16422. (Eric L. Jones) Cultures Merging ― A Historical and Economic Critique of Culture

Cul­ture” is a slip­pery con­cept, used in many dif­fer­ent ways by his­to­ri­ans, anthro­pol­o­gists and econ­o­mists. Jones’ book is more a sur­vey than the cri­tique implied by the title, but it is an extreme­ly use­ful and well-pre­sent­ed sur­vey. I pre­fer this, since it is best to start off with some idea of who has thought and said what about the sub­ject before plung­ing into debates. Pre­sump­tions about cul­ture, espe­cially about whether it deter­mines how peo­ple act eco­nom­i­cally, or mere­ly shapes itself on the basis of how peo­ple must act eco­nom­i­cally, under­lie all sorts of the­o­ries and descrip­tions in the three fields. Usu­ally these pre­sump­tions are shared by some group of thinkers with­out them being explic­itly stat­ed. Argu­ments between dif­fer­ent groups, with dif­fer­ent pre­sump­tions, usu­ally result in con­fu­sion. But a num­ber of works, in all three dis­ci­plines, either illus­trate or make explic­it par­tic­u­lar ideas of culture’s rela­tion to behav­iour and economies. Schol­ars have tak­en their cues from these sem­i­nal works, and pol­i­cy-mak­ers adhered to any of sev­eral con­tra­dic­tory atti­tudes gen­er­ated by them. Some have been down­right sil­ly (such as “the end of his­tory” and “clash of civ­i­liza­tions” tom-fool­ery). Jones presents most of them fair­ly dis­pas­sion­ately, but he is obvi­ously impa­tient with the stu­pider ones, and does not hide it. Of spe­cial inter­est to me is his sen­si­ble dis­cus­sion of the “Asian Val­ues” mys­tique, pro­moted by many East Asian econ­o­mists and politi­cians, and often uncrit­i­cally accept­ed else­where. (He cites Steve Muhlberg­er and myself in this dis­cus­sion, so I could hard­ly fail to find it inter­est­ing.) On the whole, Jones gets the horse in front of the cart rather than the oth­er way round. He plumps for com­mon-sense cau­sa­tion when it is pos­si­ble, and holds back his con­clu­sions when cau­sa­tion can­not be dis­cerned, rather than appeal to enig­matic col­lec­tive properties.

Leave a Comment