Inclusionary and Exclusionary Cultures

February 25, 2006

As regards inclusionary and exclusionary cultures, we would have to say that both create a unique variety of stresses born of the actual demands caused by living within the terms stipulated by cultural paradigms. Inclusionary cultures tend to occur in places where trade is very active, where religion is polytheistic, and where the governments are based upon broader not narrower representation. Exclusionary cultures tend to be economically self contained or limited, are monotheistic in character, and provide rigorous social separation between those of the culture and those not of the culture. This kind of exclusionary cultural model tends to be successful in geographically isolated environments, such as but not limited to islands, linguistically isolated regions such as "The Americas" and such regions as the Gobi Desert, the Chukchi Peninsula, (Eastern Siberia), certain of the Indonesian islands, and such places as Iceland.

Until worldwide travel became possible and practicable in the latter part of the 16th century, these isolative factors tended to be self reinforcing, but once a kind of global trading enterprise exposed the world to a much broader base of social interchange, isolative populations became--by necessity--less isolated. Those cultures that included the concept and capability for what is now called "diversity", found ways in which to adapt to a greater or lesser degree to these "intrusions". Those societies which rejected those intrusions tended to reinforce their isolative natures and to magnify the importance of those elements of the society that not only endorsed their insularity but in fact mandated a level of general rejection for those "not of their number." These various social functions can be seen in many societies today. [Transcripionist's Note: Not to mention corporate cultures and the primary school playground.]

As we have discoursed on the impact of religion on society in this case we are including the impact of society on religion, in that those societies which choose to stringently limit the parameters a paradigm of their members tend in fact to embrace equally stringent and limiting religious concepts. Those societies where there is a wider concept regarding religions, the religions themselves tend to expand as it were in a reciprocal manner to the social conditions. When many societies converge in either a single place or a single frame of reference, occasionally the result is on comprehension and inclusion, but that only occurs when society and religion both accommodate such inclusion. When limited societies and exclusionary societies experience the same interaction, there is a dramatic increase in the degree and types of exclusion carried on and the folkloric supports of exclusion comes to the fore, as the inclusionary folkloric supports come to the fore under the aegis of social inclusion.

While both of these social experiences create their own algorithms and fractals, it is also generally accepted that once a pattern begins, it cannot be "interrupted", and even in those cases where social tides change, because of the nature of inclusion, exclusion and folklore, true change as well as true limitation tends to occur over a generation or two rather than a couple of years. Frustrating as this may be to many fragments, for change to be socially valid, it must last long enough to relegate no longer appropriate social models to the realm of folklore and legend. So long as it is seen to be immediate and viable within the culture it will provide constants and restraints and define the way in which the culture can function given what must be accommodated. This is one of the reasons catastrophic disasters tend to be so deeply disruptive to cultures. the nature of the catastrophes tend to be immediate and impinge upon expectations that are gradual. Very few social mechanisms are actually conceived of and established to deal with abrupt transitions, and such things as the "lost generation" tend to be the result immediately after such catastrophic disruptions, and tend to affect the next generation to generation-and-a-half immediately after the catastrophic events.

Incidentally in this instance, inclusionary societies tend to fare better than exclusionary ones, largely because the expectations of exclusionary societies tend to be more rigorously defined than inlusionary ones, and while the catastrophic events are catastrophic no matter when they occur, inclusionary societies tend to have more coping devices than exclusionary ones do, and the resultant algorithms and fractals from these events reflect the degree of coping possible with the resultant structures.

The end...for now.