In an increasingly interconnected world, traditions that have historically defined cultures — from education systems and philosophies to clothing and food — are being shared, borrowed, and blended worldwide. Modern globalism has brought cultures closer together than ever before, but, in doing so, has also made them harder to distinguish. Therefore, to speak about culture in a meaningful way, we tend to fix it in time: treating it not as the living, evolving entity it is, but as a snapshot of what it once was. This practice, while convenient, is not without fundamental and consequential flaws.
A contemporary example is the booming American skincare market. Heavily inspired by the K-beauty industry, the sector now prioritizes hydration and advanced treatments like microneedling. More broadly, the recent shift from “quick-fixes” such as harsh actives and scrubs to long-term repair and preventative approaches indicates a deeper paradigm shift, rooted in the ancient Korean philosophy of gwallee. In a similar vein, the rebranding of skincare from a daily chore to ritualistic, intentional self-care was recently catapulted by the American skincare industry, but it also reflects the adoption of Korean gwallee. Therefore, to delineate culturally “American” skincare from “Korean” skincare, we must define both by the practices that existed before they heavily influenced each other.
Understanding cultures as “stuck” in a certain time period helps us appreciate their history while lessening the perceived impact of modern foreign influence on our conceptions of different cultures. However, it then becomes nearly impossible to acknowledge sociocultural changes and the way cultures transform over time. Bridging this linguistic gap required a new term: something dynamic, vague, and versatile that could be used to explain all kinds of progressive social change without claiming responsibility for negative effects. That term has been Westernism, and synonymizing Westernism with progressivism has had a large impact on our perception and understanding of comparative and social politics. It tacitly aligns politically Western countries — developed nations characterized by a commitment to liberal democracy and individual rights — with progressive social change, while making other cultures appear permanently regressive and burdensome. This type of language justifies politically Western colonialism and works to discreetly promote interventionism and even imperialism.
For example, the Indian feminist movement began in the early 1900s with highly educated Indian men, who led reform movements against practices such as sati (a widow’s self-immolation on her husband’s grave) and child marriage. These Indian men were partially influenced by British colonization and education, which, ironically, emphasized the concept of equality. The second wave, which revolved around nationalism after Indian independence in 1947, was led by Indian women who had taken time during the war to consider their political place in Indian society. At this time, civic rights were enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Modern Indian feminism is led by a variety of influential women and focuses on issues such as economic inequality and intersectionality. Like earlier phases, it is a decentralized movement that varies across regions and socioeconomic classes. Despite the direct British influence on the first, male-led feminist wave, portraying the modern feminist movement as a result of Western thought strips Indian culture of autonomy and discredits the contributions of Indian people, activists, and theorists over the past two centuries. Modern Indian feminism is very distinct from modern Western feminism and has complex ties to other evolving aspects of Indian culture, such as religious tensions and economic mobility. However, if the already oversimplified notion of “Indian culture” is broadly defined in pre-colonization characteristics, then Western influence is the only explanation for modern feminist progress. This not only inflates the role of British colonialism but also obscures Indian agency. Using this terminology diminishes Indian sovereignty and its own potential for social change, which has implications for our conception of foreign sovereignty and its value as a whole.
Similarly, Singapore’s history as a British colony has resulted in its “East meets West” profile, and is used to explain its blend of capitalist economic values and Confucian cultural values. Together, the combination emphasizes collectivism and limited civil liberties alongside a free-market system, meritocracy, and high social mobility. These cultural reforms mostly took place after Singapore gained sovereignty, and directly resulted from the need for national survival after the country was left with high unemployment, a housing shortage, and a lack of natural resources.
The first ruling party of Singapore emphasized industrialization and an export-oriented economy, along with education to upvalue their human capital. This post-independence survival strategy may have been a vestige of British influence, but its unique interpretation and coexistence with Confucian culture demonstrate how Singaporeans took an active role in selecting and modifying the policies they adopted. Rather than being presented as passive beneficiaries of British influence, as is communicated by the term “Western influence,” Singaporean history should be understood as a model of post-colonial agency and progress.
Conversely, politically Western countries are given more credit for demonstrating this kind of agency when it comes to social progress, even when it comes after a direct push from other nations. For example, after World War II, the Allied powers invested in “de-Nazifying” West Germany, and the initiative was soon passed on to the West German government, which enshrined racial and religious equality in the 1949 German constitution. Although anti-Black racism remains a persistent issue, Germany’s efforts against anti-Semitism, combined with its stable democratic government, have earned it a reputation as a leader of social progress despite the initial push from the Allied powers.
The disparity in how we discuss different cultures is important because our discursive framing affects what we think is possible, and fixing non-Western cultures in certain characteristics stages them as incapable of change. We should consider how the vocabulary we use works to shape our mindsets around power and culture. As the Western world continues to play both direct and indirect roles in the development of foreign nations, it is all the more important to analyze how the rhetorical terms we use affirm or challenge interventionist ideologies.
Featured Image Source: Goway