The ‘West’ is not geography; it’s values
Last week, one of my old friends from high school sent me an interview from The New Yorker website. I generally avoid that publication because its cartoons are the worst. But this interview was quite good. In one of the more eye-catching moments, Princeton history professor and Russia expert Stephen Kotkin took a moment to define “The West.” “The West is a series of institutions and values. The West is not a geographical place. Russia is European, but not Western. Japan is Western, but not European. ‘Western’ means rule of law, democracy, private property, open markets, respect for the individual, diversity, pluralism of opinion, and all the other freedoms that we enjoy, which we sometimes take for granted.”
In this remarkably thoughtful bit of extemporizing, Kotkin manages to hit several nails on the head all at once.
Russian president Vladimir Putin figured that the West was simply a loose agglomeration of different countries and cultures, all turning inward and moving more or less away from each other. He figured that we have become gun-shy. He figured we have become too decadent.
But Putin missed all the nails Kotkin hit. This is because, by almost every account, Putin suffers from the inability to shift his paradigm. To see the world from a different perspective. To believe that others are differently motivated than he is.
Here at home, I find the latter attributes Kotkin mentioned merit special attention: respect for the individual, diversity, and pluralism of opinion. Both political parties have staked claims on individualism and diversity, and on being the big tent. That is why I am having such a hard time understanding the culture war that is afoot in our country.
The aggressors in this war believe that they, and they alone, have a monopoly on what it is to be American. While they may never characterize their beliefs this way, their actions make plain that they believe there is a narrow band of skin tones, a narrow band of religions, a narrow band of political thought, and a narrow band of sexual and gender identities that are sufficiently “American.”
The facts paint a pretty clear picture. The books they seek to ban and the thoughts they are attempting to police are all voices of diversity and pluralism of opinion. They are not trying to ban Shakespeare for sexual content or “Gone with the Wind” for completely rewriting one of the most horrifying aspects of American history. No, they are almost exclusively targeting Black and LGBTQ+ authors.
The opposition in this culture war takes the position that America is not only a place of diversity, but that its diversity is one of its defining — Western — characteristics. They are not targeting books and thoughts. They are not demanding that Christian holidays be struck from the calendar. They are not seeking information about how many heterosexuals there really are.
In this culture war, there is no parity between the sides.
When it comes time to ponder censoring what our students learn out of fear that they might be “indoctrinated,” I side with General Mark Milley, Trump’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who offered this thought:
“I’ve read Mao Zedong. I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist. So what is wrong with understanding — having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend?”
Preventing people from hearing alternate narratives through information control and revisionist history is not only how Putin keeps the support of fellow Russians, but is also how Putin came to completely misunderstand the West.
The idea that a small number of people are fit to judge and censor and silence the viewpoints of the rest is completely anti-Western.
The fact that 81% of Americans agree that the violent invasion of an emerging democracy is wrong can teach us two lessons about ourselves. First, that we are more united than we think in our deep, core beliefs about personal freedom. Sometimes it just takes a push coming to a shove to remind us of this.
Second, that while we may disagree about a wide range of things — sometimes vehemently — we believe that the freedom to have those different points of view is something worth fighting for, not against.