Leading culture

 

Nobody can choose the cultural environment in which he grows up. And even within one and the same culture we observe considerable differences. Just think on the gap between rich and poor, the different access to education, and the limited career opportunities. Parallel societies are formed from fringe groups. Dissatisfaction with the given situation leads to refugee movements as well as to radicalization, because like in a thunderstorm, the quantity of accumulated energy tends to discharge.

The concern to establish rules in the interest of a functioning state is common to all cultures. Seen in this way, every culture is a "guidelining culture". However, a special accentuation is not needed. And the synonym "Leitbild" recently proposed by Thomas de Maizière is not suitable in so far as it represents a self-chosen target. Models, e.g. those of companies, can be adapted to the respective situation. In cultures one grows up. This is why we speak of rootedness. Leaving the own culture is like a self-denial, because cultures are identity-creating.

Modern society allows to look at different cultures. We can see how other people live and in which environment they grow up. This allows comparisons. Some aspects are related one to another, if not identical like for example bicycling, others seem to be alien or merely different, further observations are realy incompatible.

The greatest differences can be noted concerning the freedom of the individual - the man and the woman - with respect to the degree of subordination and oppression. The paradox: whoever prefers oppression does not want to experience what he expects from others. Which woman has ever circumcised herself? The perpetrators apprechiate the same liberty as their victims - in so far both share the same opinion - but they take for themselves, what they steal others. The justification takes place by self-suggerated superiority: "I have to make the law here." A dangerous model - or should we better say instead: leading culture?

In addition, cultures allow the self-sacrifice. To stand for a truth with one's own life is considered heroic, but the historical retrospect raises questions. How many soldiers have voluntarily gone to war? How many were ideologically incited? What's the relation between the self-immolation of a Tibetan monk in comparision with a suicide attack? With an energetic discharge, we are always faced with a completed fact - realize that neither the perpetrators nor the victims were able to live according tro their own identity - and have only the chance to avoid such catastrophes by insight and clever behavior.

Can the concept of "leading culture" be helpful for this purpose? The context in which Thomas de Maizière recently presented the term makes little hope. Is his proposal - a conglomerate of the ten commandments and the rules of Knigge - "we give ourselves the hand", "we show our face" - able to mark the turning point? And what's about the populist tone? Recently, we have read in the BILD newspaper "We are Pope" and now we read "We are not Burka". In this way, the concept of "leading culture" stands at the edge of demagogy, because it praises a better human being to which one only can belong by sharing the same opinion. History has many such examples.

In the following, the definition of demagogy by Martin Morlock:

„Demagogist is, who, on a favorable occasion, publicly promotes a political goal by flattering the masses, appealing to their feelings, instincts and prejudices, making hisself guilty by agitating and lying, showing truths exaggerated or grossly simplistic by presenting his goal in a way as if it would represent the only possible good-spirit. "

Really intended was a civilization progress involving all human beings - a harmonia mundi - as well as the invitation to integrate this overarching goal into one's own worldview. The love of enemies can only be defended by application, and whoever is standing near the abyss is able to decide for returning. The revival of the discussion about the concept of „leading culture“ should contribute to this.

Recent studies on the Western harmonical system show, how scholars described the bridging to the opposing mind, even to the enemy, 1700 years ago. The generic term is wisdom. Such insights do not need to be re-invented. Wisdom is widespread in many educational levels and many cultures and even far older than christianity. It is crucial to keep it in mind and to exemplify in practice - through economic, scientific and cultural exchange on the same level and through mutual learning from each other. 

Wisdom is recognizable by the degree of integration ability - both in the own as well as in other societies. There is no financial compensation for the effort. That makes it less attractive because it doesn't solve immediate existential problems. Wisdom has to be satisfied with the insight that knowledge of the truth is a value in itself and that without its contribution very little is going on. Volunteer work and numerous donations, which are put into the service of a good cause, provide evidence that this insight exists in many educational levels.

Wisdom includes the skepticism of any strategic approach as well as economic, military and political solo-runs of all kinds, however successful they may be, for wisdom is always interested in the reverse of the coin. Fake news are not of interest.

Another distinguishing feature is the global synergy orientation, eg. it does not content itself with local or national events and does not exclude anything - also not the protection of nature. Wisdom does not repect self made borders. It puts life on the globe equal to life in a closed system in which everything has to be taken into account. For this reason, the western doctrine of harmony is its best didactic explanatory model, since it makes it possible to test on a small scale, which is to have great success. However, if compassion, empathy and wisdom can not be learned, synergy-oriented people will pay the colliery for the life experience strategically oriented people make. In this case, the concept of civilizational progress would remain utopian.