Modernity is West-Centric: Response to Daniel Pipes
Friday, 13. November 2009 - 3:05 AM
Introduction
Thanks to Barbar Indian for inspiring this post.
Daniel Pipes, in an old article on modernization, asserts that you don’t really need to Westernize in order to modernize. The article is notable for the fact that he has not clearly defined the two very terms that are central to his thesis: Modernization and Westernization. Much of the piece is a comparative analysis–an excellent one–of how the Muslim world simply cannot modernize and how Japan took the best of the West, adapted it in its own culture, and has yet successfully preserved its ancient traditions.
Daniel Pipes bases his entire article on the premise of Western (mostly classical) music to demonstrate the validity of this comparison as well as to prove his point about modernization.
It is possible to modernize without Westernizing? This is the dream of despots around the world. Leaders as diverse as Mao on the Left and Khomeini on the Right seek a high-growth economy and a powerful military — without the pesky distractions of democracy, the rule of law, and the whole notion of the pursuit of happiness. They welcome American medical and military technology but reject its political philosophy or popular culture. Technology shorn of cultural baggage is their ideal.
Sadly for them, fully reaping the benefits of Western creativity requires an immersion into the Western culture that produced it. Modernity does not exist by itself, but is inextricably attached to its makers. High rates of economic growth depend not just on the right tax laws, but on a population versed in the basics of punctuality, the work ethic, and delayed gratification. The flight team for an advanced jet bomber cannot be plucked out of a village but needs to be steeped into an entire worldview. Political stability requires a sense of responsibility that only civil society can inculcate. And so forth.
Western music proves this point with special clarity, precisely because it is so irrelevant to modernization. Playing the Kreuzer Sonata adds nothing to one’s GDP; enjoying an operetta does not enhance one’s force projection. And yet, to be fully modern means mastering Western music; competence at Western music, in fact, closely parallels a country’s wealth and power, as the experiences of two civilizations, Muslim and Japanese, show. Muslim reluctance to accept Western music foreshadows a general difficulty with modernity; Japanese mastery of every style from classical to jazz help explain everything from a strong yen to institutional stability.
A glaring problem I see in this premise is an assumption that "Western culture" is superior to the rest. By admitting that it is possible to modernize without Westernizing, Pipes also injects a bit of confusion. The fact that he uses Japan as an example to prove this precise point about modernizing without Westernizing is also quite telling because he asserts that the Japanese have deeply and successfully imbibed Western music without detriment to or loss of their ancient musical and cultural tradition.
History
The discourse on modernity/modernization is inseparable from Westernization. Modernization, typically characterized by free speech, rule of law, respect for democratic institutions, science, technology, rational inquiry, and the work ethic, which Pipes mentions, germinated, grew, and continues to be the defining factors of contemporary Western culture. Several of these ideas spread throughout the world initially by colonization and later by rapid advances in transport and communications technology. A lot of the ex-colonies today run their countries based on one or the other form of these (social and political) ideas. In other words, the Western discourse is the dominant discourse throughout pretty much of the world today. Pipes’ essay words this message differently.
…fully reaping the benefits of Western creativity requires an immersion into the Western culture that produced it. Modernity does not exist by itself, but is inextricably attached to its makers.
Even a casual reading of (world) history, sociology, and anthropology authored by Western scholars from the mid-19th Century onwards reveals copious use of the word primitive to mostly refer to and describe ancient non-European societies. The overtone of superiority unmistakable in these writings, persists in a subtler form even now: also known as Eurocentricism. However, the root of this “superiority complex” lies in Europe’s innovations in military technology. Rapid scientific and technological advancement led to Europe conquering the rest of the world with astonishing success, starting with the post-Renaissance period. An “immersion into the Western culture” also involves knowing at least this bit of history.
Music as a Yardstick
Because modernization is so prevalent today doesn’t mean it is good, or is the only way to define culture. Nor is it a high mark of measuring a country/civilization’s wealth, prestige and power—mastering Western music included. One of the pillars of modernization, especially the American variant is unbridled materialism as an end in itself. Over time, pursuit of happiness became synonymous with pursuit of money perhaps because America took one of the foundational definitions of the pursuit of happiness to an extreme. At the very basics, this phrase was defined as the freedom to legally practice one’s vocation and earn money without infringing on others’ rights and freedoms. Pushing this definition to the extreme has given us the happiness=money equation. As related reading, I highly recommend Alain De Botton’s excellent Status Anxiety. This equation, in large part also constitutes modernity. This is not to argue that material prosperity is bad but wealth as an end in itself is not merely bad, but a great sapper of creativity and what used to be called refinement, taste, and subtlety.
A mindless pursuit of money destroys our capacity for feeling. History shows us abundant examples of a different way of life, rich both in material prosperity and high culture. Ananda Coomaraswamy’s words, written more than seven decades ago sound very prophetic and timeless.
The art music of the present day [India] is a direct descendant of . ancient schools… as in other arts and in life, so here also India presents to us the wonderful spectacle of the still surviving consciousness of the ancient world, with a range of emotional experience rarely accessible to those who are preoccupied with the activities of over-production, and intimidated by the economic insecurity of a social order based on competition. [Indian Music: Ananda Coomaraswamy, Dance of Shiva]
In just one line, he makes a powerful case against unrestrained materialism and in favour of getting (back) in touch with our emotional experiences. In the same essay, he explains what makes such a range of emotional experience possible to Indian music.
.Indian music is essentially impersonal: it reflects an emotion and an experience which are deeper and wider and older than the emotion or wisdom of any single individual. Its sorrow is without tears, its joy without exultation, and it is passionate without any loss of serenity.
In other words, Indian music stresses on the importance of surrendering individual ego in exchange for attaining a sense of emotional balance. This is rarely achievable in a purely materialistic culture, which emphasizes staunch individualism.
Which is why I find it interesting that Pipes asserts that Western music is “irrelevant to modernization” and says in the same breath that mastery of Western music “closely parallels” a culture/country’s wealth and power and prestige! The difference in the Indian experience cannot be starker. Indian classical music is best enjoyed when it is performed by a solo artist (the instrumental accompaniments are mere embellishments) because it does several things at the same time. It is restrained without restraining the creativity of the artist. Realistically, there’s no limit for “exhausting” the scope and possibilities of a Raga. The artist’s only preparation is his/her training in the basics of pitch, voice, and notes. Lyric is only incidental. In contrast, Western classical music is constrained: the artist has to work within the framework of musical notations. To fully appreciate this, I recommend listening to an alaap (expansion) of a raga and then a piece of Western classical music followed by listening to an alaap of the same raga by another artist.
But there’s actually a simpler explanation. In any age, lesser/smaller/weaker/less influential civilizations tend to imitate and/or imbibe the literature, art, drama, and music of their more powerful peers. And so instead of choosing Japan, Pipes could’ve equally chosen urban India where Western music rules. Bollywood is a good illustration. I suspect there’s hardly any music director today with solid grounding in Indian classical music. Isn’t that an indication that India has modernized?
As for Islam’s discomfort with music, the reason, more, is scriptural than anything else. And it is not just limited to music but pretty much everything. You really can’t talk sense to someone who insists on living in the 7th Century forever. And thus, the stifling restrictions on music imposed back then are equally valid even now. It is no wonder that there is a near-total lack of the classical element in Islamic music.
Closing Notes
The idea that one culture must essentially “immerse” itself in another culture to attain some status or tag—modernity in this case—is to say the least, juvenile, and stems again, from a presumed notion of superiority. Here’s what Pipes says in his conclusion:
…as [Bernard] Lewis observes, "Music, like science, is part of the inner citadel of Western culture, one of the final secrets to which the newcomer must penetrate." Music represents the challenge of modernity: competence in this arena implies an ability to deal with whatever else the West might serve up. Muslim resistance to accepting music from the West represents its larger unwillingness, whereas the Japanese have truly entered the inner citadel. In short, whoever would flourish must play Beethoven as well as Westerners do.
What prevents us from turning around and asking the same question to the West? It’s simply because the power that the West currently—predominantly the US—enjoys affords it the luxury to not care about what the East might serve up. When it pinches them to the extent that they feel pain, they will turn to the East. The economic/IT outsourcing story is a classic case in point. Pipes makes a point about the absolute lack of Muslims who have made a significant mark in Western music. Apart from a John Higgins (who died in 1984), I’m unable to name just one other Westerner who equaled—or came close to—his accomplishment in Indian classical music. How are the two phenomena different?
Should India follow Japan’s example? Yes, to the extent that it serves to wake us up to the genius of our own classical music, which is something the West can never dream of conceptualizing. But mostly no because everything about India is about celebrating diversity while Japan is mostly a homogenous society and culture.
Cultural exchanges happen due to various factors. The currently-dominant Western model as we’ve seen, is the result of colonization. However, the Indian experience shows that peaceful cultural exchanges based on mutual trust and respect are far richer, more rewarding, and longer-lasting. In peaceful cultural exchanges, values—not merely ideas and theories—are transmitted and shared. The spread of Hindu epics and indeed, an entire culture and way of life to South East Asia is a little more than a footnote in today’s world history. This cultural exchange helped to both refine and redefine that region. The social, folk, and religious traditions of South East Asian countries to this day owe their existence to their cultural intercourse with India. It is no accident that several S.E. Asian countries celebrate their new year in April, according to the Tamil Hindu calendar thanks to the influence of the Pallava dynasty that flourished in the 7th Century. The puppet shows in Malaysia are based on incidents from the Ramayana. Plenty of similar instances exist.
In the end, it is definitely wise to take the best from all cultures. To argue that the West is the best—because of its current prestige and reach—is puerile.
13. November 2009 - 6:50 AM
Great commentary Sandeep.
Is there not a tension between giving up a part of self for greater emotional contentment AND the multitude conceptions of the divine, and immense respect for diversity which only work to accommodate individualism?
Also I know we are on cultural criticism, but thought I;d raise the question anyway. Do you think it wise to enforce an ethic against materialism by law, say by punitive taxes to discourage risk-taking and immense wealth creation?
Material wealth can be used to fulfil anything one desires to use it for. I’m afraid you might’ve fallen for the Marxist/Leftist critique of Western/American culture decrying “materialism.” Surveys of most entrepreneurs routinely show that money is not the top reason for their endeavour. (Yeah they could be lying) Isn’t it also true that Americans give the most in charity per capita and also in absolute numbers than the rest of the world? I think swallowing the Marxist critique of “crass American materialism” should not be done so lightly or unthinkingly. Great material wealth whether by status competition, or greed has tremendous externalities for other people who do not care about money.
13. November 2009 - 7:59 AM
I think that Daniel Pipes means to say that to be able to understand Western classical music is to be emersed in the aesthetic sensibility that produced it–and music being the most abstract and difficult of the arts (I do not mean what is today passes for music which sounds more like noise) entails an appreciation of Western culture. Its not just the Japanese who appreciate Western music–I recall that the best violonists in school were the kids who had come to America to study from Hong Kong.
I love Western classical music–I listen to Indian classical as well–but cannot imagine not growing up listening to Bach, Beetoven, Brahms and all the rest…
I mean how many Indian really understand Western culture in depth? For that you need a knowledge of Greek, Latin, and some modern languages like German and French, and a sound knowledge of all aspects of the intellectual history of the West. Many Westerners also do not understand their culture in depth but are chauvinistic about the “Western” achievements–just like Indians also who think India remains the best despite all the modern problems. Its a two way affair.
Its sad that India takes the lowest forms of Western music and imitates it in Bollywood which is a industry I despise.
Appreciation of genuine culture can only enrich–does’nt matter where it comes from–
13. November 2009 - 8:01 AM
I meant to say “immersed”–
13. November 2009 - 8:04 AM
As for the Japanese they are a nation, not a civilization. Makes all the difference–so can’t really compare to India and China.
13. November 2009 - 8:17 AM
Also I believe that contact between the East and West would have been harmonious if the desert monotheisms had not come about–I believe many Western scholars are correct when they associate racism with Christianity–Hindus culture has a great deal in common with the Greeks and Romans (although Hindus don’t like to think so and this is not to say one is inferior and the other superior) in terms of the pagan pre-Christian way of thinking and with regard to the heirarchies in society –if you look at the Hellenic Buddhist culture that arose in Afghanistan after the coming of Alexander–you see that it was a harmonious interaction culturally–it was destroyed by barbarians and Afghanistan was as a whole destroyed again much later and replaced with a different stock of people after the Islamic conquests of the area–which is why today it is a civilizational wasteland…
13. November 2009 - 9:16 AM
Sandeep,
>>You really can’t talk sense to someone who insists on living in the 7th Century forever.
Sorry for the small deviation from main topic, but I don’t think there anything about 7th century in ISLAM, off course it had some influence from local culture of its time but, ISLAM is mostly product of human psychology an individual or that of small group,and precisely thats exactly the reason why its is extremely conservative in nature.
Its an interesting study to find out what nature of human psychology invented ISLAM.
Thanks for nice article.
13. November 2009 - 12:04 PM
Good aticle Sandeep, as usual.
When a reporter asked Gandhi about his opinion on Western culture, he apparently replied” It is a good idea”! The only thing I agree with Gandhi!
13. November 2009 - 4:04 PM
Rama,
If you agree with Gandhi on this. Why wouldn’t you agree on his analysis of Hindu as fighters.
13. November 2009 - 5:02 PM
Music is music…It is extremely difficult to argue one form of music is better than the other. Only ignorant would do that. Even Rappers get due respect these days, regardless of what the elite may think. The nuances of carnatic and its subtelty is as good as grand sound produced by a symphony orchestra. The soul of hindustani music is same as anything else. Music changes.. like everything else. African beats are as good as voilin solos. Pipes should have used a better example. Yes, we should be proud of our music. Beethovan is great, so is our Purandaradasar. we have a ms subbu lakshmi for susan boyle. if grand symphony orchestra gives goose bumps to some people, so does a great rendition of vande mataram to others. it is the experience that counts, not the clothes of performers nor the setting.
13. November 2009 - 5:49 PM
I do not think any music is good as another. But I realize that there are different forms of music that appeal to different states of the psyche. Pop music appeals to something immediate and carnal and dies out as the fashion of the times changes. Jazz music is something you want to listen in the background or in the elevator. But great music does not die as with great art, and its appeal lasts trhough the ages. Moreover, the dominant music of the times is just a reflection of the culture of the age. Of course one can argue that one form of music is better than another–just as one can argue that a real work of literature is on a higher plane than a book written to be a bestseller. The notion that all art is on same level is absurd. Rather differnt forms of music fulfill different functions.
14. November 2009 - 4:23 AM
Sandeep, good article. Keep it up!!!
14. November 2009 - 5:06 PM
Sorry for the small deviation from main topic, but I don’t think there anything about 7th century in ISLAM, off course it had some influence from local culture of its time but, ISLAM is mostly product of human psychology an individual or that of small group,and precisely thats exactly the reason why its is extremely conservative in nature.
What is 7th centruy about Islam is its wholesale rejection of modernity. What props up most Mid-East dictatorships is their oil and natural gas wealth.
“Its an interesting study to find out what nature of human psychology invented ISLAM.”
Its not too difficult. The Messianic cults which use religion for rebellion finds expression in Roman times against Roman authority. Which is why Romans fed rebellious Christians to the lions in the gladitorial arena for rebellion against Roman rule–has nothing to do with their “persecution” of Christians–this is just the Christian side of the story. The Romans were quite tolerant of religion as long as people submitted to them and paid their taxes. The messianic impulse again continued from the old testament times to the times of Mohammed when he cleverly used Islam to unite the bedouin tribes. In the Mid-East, people have tied religion to political rebellion since the time of Moses. A very different concept of religion existed for the Greeks and Romans–religion was for them tied to a culture, a heritage, a place, and to blood and to a certain heirarchical structure of society which was grounded in a certian metaphysical standpoint as regards reality. The same with Hindus. All these people were open to new influences in religion–hence the variety of cults and ideas.
So to understand the Islamic mentality you have to understand Mid-East faiths which insist on a sole monopoly on the truth. It is easy to see how racism arises when a people mix such religions for political purposes. In the ancient world people mostly fought over land and territory, not for religion.
The Messianic mentality continues in modern day Kashmir where people rebel against the Indian state. When the Indian state tries to maintain order, it is seen as persecuting Muslims. Nothing can be far from the truth.
14. November 2009 - 5:54 PM
(continued)
Islam might have been good for bedouin tribals–taught them to bathe and be clean. I grant that–it may have been an improvement for the locals in the primitive areas where it arose and might have given the people something. Hoever, the problem with the Mid-East cults is that they try to impose their beliefs on others–even to cultures which have historically been far superior culturally to the Mid-east desert areas where these cults arose. This is the problem. One just has to take a look at Kashmir–before and after Islam to see the big difference.
The Romans were opposed to Christianity because it was not Roman. And rightly so.
15. November 2009 - 1:09 PM
Dear Sandeep,
A few thoughts I had while going through your article:
a. The modernization of Japan which was accompanied by it’s westernization (which Dr. Pipes considers essential and praises) has taken it’s toll. The modern Japanese youth, with all it’s punk culture and trash pop craze, hardly have a connection with their ancient culture. The nobility of it’s Samurai tradition is all but lost and what they’ve been replaced by it’s harried and weary salaryman. I believe one of their writers (Yukio Mishima) even committed Seppuku (ritual suicide) over this issue (you may have to check details).
b. Any judgement on the superiority and inferiority of music (or of any cultural art form) can’t be final. That being said, I think one has to see what level of consciousness the music is trying to bring to the listener. Is it trying to drag you down to sensuality and making you feel good about it (like majority of the Ghazals) or is it trying to uplift you into something large, grand, wide.
16. November 2009 - 1:32 PM
Good one Sandeep.. After the dreariness of the day.. your blog serves to re-ignite the pride of the motherland in me.. It reminds me of a reason to live for..
17. November 2009 - 4:45 AM
Ananda Coomaraswamy>>>”Indian music is essentially impersonal: it reflects an emotion and an experience which are deeper and wider and older than the emotion or wisdom of any single individual”
Is it not applicable to many other things about india, including its spiritual philosophy, which is about transcending identification with nama-rupa. Indian music, dance, sculpture, science, philosophy, all products of bharatiya samskriti, reflects this underpinning facet of bharatiyata, of considering person as part of the universe- universalizing the person while the westerm mind tends to personalize the universe.
This fundamental aspect- of how a person is a product, moulded during his upbringing by his parents, guru, and later by the wider world, -inspires the place of respect given to parents, guru, anscestors, in fact the entire universe, in bharatiya parampara .
This leads to two questions –
1. Is such a (impersonalizing) bharatiya samskriti compatabile with the personalizing western outlook ?
2. When we seek to find solutions to ills that besets society, should we consider them only in the framework provided by westerm worldview- that of personalizing the problem, identifying one person as the cause and denouncing him/her ?
Or should we consider the problems with a bharatiya darshana- understanding the problem as having wider causes for its genesis, as a product of various influences acting in sequence leading up to the result, recognizing a purpose to it as well, and its solution being to consider all such influencing aspects also.
The answer to the first question has significant impact on the second.
And both may have wide import for india and its future. and also for the world itself.
dhanyavaad
17. November 2009 - 7:53 PM
Well argued analysis.
Let us just say Modernization first came about in the West. Then the rest came to be modernized, or are in the process of being modernized, in two ways:
1. Elements of modern culture spread from the West to the rest through several channels, colonialism for example.
2. Elements of modern culture are independently invented by different cultures. Let’s take India: political inventions like zero hour, scientific and technological achievements like the discovery of water on the moon by Chandrayaan (well… whatever our contribution), advances in medicine (like Jaipur foot), nanotechnology, biotechnology – just a few examples.
Therefore, in non-Western cultures, Modernization is a two-pronged process.
In Western cultures, Modernization continues to occur. A majority of it is of Western origin. However, a minor but increasing contribution comes from non-Western cultures. Take for example the importance of stem cells research in South Korea to Western researchers in the same field, or joint collaboration by ISRO and NASA in conducting a bi-static radar experiment over the moon.
We can see Modernization is a very complex process. Western analysts must avoid oversimplifying Modernization as blind copying of Western culture. On the other hand, analysts from non-Western cultures must acknowledge the contribution of the West to Modernization.
18. November 2009 - 2:36 AM
My view of it is that Modernity somewhat compares with contemporariness of the time, that homogenous culture which everybody can agree upon. The modernity of the 25th century would certainly be different from that of today. For them, we would be ancients.
How can somebody consider contemporariness akin to Western culture? Therein the bile is exposed. It is a generic term and all cultures have equal right. If we imagine a Venn diagram, modernity should only be the intersection points of all cultures. West can only be considered to be a part of it.
Just my two cents..
19. November 2009 - 10:41 AM
Kalidas
Are you saying that we can’t make any judgments comparing cultures? Are you sure? Would you say sub-saharan African tribal cultures are ‘modest’?
Would you say that Islamic culture is ‘as good’ as Western culture?
Think hard.
19. November 2009 - 10:41 AM
modern** not modest
20. November 2009 - 6:16 PM
@ Contemplationist..
I’m talking about intersection points of cultures.. Modernity should be an intersection set of contemporary cultures… there can be many elements of a culture that are not included in the ‘modern’ culture.
27. November 2009 - 12:04 PM
Sandeep
Nice one! My view on this is that the concept of “modernization means westernization” came into being as a seed sowed by the Brits and the Americans in the so called “backward” continents an countries. Flagged by the media then they became inseperable. Recently someone forwarded me an email with a scanned copy of a 1940s document of the Brits which said that ..”in order to destroy India we need to destroy her culture” – and they have systematically been doing this since then. Creation of hatred for whats your own and development of fascination for what is western….thus destabilizing our roots and heritage completely. And even after freedom this continues through their sponsors – the Indian media which in fact is no longer Indian in most cases.
Take even the example of Bollywood. Notice how in most movies they will show a temple in the context of a weak, economically backward, suffering individual whereas a Church will be shown in context of “modern” , “youthful” college crowd. Notice how it starts from a simple birthday celebration with cakes and candles to out clothes, our daily language… How many people today speak unadulterated vernacular languages? But you can count on many that would speak unadulterated English – better than even the English! Our way of life has been manipulated by MNCs and Media and both of these are sponsored agents of the West. Hence this close association of “modernism” and “westernism”!