Surviving in a cultural spiral

The good and the ugly

There are many ways to survive, even in times of unsettling turbulence. One way is to sublimate, to aim at height uncharted, to detach from the hustles. Yes, astronomy, or better still cosmology. But what a demanding and lonely option! A more homely possibility seems to be religion. Pantheism a là Greece and China with a Supremo ruling somewhat imperfectly over a group of very colourful supernatural figures is arguably more soul cleansing and inspiring than a monolithic and institutional set of beliefs advocating absolute divine preference for an obviously flawed specie such as mankind---something for which my appreciation shrinks the moment I raise my eyes towards the clear night sky. I hasten to add that pantheism is not much more credible, but that might miss the point.

Alternatively, look for the other extreme. Try to reach the fathom of human ugliness, which could be quite surprising. I don’t mean selling your soul to the Devil, like Faust did. Most of us don't even stand a chance because the Devil wouldn’t be interested in our mess of underdeveloped brain tissues---or what’s supposed to be behind (below?) it. Nor do I suggest that one should blow up innocent civilians, be a serial killer, or clinch power as a military dictator---I doubt how many would “survive” in one piece themselves in the process. Remember, I’m talking about survival in a nasty era.

But you don’t have to be really ugly to salvage your half ruined life. Rob a bank and disappear as quickly as possible. Or if you think the risk is too high for your liking, perhaps something less stressful: spit onto the pavement when nobody or only a grandfather notices. Better still, when many are watching, but you know damn well that they could do nothing, stare at them and smile. The latter addendum is optional; skip it if you got enough satisfaction already.

Not recommending them

Don’t be mistaken. I am not recommending those obnoxious forms of behaviour. Not at all! I guess my own upbringing and education preclude me from acting in such manners except in situations of utter confusion or totally unwarranted provocation (and I couldn’t recall any precedent in my life so far). More probably, I would suffer serious health problems if the pressure builds up to unbearable levels. That might be a weakness in my character, but I have little regret about it.

So what am I talking about? Well, I'm just saying: being nasty is a way of surviving a difficult life; and many are adopting it as a tactic, or internalising it as a defense mechanism. The trouble is that one person’s nastiness would tend to incite similar response from others, as they find little or no recourse against it.

Culture: a mystery

This brings us to the importance of culture. While economics does matter, only the most orthodox Marxists would regard it as a superstructure “determined” by the economic base. It also interacts with formal institutions, regulations and rules. In the advanced economies of the world, for instance, you find so many different political and social cultures. Daily life in Sweden or Norway is in such marked contrast to that in the US or the UK despite the similarities in their parliamentary and educational systems. People’s behavioural patterns and the collective outcomes have existence with a very long memory. They crystallise into implicit norms, conventions and traditions, which could be very deep-seated, and “rebels” usually suffer one way or the other.

How is a culture formed? At the one end, you can seek a rational answer to the question. Why do people always drive on the left or the right in a territory? Well, theoretical history has it that they used to drive on the side their momentary urge dictated. But given a sufficient number of cumulative accidents and deaths, somehow a convention emerged and the benefits were there for all to see. Newcomers were then“forced”to follow, lest they would be punished by design or by default. Of course, “official” traffic regulations would eventually be implemented.

Alternatively, we could abandon such an over-rational, digital viewpoint and look at implicit forms of “understandings” as they evolved over actual historical time, subject to all sorts of analogue-like influences. Monogamy, for example, might not be a result of simple cost-and-benefit calculations.

The tenacity and spirals of culture

Once it is formed, nevertheless, a culture would exhibit various degrees of tenacity. Non-followers and violators face different sanctions, which could be a small fine, heckling and discrimination, or public extermination, literal or otherwise. Cultures do change and can be changed---this in itself is a meta-norm. But they don’t transform quickly, and exit usually at high costs, which are very often unevenly distributed across members under their spell.

Dynamically, a culture may show a spiral, upward or downward, for a long time before it is derailed, if violently. In the case of an upward spiral, imagine yourself to be in a “chariot-of-fire” elite community, where people speak at least four languages and excel in a minimum of three skills. Besides committing suicide or exiling yourself, what else can you do to stay on par with others? Mind you, such a culture could become unsustainable in the long run, unless it somehow stabilises into a steady state.

The case of the downward spiral is easier to understand: probably most have sensed something wrong with the prevailing “rotten” culture for a long time. However, since they are disunited and their interests are dispersed, few individuals would stand up and challenge it directly. Some may express “public dissent”; but in their behaviour they actually fall in with the status quo. Others may become famous (and therefore rich?) by engaging in superficial defiant gestures. These forms of inconsistency and hypocrisy are regularly observed and reinforce the conservative bias of the majority. In a perverse way, moreover, opportunists could even strive to push the spiral further down by competing to be the ultimate “counter-hero” in a search for the lowest common denominator. Secular social decline is a hotbed for such a cult. After all, it seems safer to be bad guys instead of decent but vulnerable persons.

Of course, a true minority could rather enough courage to launch a genuine rebellion in both words and deeds; but unless history happens to be reaching a turning point, the attempt would fail after incurring heavy costs for the “prophets”. The lesson might somehow be learnt in the future; and their sacrifice might not be in vain. But in the meantime, the majority of people are again discouraged from changing track. Worse still, it is likely that they have to defend themselves by engaging in the same norm. If one lives in a dirty quarters where most residents spit, one probably feels compelled, rightly or wrongly, to spit in order to eject at least some of the germs that have got into one’s lungs. That is on top of the cynical psychological survival tactic that I mentioned earlier. Hence the downward spiral.

But why would a downward instead of an upward spiral emerge? Ah, that is one of the greatest mysteries of mankind. Why should one traffic convention require that people drive on the left and others on the right? In the early golden moments of a cultural history, a persistent act by a small minority, or even by a single “role model”, could be decisive. Then rebellion costs, together with conformity benefits, would escalate, while the thickness and stickiness of the culture would increase. After a certain period, nobody is responsible for anything.

Where are we?

Culturally, where are we now in Hong Kong? Or the Mainland? The beginning, the end, or in the thick of “it”? In an upward or downward spiral? Do you aspire to be a role model? A prophet? Or like most of us, just to survive?

Back to you.