How cultures get assimilated/absorbed

[RedRalph]

What do people think are the factors that decide how resilient a culture is to outside influence? What are the different factors that made, for example, Irish people to remain distinct from British people despite almost 800 years of being part of the same political entity, but have allowed most Germans to consider themselves just plain German after only 140 years of being together?

That's just one example, and I know someone is going to post some example of some small independence movement in Germany yadda yadda, but you understand the basic premise of the thread. Why did East Asian cultures in particular so strongly resist taking on western cultural norms?

 

[innonimatu]

I once found a book where one historian proposed a mathematical model for estimating the "cultural influence" of the dominant civilization within an empire upon the territory of a conquered civilization. Tried to test it on the roman empire, I believe. He considered as important factors the time duration of the occupation, distance, relative "civilization level", social cohesion within the conquered people, and the fraction of the population which were immigrants coming from among the conquerors.

It was something like t (years), d (in months of travel for the average commercial or private trip), c (development level, he used 6 grades depending on use of key technologies: hunter gatherer societies, agriculture, metal working, writing, industry with fossil fuels, modern telecommunications), s (five levels for social cohesion, from very weak to very strong), ef (number of immigrants from the occupying people/number of natives).

I could dig up the book and see the formula and weights he came up with, but obviously this is a rather dubious exercise. Anyway, I do thing that, while some general formula cannot be used, those 6 factors are well chosen. More, it takes a favorable situation for an occupier on all six in order to entirely assimilate a different, conquered people: centuries of occupation, ease of access, large relative numbers, technological superiority on key "civilizational game-changing" technologies, lack of strong institutions among the occupied people which can provide a rallying point for resistance, and large numbers of agents (traders, soldiers, settlers, bureaucrats) of the new power.

Your irish example... did the irish really remain distinct, or did they kind of re-invented Ireland in the 19th century? Anyway, the technological gap wasn't very big. And they did had a string distinct institution which provided a rallying point, the catholic church - the english did succeed in keeping those portions of Ireland where this specific institution was weaker and the immigrants were concentrated.

 

[Masada]

Ireland is distinct from Britain? Both lots just have funny accents.

 

[RedRalph]

Ireland and England are indeed very similar, but I don't think you can really deny they are two different cultures. Few if any Irish people consider themselves a subset of British people. Compare to say, how many Bretons consider themselves 'not French'? some may consider themselves as a distinctive part of French culture, but they don't not support the French football team, to put it simplistically.

Similarly, the US has assimilated many many cultures to the point where many Americans don't even know what their previous background is. Very few Americans identify as English-American or German-American, yet over hundreds of years of having similar culture, language, history, political systems, Belorussians remained distinct from Russians. why?

 

[Lone Wolf]

yet over hundreds of years of having similar culture, language, history, political systems, Belorussians remained distinct from Russians. why?

Well, Belorussian lands entered the fold of Imperial Russia only during the Polish partitions. And Belorussian nationalism and self-identification formed quite slowly.

 

[Masada]

Ireland and England are indeed very similar, but I don't think you can really deny they are two different cultures. Few if any Irish people consider themselves a subset of British people. Compare to say, how many Bretons consider themselves 'not French'? some may consider themselves as a distinctive part of French culture, but they don't not support the French football team, to put it simplistically.

So basically you are the same people but use some identifiers to signal that you are in-fact different - be it a resuscitated language, funny accent, shared memories of Bad Things and football loyalties.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your irish example... did the irish really remain distinct, or did they kind of re-invented Ireland in the 19th century? Anyway, the technological gap wasn't very big. And they did had a string distinct institution which provided a rallying point, the catholic church - the english did succeed in keeping those portions of Ireland where this specific institution was weaker and the immigrants were concentrated.

Honestly, I'm not sure Ireland is the best example; the complicated status of "British" as a concept just confuses things. The particular history of nationhood and national identity in the British Isles is simply too complicated to be used as any sort of generalised illustration, and has as much of the political to it as the cultural.

 

[innonimatu]

I agree. So, can we drop the irish example and address RedRalphs' more general question? I'm also interested in other people's opinions about that.

 

[RedRalph]

Fair enough, forget the Ireland example. Of course differences are bound to be accentuated to me and I can't be objective. Maybe Wales is a better example.

 

[Lord Baal]

I think innonimatu hit it on the head myself. There are numerous factors that one must take into account when discussing cultural assimilation, and I think the six he described are likely the most important. I also agree with him that the idea of any sort of mathematical equation to work this out is kind of silly and unworkable.

 

[Dachs]

Anyway, I do thing that, while some general formula cannot be used, those 6 factors are well chosen. More, it takes a favorable situation for an occupier on all six in order to entirely assimilate a different, conquered people: centuries of occupation, ease of access, large relative numbers, technological superiority on key "civilizational game-changing" technologies, lack of strong institutions among the occupied people which can provide a rallying point for resistance, and large numbers of agents (traders, soldiers, settlers, bureaucrats) of the new power.

This is problematic for certain cases, though. Take Anatolia, for instance.

 

[Masada]

I think we need to throw away the notion that identity is sticky. As Dachs' noted, a relatively small population of Turks managed to transform Anatolian identity in a few generations...

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not to mention, you know, Ireland again.
Whats more significant to me is how cultures drift and form.

 

[Lone Wolf]

There's no such thing as "national culture". The only "culture" that exists is the culture of all the humanity. The concept of "national culture" is outdated nonsense invented by nationalist historians.

 

[Verbose]

There's no such thing as "national culture". The only "culture" that exists is the culture of all the humanity. The concept of "national culture" is outdated nonsense invented by nationalist historians.

It's way more complicated than that. That something like this is invented doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And besides, even if the "national" bit can be highly dubious, there are cultures galore, just not necessarily national ones. The "national" straight-jacket has tended to cut down on them though.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's way more complicated than that. That something like this is invented doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I was not entirely serious.

 

[Lord Baal]

I was not entirely serious.

Dude, this will sound like I'm plannig to kill you, but that strikes me as an excellent epigraph.

@Masa + Dachs: The Turks in Anatolia seem to be a bit of an exception to this rule though. You very seldom see such a huge change in culture - without accompanying genocide - in such an incredibly short period of time.

 

[Dachs]

Then what about post-Roman Europe in general?

 

[Lord Baal]

Then what about post-Roman Europe in general?

I don't recall post-Roman Europe changing culture all that quickly dude. Aren't you the guy that usually argues against the "massive changes in a short time" scenario most people place there?

 

[Dachs]

It's...complicated. One could say that identity took about a century or two to alter for many people - or one could say that it happened very quickly indeed. You could say that the Goths, for instance, were almost entirely a Roman construct.