Power and Humanizing Models of Culture

Student Name

Institution

City/state

Professor

Date

Introduction

Culture can be defined as the way of life exhibited by people, and often include a variety of activities like economic which refers to what people with a given region do to earn their living, passage of rites, education, social activities like the way of worship etc. Both Schiller and Nietzsche have written powerful philosophical resources as to aspects of culture, regarding power and humanity. While Schiller came up with what is termed as cultural imperialism theory many years ago, Nietzsche also produced a masterpiece philosophical work. Nietzsche has written a number of philosophical books and other resources, including the ‘will to Power’ and ‘On the Genealogy of Morality’ (Nietzsche, Geuss, & Speirs, 1999, p.12). His work has provided readers with a stunning tale of about monstrous moral past of a man, which narrates deformation history of human animal in the hands of Christian moralization and civilizations, and has also hinted at coming to be established with the disappearance new form of humanity and the death of god. However, these philosophical works have received a number of criticisms from analysts as to validity of each aspect in relation to culture. This research paper compares the different philosophical theories concerning culture.

Discussion

Nietzsche has written numerous essays and books on philosophical matters, touching issues of life and society at large. According to this Greek philosopher, morality consists of a series of errors which most of us have incorporated into our basic modes of feeling, thinking, and living. It represents the greatest symbolism of people’s profound ignorance of themselves and the world. In his work, it is illustrated how humankind often falsely rank themselves above inhuman beings. He notes that human beings usually see themselves only incompletely and endow themselves with attributes that are fictitious and often place themselves in inherently higher rank of superiority than nature and other animals and eventually we keep inventing ever new tables as to what is proper and then they accept them as unconditional and eternal (Hollingdale, 1999, p.48). However, Nietzsche does not in any way suggest that we should feel guilty for such incorporated errors and mistakes. According to this philosophical work, there is need for humans to thrive to be just and not to settle at the point of concentrating at what is good and evil. It is what Nietzsche calls morality prejudices that stand on the way to this and there is need to transform things, since morality has the tendency to assume knowledge of things which it does not have. The concern of Nietzsche is that individuals may probably never achieve the highest point of their potential. The role of culture should be to produce individuals who are sovereign but historically we only get series of cultural deformations and pervasions of such cultural roles (Krell, 2005, p.18). Therefore, the role of culture in our present society has been taken to be a continuously transforming society of human lives and aspects of culture that just breed a new human being. Man has been striving to become better creature every day and retention of cultural practices and values has been as such a bother.

The two models of culture distinctly represent the contrasting views of the two German philosophers whose works provide a vital contribution to the history of cultural theory and aesthetics. The power model of culture is majorly advocated for by Friedrich Nietzsche a German philosopher. Initially it was believed by the philosophers of Athens that one would find the true meaning of their existence by looking at the human sufferings and the reasons that surrounded the suffering (Bishop & Stephenson, 2005, p.51). The power model seeks to prove that life is basically composed of a struggle between two forces which Friedrich called the Dionysian and the Apollonian. In the most basic meaning, he explained the two as, “reality being indistinguishable by forms and being disordered is Dionysian and the other Apollonian meant reality as being distinguished by forms and organized.” (Hollingdale, 1999, p.41). The power model therefore depicts that there is a struggle for humanity by the two forces. One prevailed at the expense of the other, that is, if the Dionysian prevailed the Apollonian lost and vice versa. Interestingly, neither the Dionysian nor the Apollonian elements permanently won but served to keep each other in check and therefore maintain a balance (Krell, 2005, p.24). According to this view, the power model of culture rests in the great interacting forces of tranquility and turbulence all coexisting to produce a equilibrium that so much of humanity is oblivious of. The power model therefore advocates for a culture where human beings need to understand that it is their destiny to live life in what would be a dream world of illusions while at the same time being controlled by dark universal realities (Nietzsche, et. al. 1999, pp.78-9).

On the other hand the humanizing model of culture can be best understood by studying the philosophical works of the German philosopher Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller (Oellers 2011, p.63). He propagated the reality of the good is the beautiful. He also got into detail on the works of Martin Wieland where he explained that there is a moral practice beyond the aesthetic value of duty and inclination existing harmoniously without conflict due to the fact that reason educates a person’s emotions causing them to think before they feel (Porrovecchio, 2011, p.65). The humanizing model thus explores further the concept of human liberality and freedom to express themselves as individuals that are independent of external forces that they are bound to obey or that rule over their lives. This model of culture follows that it is possible to change the general perspectives of people and their attitudes in life by touching the souls of humanity with beauty (Weissberg, 2008, p.86). Basically, the humanizing model is a nonviolent model that is based on a cohesive interplay of life’s forces in a peaceful coexistence as to ensure there is satisfaction and rest in the lives of humanity.

According to Schiller (2007, p.45), cultural imperialism manifests in various ways. Cultural imperialism as a theory attempts to look at core- periphery and media relations. Imperialism in this perspective refers to the establishment and maintenance of unbalanced relationships between civilizations that tend to favor the more powerful civilization. Imperialism can be termed as the way of imposing as well as promoting progress of a culture that is usually of politically mighty countries over less powerful countries. Imperialism is the totality of all events and processes through which a society is brought into world systems that are modern, and how the dominating stratum gets attracted, forced, pressured and at times bribery being issued in attempts to shape social institutions so as to correspond or even have to foster and promote the structures and values of the system dominant center (Nietzsche, Geuss, & Speirs, 1999, p.97). As such, according to Schiller, imperialism is a broad perspective which includes more than consumer goods. Although this process sounds kind of appeasing on the surface of it, it does mask some quite frightening truth, which is the fact that many cultures across the world are presently disappearing due what is believed to be the influence of the corporate and the American cultural practices (High, Martin, & Oellers, 2011, p.98).

There is a growing aspect of the tendency by the western world notably the Americans to view their culture as the most superior to all other cultures in the world. Although the American market does often brag that it controls the world’s greatest and most powerful economy in the world, it is noted noting that no business enterprise really feels fully contended with having control over only the market of America as corporations from the America want to exercise control over the rest of the 95% of the world’s consumer markets (High, Martin, & Oellers, 2011, p.101). Schiller notes, it is easy to convince the people of America of the superiority of their culture and the market share they have over the rest of the less fortunate or rather less developed nations. Americanization of foreign corporations’ culture has been in significant rise with many enterprises adopting full modes of doing business in American way, which is geared by the fact that the foreign markets and corporations two view the American culture as the most superior and therefore easily adopt it without necessarily weighing the impact it has over the values and other rich cultural attributes of the home business enterprises. It is due to this attitude that the colonialists imposed their cultural values and attributes to their colonies without considering the need to respect the culture of the residents of the colonized countries (High, Martin, & Oellers, 2011, p.77). According to this culture, it was strongly believed by other philosophers that the superior or rather the stronger culture will eventually overtake the inferior or what is called the weaker cultures with time. This has been the thinking behind the spread of the American culture.

While Nietzsche sees cultural diversity as a continuous thing often under great influence by the western culture through what he called transformations to always become better of what one is, in the Schiller’s philosophical work there is also such a thing but in a different perspective. In the imperialism culture, there is continuous change from one mode of culture to another, often under great influence of the American corporations. It is almost given that most non-American corporations would feel that consumer products that are packaged in American style would attract more customers because of the notion that American culture is more superior to all and has the ability to transform others. Schiller says that, whether making attempts to sell any item, an entire culture or a brand, marketers have frequently been able to attribute American products with modernity in the world wide minds of consumers (High, Martin, & Oellers, 2011, pp.67-9). Consumers are therefore ceaselessly made to stick to American made consumer goods. This process is a continuous one, with corporations altering their strategies to fit the American culture and business policies. Similarly, in the Nietzsche case there is also continuous process of change. The change is described as one towards becoming better ‘tamed’ animals. The philosopher describes this mode of culture as a poor one since there exactly no real culture but continuous change.

The Christians tend to become better Christians, the Chinese also strive to become better Chinese, and Africans too strive to become better Africans and so on. In both cultures, there is consistent shift towards what they view as ‘better’. In both cultures, there criticism of what is seen as cultural erosion. In the case of Schiller, American markets and corporations are seen to undermine cultures of foreign countries in the thinking that theirs has more power (Nietzsche, Geuss, & Speirs, 1999, p.51). Imperialism has greatly influenced the mode of conducting business in other countries, with foreigners feeling that adopting American style in marketing their products they would attract more sales. Critically, this can be seen as an ethnocentric measure and imposition of cultural practices that are intended to devalue other people. According to Nietzsche, the change towards adopting what he refers as improved tamed ‘tamed animals’, is criticized because of the fact that it tends to work towards getting what is called morality, which the philosopher terms as fake one (Weissberg, 2008, p.111). In the imperialism, there looks to be fake ranking of the American culture as the most superior. In a similar case, in the case of Schiller, there looks to be similar ranking where man looks to have placed himself in a higher level unlike animals. The thinking behind this is that man is always higher than animals and trying to relate the two is unethical.

Conclusion

A great contrast appears between the two models in that whereas one depicts that man is a victim of control by dark forces of reality while living in the eternal bliss of a dream world of illusion, the other shows man as an independent being capable of choice and peaceful coexistence with one another and with the environment around him (Martin, 1996, p.74). The humanizing model is therefore more valid than the power model since it deals directly with elements that are not as abstract as the power model. It shows the rise of diplomacy even in solving life’s problems and challenges rather than living in denial in a dream land while destiny is determined by some dark forces. The humanizing model also puts into consideration the will of humanity and their sovereignty to make decisions that will impact their lives whether positively or negatively.

List of References

Bishop, P., & Stephenson, R. H. (2005). Friedrich Nietzsche and Weimar classicism. Rochester, NY, Camden House.

High, J. L., Martin, N., & Oellers, N. (2011). Who is this Schiller now?: essays on his reception and significance. Rochester, N.Y., Camden House.

Hollingdale, R. J. (1999). Nietzsche: the man and his philosophy. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press.

Krell, D. F. (2005). The tragic absolute: German idealism and the languishing of God. Bloomington, Indiana Univ. Press

Martin, N. (1996). Nietzsche and Schiller: untimely aesthetics. Oxford, Clarendon Press

Nietzsche, F., Geuss, R., & Speirs, R. (1999). The birth of tragedy and other writings. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press.

Porrovecchio, M. J. (2011). F.C.S. Schiller and the dawn of pragmatism. Lanham, Md, Lexington Books. HYPERLINK “http://lib.myilibrary.com?id=389648” http://lib.myilibrary.com?id=389648

Schiller, F. V. (2007). Schiller’s Philosophical Letters. Gloucester, Dodo Press.

Weissberg, M. (2008). Philosophies of Greek Tragedy from Schiller to Nietzsche: the Sublime in 19th Century German Philosophy. Saarbrücken, Vdm Verlag Dr. Müller.