Culture & Communications:

Globalization: More Diversity and Tolerance, and More Well-Being by More Hidden Goals

By Dr. Andreas Eppink

This paper is the eighth of an on-going series of selected chapters excerpted from Dr. Eppink's upcoming book, "Hidden Goals in Modern Globalizing Culture", and is herein offered in conjunction to an earlier paper by Dr. Eppink, Cross-Cultural Communication in the Age of Globalization, which appeared in the January-February 2002 issue of this Journal.  (For Parts I-VII of Dr. Eppink's Introduction, please refer to Modern Globalizing Culture - July-August 2002 Issue, Modern Globalizing Culture Part II - September-October 2002 Issue, Modern Globalizing Culture Part III - November-December 2002 Issue, Modern Globalizing Culture Part IV - January-February 2003 Issue, and Modern Globalizing Culture Part V - March-April 2003 Issue and Modern Globalizing Culture Part VI - May-June 2003 Issue, and Modern Globalizing Culture Part VII - July-August 2003 Issue). Of note: Dr. Eppink presented his insights on Modern Globalizing Culture during his presentation as Closing Speaker at the 2002 International Congress of the BWW Society in Saint Germain-en-Laye, August 2002.

The significant impetus to the spread of new ideas and Knowledge was the invention of the printing press. In China printing had been known for centuries, but when it was “re-invented” in Europe it finally found worldwide application. The parallels with the fabrication and common use of paper -- by the “Arabs” in the ninth century -- are striking. Again it was the Chinese who had invented the paper fabrication, and again it was a new religion -- Islam -- that profited from it and that promoted its worldwide application. The expansion of early Islam and new ideas was due to the use of paper which was until then almost unknown and very exclusive.


In the sixteenth century through printing, the Bible became available to everyone, which facilitated the start and growth of Protestantism. In general, the spread of Knowledge -- first by paper fabrication, than by printing, and later by other means of Communication -- eased the expression of all HG’s. Of course they did not all become dominant in Western culture as a whole; however, an environment was created where various combinations of HG’s formed numerous subcultures in which specific HG’s took predominance.


With this, Independence moved up in the ranking of HG’s in circles of the new religion, Protestantism, and still more in Humanism. Nevertheless, both Stability and Knowledge upheld the old feudal class distinctions of the previous era. Protestantism, and particularly its Calvinistic version, promoted Knowledge, however due to its strong occupation with fear for God’s wrath Protestantism -- particularly in the beginning of this new era -- became strongly oppressive (by promoting the HG Inviolability).


Individual Independence -- although rising in the HG-ranking -- could not become more dominant because of the relatively poor economic conditions which existed at the time. The lack of Independence and individualism are due to the wish to survive, which generally can only be realized within a group and by the formation of alliances. In most periods and cultures this always made Social Contact a stronger HG than Independence.


The process of development of Knowledge, especially technical development, allowed man to become more Independent from a particular group or place, as well as from environmental conditions. It brought more comfort to large segments of the population, first in Europe then in what is generally called “the West” giving shelter against cold and heat. (It is still the question if technology is able to provide the same success all over the world. At the same time Knowledge aided Communication (Social Contact) as it had never done before, extending its contents and increasing its scope. That was primarily the capability[1] of Western culture: learning to use the possibilities of proportional enlargement, that of “scale and scope”, as Chandler says.


On a smaller scale, some degree of globalization had been achieved earlier by other cultures. The Romans, and even the German and Asian tribes, in their time “globalized” the world as far as it was known then, as did particularly the “Arabs” until the 13th century[2]. Europe’s -- and later America’s -- inventions enlarged the scale of globalization to actual world dimensions.


The means that were used were not always correct, nor were the consequences always just for all those who were affected by it. But before dealing with its failures, let’s first consider further the history of the process of post-Medieval globalization.




By 1544 England invited Dutch engineers to drain its marshes. This is just one example of technological advancement that spread throughout Europe at a continuously accelerating speed. New land was no longer conquered by plunder but by technological Knowledge. During this era -- and continuing to the present -- most inventions served war: gunpowder[3], canons, muskets, and later pistols, bombs, rockets, tanks, and so forth. But a progressing shift of the duo Control and Inviolability to the combination Control, Knowledge and Communication becomes obvious after the epoch of Enlightenment as a result of the Enlightenment's accent on rationalism. Then a continuous stream of Western technological applications found their way peacefully to cultures around the world: steam engines (1770), railways (1825), electricity (1832), steamships (1838), telegraph and telephone (1892), voice and music recording, photography, penicillin, film, cars, planes, radio, television, computers, fax machines, the internet, and thousands of domestic appliances. These are all Western inventions, very much appreciated by people of virtually all cultures (and even if not appreciated by certain cultures, then certainly very much used by them).


THE DEVELOPMENT OF WESTERN INDUSTRY: From Stability and Knowledge to Control and Knowledge


The growth of the manufacturing industries of the first industrial revolution differed from earlier growth of enterprises only in scale. New inventions and technical innovations, such as the engine and the use of coal and gas as fuel, allowed further production growth, and reduced costs. These innovations in themselves brought no essential changes in the dominant Hidden Goals. The HG Stability was combined with Knowledge to reassure more Stability. This means that in society the traditional feudal concept of classes remained untouched; the differences in classes only became more obvious. The small farmers moved in masses from the country to the quickly growing towns, where they lived in crowded quarters, offering cheap labor. The newly formed lower class was treated without much consideration. At best, the workers were cared for by their employer. But the social distance kept the laborer down and hierarchy and Stability up.


Then, although slowly, came the real cultural shift, and a second industrial revolution: Stability was exchanged for (Ambitious) Control. A continuing and circular process was started. The industrial ambition to produce and to grow required customers, which it found in the working class, and then provided these working class customers with cheap products, and created -- by marketing and advertising -- new needs. Eventually the working class and the large industries both became richer and also became totally interdependent. What’s more, almost the entire Western population became members of the working class, working to be able to obtain goods. Continuous innovation to answer the demand and to initiate new demands became the basis of capitalist industry, with consumers presented with a continuing stream of new products, with advertising and marketing creating the need for each new product.


A fundamental cultural change took place at the end of the 19th century, through the second industrial revolution. To realize its magnitude we need to understand the meaning of industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism had become possible due to the innovations in Communication: the steamship, the railroad, and cable. Telegraph and the modern methods of transport improved conditions for business in a way never before known.

Industrial capitalism could only expand by an economy of scale. Chandler, in his notorious study of the 200 largest manufacturing enterprises in the US, Germany and England from 1850-1945, made an amazing discovery. The continuity of the actual multi-nationals was based on a shift of mentality of the so called “the first movers”: those who produce or introduce innovated products for the first time.


Before, family enterprises had been the rule. Family members or family-related persons were appointed to manage the enterprise. They introduced new products and technological inventions. The objective of these family businesses was, of course, to maintain the continuity of the firm, but continuity meant securing an income for the family (and family shareholders). Their Hidden Goal was Stability. This kind of entrepreneur, and the managers of family businesses, invested for current income. The industrial capitalists, however, did not invest (mainly) for current income for the shareholders, but invested primarily for long-term growth and continuity. This required a new type of management and a new type of manager or entrepreneur. In this new type of business enterprise, management was separated from ownership. The outcome was the professional manager, not occupied by current income and Stability, but by the Ambitious growth of the company. Thanks to the new potentials created by improved transportation and communication, product distribution on a large scale was within reach. Under these conditions mass production and mass marketing were easy to realize (only later emerged the wish for continuing growth).


This could only be done by organizations that attracted investors (not owners) on the one side, and professional salaried managers on the other side. The professional managers, rather than the shareholders (who before were mostly family members) became the decision-makers in these modern enterprises. Managers were recruited to apply new technological inventions for new and improved production processes in a mass-productive way. Management skills, coupled with investments in international marketing, distribution networks and production distribution (and also, in most cases, research and development) were the fundamentals of multi-product companies. The modern capitalist enterprises invested in “the economies of scale and scope”, to quote Chandler.[4]




All modern inventions and innovations have their roots in the inventions of other cultures, especially those of the (also Western) Spanish Moors and other “Arabs” (with their blend of cultures and ethnological groups) who themselves borrowed much from Ancient China, India, Persia and Greece. The Moors first used the numbers we use today, and discovered how to calculate with them. How could modern technology ever have progressed without arithmetic?


Modern Western success rests upon: (1) a systematic application of experimental methods, (2) the practical application of inventions, and (3) the globalization of new inventions.


Why have other cultures not invented those things that make life more comfortable? To quote Paul Colinvaux: “The decisive advance was not in any particular technological skill but was rather in the habit of being technically ingenious itself.”[5] With this statement he grasps the very essence of Western culture that became Modern Globalizing Culture, which advances skills primarily based on education and Knowledge (Information), global Communication (Social Contact), and Ambition (Control).  This is just a diagnosis based on the theory of the Hidden Goals, not an evaluation. (Your evaluation will depend on your own HG ranking.)


It is understandable that cultures, organizations and individuals who follow an HG ranking other than the Modern Globalizing Culture’s combination Knowledge-Communication-Ambition will not approve of Modern Globalizing Culture’s outcome.


The fact that modern technological inventions have been mostly the product of Western culture does not give the West the right to feel superior, nor does it mean that people in other cultures are of lesser intelligence. Intelligence can serve every Hidden Goal. It will produce practical inventions if the HG Knowledge is upgraded.


Japan demonstrates this. By the end of the 19th century ‘civilization and Enlightenment’ (bummei-kaika) were introduced nationwide in Japan. Twenty years later all Western technological subjects were taught at Japanese universities. Modernization, however, took its proper Japanese form, called wakon yosai, creating a Western path with an Eastern spirit.


Because Knowledge is free, Western knowledge can be used by all other cultures, as the recent economic development of Asia has demonstrated, and it is not impossible that a non-Western culture will be the technological world leader of the future (e.g. China).




It has been these multi-product enterprises that have expanded on a multinational scale and have globalized the world through the distribution of their products, through the establishment of their subsidiaries, and through their exploitation of natural resources worldwide. Their continuity and growth have been enlarged to such an extent that some of these enterprises possess more capital and wield more power than the governments of some of the countries in which they have their subsidiaries. With little or no control being exercised over them by any (democratic) body, their power seems unlimited. The question arises if this is just.


The answer to this question depends upon whether or not a multi-national is following obstructing goals, and thereby causing discontinuity (appearing as poverty, ecological decay, et al).


Industrial capitalism as such does not cause distress and discontinuity -- in fact in it's pure form, capitalism can create quite positive effects. Life never was so prosperous without Knowledge, which brought new technology, and industrial innovation. (That the new technology can be used for aggressive and criminal aims will not change this fact. Every invention can be used to improve or to destroy.)


One of the hindering factors could be that multinationals and other large industries could enrich themselves by over-exploiting technological innovations and raw materials (at the cost of underdeveloped countries, and has been done in the past) without long-term benefits for others.


As long as multi-nationals (or states) pursue Control and Knowledge, their growth implies continuity for themselves and for their customers as well.[6] However, if obstructing goals, Approbation, Instant-Gratification and Inviolability are mixed in, then the oppression of masses in underdeveloped territories and the exhaustion of natural resources will be the consequence -- as was the case in the Roman empire. Cultural discontinuity will be provoked. For this reason multinationals must be controlled.


Actually the anti-globalization movement should make us think to what extent obstructing HG’s are being followed in the Modern Globalizing Culture. The "market", which is now driving the economic globalization, facilitates the rise of all three obstructing HG's: Inviolability (seeking unlimited economic growth); Approbation (seeking glory by beating the competitors); and Instant-Gratification (seeking maximum short-run profits).”[7] Companies and managers following these HG’s can be considered as “economic terrorists”.




The black pages of Western culture are exploitation, colonization and slavery, things everyone today admits were wrong. However, to judge history by today’s standards is neglecting that mankind is able to learn (Knowledge) and to improve itself. It will be more profitable for everyone to avoid the failures of the past striving after more improvement.


As to the black pages of Western culture I want to point out some considerations.

In the first place, Western culture has always been a mix of various elements and influences. Western culture is also a mere name out of convenience, indicating the culture of Europeans and European emigrants.


Secondly, as has been shown “the” Western culture did never exist. Western culture existed and exists of numerous subcultures.


Even during their time, exploitation, colonization and slavery met with opposition, which means that not the entire Western population took an active part in acts of colonization or held slaves. Nevertheless, we could not dispute that the entire Western culture profited by them.


Thirdly -- I know, this point is of little comfort for those who suffered from it -- exploitation, colonization and slavery never have been the monopoly of Western Culture. For example: the Egyptians and Romans (all three), Persians (exploitation, colonization), Greek (colonization), Aztecs (slavery and exploitation), “Arabs” (slavery), Mongols (all three), Japanese (exploitation, colonization), and so on. Exploitation, colonization and slavery are no inherent features of any culture but can be become characteristics if obstructing HG’s rise in ranking.


In the past, all cultures have expanded or attempted to do so (as those which did not expand disappeared). Several questions come up. Must we go back to the past and analyze all the wrong doers and condemn their progeny (human or corporate), or should we look toward the future?


Is the present-day West (the culture, the governments, the people, or the industrial companies) responsible for what its people’s forefathers have done? And, whose forefathers were really the colonizers, slave-traders and slaveholders in the West? It was mainly the large trading companies of 17th-century Europe that were responsible for colonization. Slavery to support further colonization took place in firm collaboration with local rulers and (ethnic) slave-traders in the regions providing slaves. Ethnic locals strongly toke part in it, as they had held and traded themselves slaves before they had ever met Western people.


As is all too frequently the case today, during the expansionist era the extraction of wealth by Western companies from colonized territories was often approved of by the local rulers (who, as today, generally oppressed their own people while profiting themselves. So one could ask, if “the” West should have dealt with this kind of people. Today one can ask why the U.S. or other governments have to ally with oppressing regimes.)


Other local rulers were simply uninterested in their own natural resources; for example, the wealth of the Arab oilfields was originally not used because the local rulers had no use for it.[8] Following their own HG’s, these rulers were interested in other things. Possibly it was not right or just that Western oil-companies took advantage of these opportunities, but had they not done so the oil fields would still remain as before 1945.[9] From an idealistic point of view that would have been marvelous. But it is not realistic, as it is equally unrealistic to want back the immense woods that once covered Western Europe.


However, in today's era Knowledge has advanced, so the stupidities of the past can be avoided.




After exaggerating Western feelings of superiority in the past, admitting ones own failures seems to accumulate lately. Failures committed in other cultures have yet to be admitted. (In cultures that got Approbation -- Honor -- high in their ranking admitting failures causes too strongly a loss of face and by consequence will be avoided.)


In general, guilt[10] feelings are counterproductive if they arise from an unconscious striving for Inviolability or Approbation, or if they answer others’ need for these obstructing HG’s. The Calvinist legacy tries to obtain Inviolability in order to defend itself against doom and mischief by the use of self-accusation; other forms of guilt often come from a desire for Approbation, and thus is only an attempt to sooth possible attacks from others.[11] Practically speaking, to be sorry will not make things better, and it will not change anything that happened in the past.


Concern for and supporting others, out of Goodness, is another matter: that can change things for the better in the future.


During the era we are speaking of, in general all who had the opportunity to do so took advantage of Western expansion. At present, throughout the world, individuals, nations, organizations, and groups can be found who want to take advantage of the material assets of Modern Globalizing Culture -- “frustrated that they cannot participate enough in modern benefits”, as a high official of the European Union postulated, “and have their share in the delights of modern culture”. These individuals, nations and groups are not against Western culture, rather, they want more of it.


It is worth considering that if at first only the West and some local rulers profited from colonization and from the wealth extracted from the colonies, eventually the whole world should benefit from the technological progress in the West. Modern Globalizing Culture should undertake a further obligation to spread wealth by facilitating technological Knowledge worldwide. The distribution of technologies should be organized in a fair way to provide more justice than is actually the case, and also by regularizing the free market.


As far as the second huge mistake of Western culture -- the trade and slavery of African people -- is concerned, the same line of reasoning can be followed. In history slavery has existed in many forms and has existed in many cultures, such as Ancient Greece and Rome, in the Arab culture of the past, the Aztec culture, and so on. Today there are no slaves, but the masses voluntarily go to work each day in the hope for Stability and, rather often, for some form of Instant-Gratification after work. We do not call this oppression, but oppression it was in the case of the factory-workers of the 19th century.


Oppression is the outcome of a combination of the obstructing HG Instant-Gratification in combination with Control and the lack of Knowledge and Goodness. If more obstructing HG’s are highly ranked there will be “total power”. If slave owners and factory owners were driven by total power, then it follows that slavery -- and work in general -- became forms of oppression. Nothing can be done to erase this failure of the past. Here too, a more just distribution of Knowledge and wealth can bring a better future.


For the future everything should be done to avoid that governments, local rulers, as well as big companies and multinationals get “total power”.


In contrast to earlier small-scale globalizations, the modern globalization process was primarily based on technology, not on plunder.


It is curious that globalization has been associated with former expansions like colonization and slavery. True, the consequences of technology and trade are not only for the good. Whole parts of the world are excluded from its benefits. Again we can pose the question: Who is responsible? Western culture? Modern Globalizing Culture?


Focusing on the black pages of Western culture -- as the nucleus of Modern Globalizing Culture -- is like the drinker who realizes that his bottle is half empty. To observe that the bottle is still half full is a more optimistic point of view. Optimism, however, is only justified, if the drinker has learned a lesson for the future: “Don’t waste things unwittingly.”


Class injustice, and other forms of injustice, are not the consequences of technological inventions, nor of globalization but of the obstructing Hidden Goals that, more or less, exist in all cultures. Only further globalization can help diminish their influence.

The fact that injustice still exists does not annihilate the fact that, in general, the standard of living and quality of life has been improved by technological inventions. Never before in history has the present standard of living been equaled. The question of justice is rather: how can we allow more people to benefit from globalization and modern Information and Communication so they can shape their own culture and welfare?


Globalization, in my opinion, means we are slowly advancing into one global culture, with strong subcultures as expressions of diverse combinations of -- I hope no obstructing -- Hidden Goals. Diversity enlarges the opportunity for individuals to follow their proper HG’s, not only the HG's most pronounced, or enforced, in society. In that way globalization can diminish poverty and distress, because tolerance and space for a diversity of HG’s will create more well-being and welfare, and open the door for more participants in the global economy as this increased well-being allows new markets to be created.





Although globalization and industrialization are both outcomes of the HG’s Control and Knowledge, they are neutral in and of themselves. I mentioned previously that only through expansion or through technological inventions can growing populations be sufficiently fed. A review of history’s course demonstrates that globalization and industrialization are continuing as almost ‘natural’ processes that started with man’s first invention and the discovery of new resources required in order to survive. Globalization and industrialization cannot be stopped -- but their negative consequences can be.


These processes do not cause poverty. In reality, not only the industries but also the masses profited from global mass production. Life for the poor of 18-19th-century Europe, for example, living in overcrowded densely populated town areas, was dismal. Neither was life pleasant on crowded farms that hardly produced enough to feed the extended families, much like we see today in the world's underdeveloped countries.


However, thanks to the corresponding rise of the HG Knowledge, mass production lessened poverty and brought increased comfort with the growth of wealth, improved healthcare, and increased opportunity through education.




In 1932, Mr. Matsushita, the tycoon of one of Japan’s largest industrial concerns, formulated the goals of his enterprise as follows: “The objective of industrial enterprise is to fabricate products of the utmost quality to be sold at the lowest possible price, to improve the quality of life of all people in the world.”


Public relations? Some say so. How it may be, indeed Mr. Matsushita’s goals can become the goals of all multi-nationals (and governments). This would be a new and powerful cultural shift, arising from the combination of (Ambitious) Control + Knowledge + Goodness (expressed by Service).


Service -- and respect for customers -- is already in progress, acknowledging a mutual dependence of producer -- or seller -- and customer.


Not only are some global multi-nationals now considering giving service to customers in the interest of their own continuity, we see small specialized business enterprises doing so to an even greater extent. As globalization and industrialization create more and new opportunities for people to live their own life and to follow their own HG’s, economic and market niches are gaining significantly in importance. New demands will surface, as will new markets that cannot all be usurped by large industries. Thanks to technology, diversity is flourishing. Diverse, specific, and highly qualified products and services require specialized enterprises. (Just one example, a British firm sells very expensive “Pashmina”, the best Cashmere shawls handmade by craftsmen in Kashmir.)

Small specialized and niche-directed enterprises are vulnerable. To survive they require either strong (family) group ties or strong managerial and organizational capabilities, as well as strong alliances especially if they want to expand abroad the local market. If not they will be easily crushed by the market.[12]


Otherwise, Modern Globalizing Culture could enable opportunities to pursue a progressing variety of goals and needs, especially if Knowledge and Information will spread more tolerance of diversity. Thanks to modern communication means -- for example the Internet -- all kind of needs and wishes, as well as cultural expressions, reflecting various tastes (also various combinations of HG’s) are now reachable. For example, the Internet can help people to spot special rare products in the market, or help to exchange information, whether for hard science or recreational hobbies.) The American marketing adviser Mary Popkins was one of the first to demonstrate the importance of a market of niches.


Of course Modern Globalizing Culture will make many products obsolete -- but this is a consequence of progress long witnessed, for instance as the motor age led to the near eradication of the buggy whip. On the other hand, new opportunities will be created for new and even old products, like the revival of ancient customs and cultural traditions.


Some objections against globalization originate from the fear for a ‘loss of culture(s)’. By ‘culture’ we mean cultural expressions. New technologies, however, not only facilitate all kinds of new cultural expressions, they also facilitate the study of an innumerable number of facets and aspects of one’s own and other cultures, such as customs, art, language, and these technologies even facilitate the use and practice of these cultural aspects.[13]


The above mentioned diversity of objectives rather than oppressing cultures provides opportunities for a diversity of -- even new -- subcultures to prosper - with specific combinations of HG’s and their expressions.




The history of industrial development can teach us another important lesson: industrialization and globalization are based on managerial skills and abilities applied by multi-nationals. Similar skills could -- and should -- be searched for and used to attack poverty and to provide sustainability and (personal) growth (continuity) for the masses of the poor nations, just as industrialization and globalization have brought growth and prosperity for industrial companies.


This attack on poverty can only be realized on a global intergovernmental level.  The time is ripe that states should collaborate on the basis of the HG Control combined with the Knowledge -- and preferably combined with Goodness (Service) -- to realize this goal. Therefore they must leave behind their outdated nationalist and tribal parochialisms. Success can be attained only with cooperative globalization by governments, organizations and corporations that do not primarily follow obstructing HG’s.





Not to judge (other) cultures will always be difficult. If we must judge, the best criterion would be the degree to which a culture did or does diminish poverty, and did or does bring welfare and development to the majority of its population.

(See for an elaboration of this criterion the Human Poverty Index (HPI) and Human Development Index (HDI) of the United Nations.)


From an economic point of view, the European feudal system -- based on Stability -- was much cheaper than Rome’s system of citizenship. Originally built on the HG Order, Rome had shifted to expansive Control, at last combined with the three obstructing HGs (the Instant-Gratification of the happy few, the Approbation and Glory-wish of the leaders, and Inviolability-ideas of the military). So the system was built on the cheap labor of slaves with low productivity, an urban proletariat almost without productivity, and taxes to maintain a strong military and police force. In the end, taxation was killing the towns, and the death rate and poverty rate within the masses was high. Summarily, in the second half of its reign Rome brought both economic and human distress, and thus discontinuity (the outcome of the obstructing HG’s rising in ranking).


By the poverty criterion feudal Europe was not much better than Rome. The masses were poor, while the small vassals (knights) and other noblemen looked for Glory and Instant-Gratification. Concerning the religion of the era, priests, monks and bishops kept the people in line and established a firm hierarchical organization. They were as feudal and hierarchical as the noblemen (to which class the majority of them belonged); they considered poverty a Christian virtue, however not for themselves but for the masses.


One of the signs of distress of the masses was a growth of religious activity. Medieval religion had a special signature, that of the HG Inviolability, by which an almost paranoid fear of hell and damnation was kept at bay by magic and ritual. (In later Calvinism the fear of hell and damnation remained, however without the soothing backdrop of catholic magic and ritual.)


On the other hand influenced by “Arab” Muslim philosophers, European theologians restudied their principles, discovered the Classic Roman and Greek cultures, and reshaped it in a Renaissance. Renaissance, Humanism, and later Enlightenment promoted Knowledge (Information) and a beginning of ideas of tolerance, Independence and (individual) Freedom, which was progressively supported by expanding Communication (Social Contact) and trade. Its black pages have been exploitation, slavery and colonization, the outcome of the obstructing HG’s rising in ranking, together with Control.


Nevertheless it was not Control or the obstructing HGs that got priority in Western culture but Information and Communication. Technology was the outcome. An alliance of Stability and Information was a next step, soon followed by a shift to the combination of Control and Information (especially by imperialistic expanding governments and multinationals) in the 19th and the first part of the 20th century. But this seems to have been a transitional period because after two World Wars, growing education, Information and Knowledge rose to the top and so rose Independence and (individual) Freedom in the West in the sixties. (And by consequence Stability dropped.)


Judged by the criterion to what degree a culture successfully diminished poverty and brought welfare for the majority of its population (discontinuity versus continuity), the globalization of Western culture's inventions stands firm.


Other cultures in past and present brought much less welfare for their populations. Especially those driven by the obstructing Hidden Goals, which brought distress and thereby hindering an economic development inevitable in modern times. If a culture is primarily driven by Approbation (as expressed in Honor and Glory) or Inviolability (mostly expressed in religious, ethnic or nationalist fanaticism) all kind of categories may be excluded from a culture’s economy or from human rights -- such as social class, ethnic or religious minorities, and often women. This is also demonstrated in Western culture’s history concerning the Roman, medieval feudal, and pre-Enlightenment (over-zealous religious) periods in which the obstructing goals stood highly placed in the HG-ranking.


Although the efforts of Western culture have their merits, we should add to the criterion to judge cultures the condition that the success or continuity of one culture must be obtained without causing discontinuity to other cultures. For example, impoverishing other populations by extracting their wealth. If Modern Globalizing Culture can eventually diminish poverty and bring welfare in more parts of the world, this would be a result never before achieved by any culture in history.


In recent centuries it has been Western culture that has expanded most globally, and by now the modern world is deeply influenced by Western culture; the process of “Westernization” is still going on, and cannot be stopped -- at best it will be modified. The existing open channels of Information and Communication will contribute to a further globalization of Western culture and its products, but it will change Western culture into a new, global version which I have called Modern Globalizing Culture to point out its by now mundial character.

Despite of all its disadvantages, black pages, and even large and significant mistakes, the most outstanding outcome of Western culture -- technology -- has proved successful in effectively eliminating large-scale poverty in the Western world. Only a globalized technological growth will be able to push poverty and other “symptoms of discontinuity”[14] (as I have named them) further back, provided that technological and industrial growth can be controlled.


Globalization and uniformity are not the same, in fact, quite the contrary. One of Western culture’s very characteristics is its diversity, due to its broad range of varied subcultures. Western culture in itself is a melting pot that has always absorbed influences from different origins. It is precisely this ability to absorb foreign influences as it welcomes ‘aliens’ to it's shores that has shaped this culture into one having great flexibility - a flexibility tolerating divergent opinions, even those that attack Westernization and its very outcomes. This tolerance has become one of the most valuable expressions of Western culture. Both characteristics of Western culture -- diversity and tolerance (how relative and fragile they still may be) -- must remain in co-existence to guarantee its continuity.


One of the central assumptions of this book is that cultural change is caused by a change in ranking of the ten Hidden Goals. By consequence, the questions were: Which radical changes could be observed in the West over the past 2000 years, and was there any proof of a change in ranking of the most pronounced HG’s? The analysis of the development of Western culture showed large and important cultural shifts throughout its history leading to an upward move of the combination of Knowledge (Information), global Communication (Social Contact), and Ambition (Control) in Modern Globalizing Culture.


As is pointed out, the dangers do not lay in Ambitious Control, but rather in its potential combination with the obstructing HG’s Approbation, Inviolability, and Instant-Gratification, especially in the fallacious idea of unlimited growth, scrupulous competition, and maximum short-run profits. These are the objectives of “economic terrorists”.



About the Author: BWW Society Member Dr. Andreas Eppink received his Doctorate degree in Social Sciences in 1977 from the University of Amsterdam, went on to study Clinical Psychology, and was officially registered as a Psychotherapist. He has worked as a Management Consultant, especially in the television, advertising, daily press, family business, transport, and public administration sectors, including work with the town of Maastricht. Prior to this, as an Anthropologist specializing in the study of culture, Dr. Eppink was a pioneer in the field of migration study, in particular mental health and occupation. In 1971 he founded the Averroes Foundation for the study of these areas. He headed this institute from 1978 to 1983, as it then became state run. He was an intergovernmental expert of the European Committee for Migration in Geneva, a member of the Board of Advisors to the Dutch Minister of the Interior, and an expert with different European committees in Strasbourg and Brussels. Dr. Eppink speaks five languages and reads several more.


[1] Learning to use the possibilities of proportional enlargement, that of “scale and scope” (Chandler), can be considered a capability regardless of a good or bad evaluation.

[2] Thereafter the Ottoman Turks would take over.

[3] Gunpowder was an accidental invention by a monk in search of an elixir to prolong life eternally. Gunpowder satisfied the HG Inviolability in quite another way than was originally assumed.

[4] Chandler repeatedly calls it “the tripartite investment in production, marketing, and management”, especially the investment in technologies of production, and in transportation and communication networks.

[5] Paul Colinvaux, The Fates of Nations, p. 147.

[6] I would explicitly like to compare multinationals and states. A national state is a regional ‘multinational’ providing all kind of service for its ‘customers’, the citizens. The ‘management’ (government) is chosen and controlled by them. The following scenario is not imaginary. The importance of states will disappear in the near future because of their increasing need of multinational collaboration. This diminishes the already small influence of citizens on government decisions. After going private independent service enterprises can only be ‘controlled’ by the citizens in their quality of customer. More state services can be privatized, even tax collecting (as was often the case in the past). The privatized companies can canvass customers worldwide, and will have worldwide subsidiaries. Who offers the best service will survive. Some coordination will be necessary, economical, military. The question is whether this will be done by big multinational consultancies and worldwide private security enterprises, or that these tasks will remain under the responsibility of a coordinated multinational worldwide government. Will it be a Board of directors, a Supervisory Board English style, or an organization of consumers’ interests worldwide?

[7] Quotation from the kind letter of Prof. K. Hiwaki, Tokyo University, on the theory of the Hidden Goals.

[8] Non-Arab Iran was an exception. First exploited like a colony by the British, the corruptive Iran government was tricked out by the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. since 1901, later B.P. In 1941 the Iran government expropriated the oil concessions. The British government answered with a military invasion of the country without any declaration of war, and thereafter blocked the Iranian harbors. This is one of the original causes for the hate feelings against “the British Imperialists and Monopolists” and the West in general as well as for the troubles in the Middle East. As no oil export became possible and Western countries refused to buy Iranian oil, the country was ruined economically. Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries took over. Concerning the Arab countries one of the main causes for a bad deal between the local governments and the Western oil companies was that the Arab (Muslim) countries had no income tax by which the companies could be charged like the case was in Venezuela that set the trend for the later OPEC. Cf. Jens Friedemann 1974.

[9] The exploitation of the Arab oil fields is of rather recent date. Exploitation without the technology and financial investments of Western oil companies would have been impossible. Until the 1940s the Arab countries were medieval and most of their inhabitants nomads. The orthodox religious rulers were opposed to any innovation. For example, the “reformer” king Ibn Saud got no permission to buy and import an automobile (let alone to exploit oil fields), tells Anton E. Zischka, his big admirer and first biographer (1936), who mentions also that Ibn Saud’s “maker” was a British H. St., J. B. Philby.

[10] “Guilt” has all kind of connotations, changing in time and culture. The most neutral meaning of “guilt” is that of a personal debt to a creditor.

[11] Pressing feelings of guilt on others telling them that they must feel guilty is in itself an attempt to exploit these others, at least psychologically. In this case -- and only in this case -- guilt feelings are appropriate.

[12] Big enterprises often use many forms of abuse of the legal process to force smaller companies to spend themselves into bankruptcy; consolidation and resulting control over/exile from necessary distribution channels required to bring products to the market, etc, etc.

[13] Personally, since the sixties I am acquainted with the village culture in Spanish Andalucia and in Morocco. Yes, the picturesque old Andalucian culture -- that of poverty! -- has gone. On the other hand, people are proud of the revival of cultural elements of the past in architecture and restoration, in music, in more information on the history of their region or village (thanks to the research in old archives), in their regional dialects, and so on.

[14] “Symptoms of (cultural) discontinuity” are: distress, suffering, harm, and hurt. They can occur on all levels: in individuals, groups, organizations, and societies or cultures.

[ back to "Publications & Special Reports" ]
[ BWW Society Home Page ]