lot of cultures that today we still see as "traditional".
For instance, many European cultures seen today as homogeneously using one language or proudly one nation are byproducts of 19th century nationalism (e.g. replacement of French local languages and dialects by Parisian French).
If you go further back, the fact that for instance, much of the world's languages write in the Latin alphabet is a combination of both imposition of will by military dominance (e.g., the Roman empire, then later western colonization) plus later choices by leaders and groups even without conquest... for instance, Ataturk's choice of changing Turkish from written in an Arabic script to Latin.
At some point, a radical change or replacement of the traditional old ways by modern outside influences just becomes "oh, that's the way we do it now" and then "I don't remember it any other way". The fact that at some point, someone's ancestors was forced into doing things this way or the alternative, that they voluntarily picked it up from outside influences, becomes not very salient. For instance, the whole bunch of French words and French influences that came from the Norman Conquest of England. Or Latin words from the Renaissance. Or even English picking up foreign words from the British Empire. All of these just become part of how we talk, speak or use language and culture without thinking too deeply of its origins. And "changing it back" would be quite difficult. Though things like bringing back Celtic languages or Native American languages, the Jewish diaspora reviving Hebrew has been successful, there are also a lot of other "traditional" cultures and languages that are not coming back.
Today, the world's lingua franca is English and much of the world is picking it up (voluntarily, not by conquest). But non-western cultures are also affecting western cultures too (e.g. popularity of Asian influences in the west). At least this level of cosmopolitanism is based on something other than force, but rather soft power.
Prev
Linear Mode
