IMMIGRATION thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Okay, Beskar, it is time. This thread and any thread on a related theme for a week or two would be my rec.

[Viking]

@Montmorency

I don't see how that relates to the original statement that multiculturalism is inevitable.

With globalisation likely to keep exerting its effects far into the distant future, to me it seems the opposite is 'inevitable': global cultural assimilation (homogenisation). A process that, thanks to media, does not really require the movement of people across borders.

[Montmorency]

Globalization introduces a wider flow to goods and people, but it absolutely does not mean that geographically-distant cultures will assimilate to each other. As per inevitability, neither will adjacent cultures by default. If you look at Western soft power, you will see that consumption of cultural products is not anywhere close to related to assimilation.

Unless you have a one-world government that continuously and uniformly redistributes populations around the world for the purposes of cohabitation and breeding...

But let's leave out this planet and activities thereon, and consider that other science fiction trope of interstellar colonization. Would cultures of planets assimilate? How? By my notion of "way of life"? In what sense that doesn't assume identical worlds or standards for settlement? Let's be honest, here or there or anywhere, even communication reliant upon teleportation technology would not suddenly replace the existing social logics.

[HopAlongBunny]

[Montmorency]

I don't like music. What does it mean-mean?

[Viking]

Globalization introduces a wider flow to goods and people, but it absolutely does not mean that geographically-distant cultures will assimilate to each other. As per inevitability, neither will adjacent cultures by default. If you look at Western soft power, you will see that consumption of cultural products is not anywhere close to related to assimilation.

Unless you have a one-world government that continuously and uniformly redistributes populations around the world for the purposes of cohabitation and breeding...

But let's leave out this planet and activities thereon, and consider that other science fiction trope of interstellar colonization. Would cultures of planets assimilate? How? By my notion of "way of life"? In what sense that doesn't assume identical worlds or standards for settlement? Let's be honest, here or there or anywhere, even communication reliant upon teleportation technology would not suddenly replace the existing social logics.

I think you are fundamentally wrong. Given how cultural changes spread within modern countries (think back the last several decades and centuries), I don't think face-to-face interactions have to be in every link of the chain.

Things like (for example) laws, news and impactful or popular pieces of fiction both plant seeds of and drive forward processes of change that in sum become significant.

Most of the things that have an impact on culture intranationally also exist internationally. Just like you have intranational laws, you have international laws. News often go global, as do music, movies and TV series. This means that a lot of the factors that influence how people view the world are partially synchronised globally.

The concepts of who are in- and out-group are naturally also directly impacted by such things. Whereas centuries ago a big natural disaster would go unnoticed by many or most people, this is now typically an international news item that encourages sympathy from a global audience, regardless of cultural background. Political news can also go global and arguments for and against something can also relatively easily be synchronised globally, which over time leads to similar debates with similar arguments in dissimilar cultures.

To me, it is inconceivable that globalisation in its current format does not lead to long term global cultural synchronisation, convergence and assimilation; particularly when you factor in that people also physically move across borders (and interbreed), and not just ideas and media.

[Montmorency]

Given how cultural changes spread within modern countries (think back the last several decades and centuries), I don't think face-to-face interactions have to be in every link of the chain.

?? I don't understand.

Anyway, with face-to-face interactions you can have intercultural, and subsequent intra-cultural resulting, which is just as significant one way or another.

Most of the things that have an impact on culture intranationally also exist internationally. Just like you have intranational laws, you have international laws. News often go global, as do music, movies and TV series. This means that a lot of the factors that influence how people view the world are partially synchronised globally.

I think you have it the other way around. International laws and disseminated products do not mutually assimilate consumers, but are themselves assimilated to the unique contexts and standards of a given culture.

Whereas centuries ago a big natural disaster would go unnoticed by many or most people

This is really due to both new concepts and broadcast technology. It allows compartmentalization when exposed, so that a concrete event is not just 'bad times', and individuals who would never become aware of this event stand to at least hear about it.

which over time leads to similar debates with similar arguments in dissimilar cultures.

Really? See above. And if anything like that is visible, it will be due more to the traditional modes of intellectual elites going abroad to study and fomenting new arguments and ideologies once they return. In the terms you specifically denote, I do not think you can even hope to point out a corroborating trend.

To me, it is inconceivable that globalisation in its current format does not lead to long term global cultural synchronisation, convergence and assimilation; particularly when you factor in that people also physically move across borders (and interbreed), and not just ideas and media.

I think that's a serious mistake, unless it comes to the point that all regions become lightly-urbanized or more, English farmers settle in the new Afghan countryside and intermarry with New Guineans, etc.

[Viking]

?? I don't understand.

How do you suppose cultural attitudes change? If at some point many or most people in a country believed in witches; and then, at some point, most do not - how did that come about? Was there an unbroken chain from one end of the country the other consisting of people telling people their acquaintances "I doubt witches exist"? I presume not, and that once the state stopped prosecuting people for witchcraft, people's beliefs started to follow suit (or because of some other centralised process, like a religious decree).

I think you have it the other way around. International laws and disseminated products do not mutually assimilate consumers, but are themselves assimilated to the unique contexts and standards of a given culture.

Not sure what you are saying here, but the idea is not that any culture or viewpoint dominates any other, but that factors that drive cultural change become the same in many different cultures.

This is really due to both new concepts and broadcast technology.

Naturally. Technological development is one of the most important contributors to stronger globalisation.

Really? See above. And if anything like that is visible, it will be due more to the traditional modes of intellectual elites going abroad to study and fomenting new arguments and ideologies once they return. In the terms you specifically denote, I do not think you can even hope to point out a corroborating trend.

If we were in the 1800s, maybe I'd agree. Today, many 'regular' people become activists and are often part of international organisations. Intellectuals aren't really necessary today for this kind of spread of ideas because more ordinary people take part in it, too.

Finding trends is inherently difficult for a topic like this. Just selecting time scales is tricky, and of course depends on the theory being tested.

I think that's a serious mistake, unless it comes to the point that all regions become lightly-urbanized or more, English farmers settle in the new Afghan countryside and intermarry with New Guineans, etc.

What is one large obstacle facing English farmers who want to settle in the Afghan countryside? Security. In 200 years from now on, Afghanistan could have turned into one of the safer countries on Earth for all we know. At that point, an English farmer might well settle on the Afghani countryside with their New Guinean partner. I don't see why not. Already today people from very different cultures separated by continents marry and settle on the countryside here or there (though typically in the home country of either). What is needed for your scenario is first and foremost that the security situation in Afghanistan improves by a certain amount.

I am not sure what you mean by 'lightly-urbanized'; Internet-access and the dissemination of knowledge is nowadays less dependent on urbanity than ever before. In fact; where I come from, access to high-speed Internet via optical fibre is often better on the countryside than in cities due to issues with distributing the physical fibre in densely populated areas and (perhaps) the fact that DSL performs much better over shorter distances than longer ones.

[Montmorency]

How do you suppose cultural attitudes change? If at some point many or most people in a country believed in witches; and then, at some point, most do not - how did that come about? Was there an unbroken chain from one end of the country the other consisting of people telling people their acquaintances "I doubt witches exist"? I presume not, and that once the state stopped prosecuting people for witchcraft, people's beliefs started to follow suit (or because of some other centralised process, like a religious decree).

Kind of a strawman. In the first place, people had many varying beliefs about witches, and these circulated in a stable fashion. Other changes in society, least of all lack of prosecution, led to de-emphasis and finally abrogation or neutralization of beliefs in witchcraft.

Not sure what you are saying here, but the idea is not that any culture or viewpoint dominates any other, but that factors that drive cultural change become the same in many different cultures.

Yes, I said that's wrong, and moreover any factors that drive cultural change in similar ways across cultures do not develop as such but simply exist as a fact of the nature of culture.

Today, many 'regular' people become activists and are often part of international organisations.

"Local" people assimilate international ideas to local contexts. Internationally-minded intellectuals are the ones who spread, among each other, the discourses with which we're more familiar. This mistake you make is one of the factors that led many to misinterpret the events of the "Arab Spring". A selection bias.

What is one large obstacle facing English farmers who want to settle in the Afghan countryside? Security.

That obstacle is beside the point. Security is not an obstacle to their settlement in the United States, yet that hasn't been a trend for a 150 years, a time when the United States was much less safe.

What is needed for your scenario is first and foremost

As I said, I believe the first and foremost necessity would be top-down allocation to drive the movement and interaction of people in such a way.

I am not sure what you mean by 'lightly-urbanized'

More specifically to the Afghan context, I see their geography and demographic distribution as entailing much of the countryside become dotted with interconnected small towns around a handful of major urban centers. In Scandinavia, it's simply a matter of fact that the south and coasts carry most of the population, so infrastructure through mountains and tundra is more relevant to the transportation of goods than directly connecting and servicing residents. This doesn't have bearing to the larger topic.