An occurrence that is physical or philosophic becomes a cultural trait when enough people internalize it to the point of practicing it instinctively without necessarily thinking about it.
An example of cultural trait
that is physical would be the use of sun-dried tomato in cooking. Absent a
historical account of what started the habit of drying tomato in the sun, no
one that uses the product today thinks how it all began. They just follow their
instinct and do the cooking as they always did. The same goes for the
appearance of a new sport, a new style of housing, a new mode of
transportation, and so on.
As to the example of a
cultural trait that would be philosophical (in the broad sense of the word,) it
might be a new mode of entertainment such as the opera which came into
existence when a number of Italian entertainers guessed, falsely or accurately,
that the ancient Greek tragedies had a singing chorus. The Italians decided to
do better by having everyone on the stage sing their part, not just the chorus.
The audiences liked the idea so much, opera became a cultural trait not just in
Italy but in other centers as well. The same goes for poetry, the writing of
short and full-length novels, popular music and so on.
In the old days when instant
communication at a distance did not exist, a culture that developed inside one
tribe or one village, took time to spread to other tribes or other villages.
And when they got there, they became colored by the local culture, thus formed
a dialect that was slightly different from the original. But when communication
became almost instantaneous everywhere on the planet, everybody began to melt
into one and the same cultural pot. The trend annoys some people but it is
inevitable.
Something similar happens
inside institutions such as corporations, universities, hospitals and
government departments where they develop internal mini-cultures. They do it
because it is the best way to make individuals interact with each other as team
players, thus be more efficient. But then social media came along and turned
everything internal into something external. That is, nothing is sacred anymore
because leaks happen everywhere and all the time. They allow anyone that wants
it, to copy what they consider interesting in someone else's culture, and make
it their own with or without permission.
The trouble is that such
development created a problem for the national security community in America.
Where the participants had their own lingo that meant something specific and
clear to everyone, the words were leaked to the general public where they were
understood differently, thus interpreted differently. Confusion reigned, and
every such occurrence became a potential threat to the cause of peace and
security.
You can get a sense of the
conundrum that is created in this fashion when you read the article that was
written by three stalwarts of the American security community. They are John
Poindexter, Robert McFarlane and Richard Levine who penned, “How Biden can stop
China from dominating the world,” an article that also came under the subtitle:
“To defend against aggression and usurpation, US policies must cross
administrations.” The article was published on January 26, 2021 in The
Washington Times.
The three authors are no
longer in the military or in government, which means they speak as private
citizens. However, having spent their entire careers working in some fashion to
ascertain the country's security, their words are as good as if they were in
uniform, as if what they say was leaked out of the military. So, here is what
they said their aim was for writing that article: “The Biden administration
will demonstrate great sagacity if it builds upon the prior administration's
policies in five areas.” Sagacity being synonymous to wisdom.
Contrast that sentiment with
the title that was chosen for the article by the editors of the hawkish
Washington Times, and you'll see the disconnect between the writers' intent and
the editors' message who misunderstood the intent of the writers –– perhaps
deliberately or perhaps not.
This is due to the fact that
the lingo of the military has evolved to match the changing situation. The
original aim being to stop the Nazis and the Japanese from “dominating the
world,” it became the containment of the Soviet Union lest it spread Communism
to other countries, then flipped to the current posture of the need to use
wisdom when dealing with China. Whereas this is clearly the aim of the writers
and that of the military at this time, the editors of the Washington Times
remained stuck in the era of the Second World War, a time when the aim was to
prevent the enemies from “dominating the world.” As can be seen, the culture of
the writers, and that of the editors could not be more different from each
other.
The contrast demonstrates why
the mobilization that took place during World War II, aimed at producing more
weapons and more munitions, whereas today’s mobilization, according to
Poindexter, McFarlane and Levine, must be about the following:
“The American education system
must be revamped, with emphasis on science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM). Grades K––12 must expand online education. The Department
of education must overhaul teaching methods. Technology exists to map each
student's optimum mode of learning”.
And that's a far cry from the
war mentality of the editors at the Washington Times; an observation that
suggests the moment of the Times is a time that has come and gone.
The remedy would be for the publisher to catch up with the time or change the publication’s name.