Thank you, Ali Muràád Bàloç, for such an interesting question.
To understand what one might mean by ‘cultural shift’, we first need to understand what we mean by ‘culture’. Friedrich Nietzsche described human beings as orphans of nature because, compared to other animals, we are all but devoid of instincts. Unlike other animals, humans are not attuned to nature: we lack a specialization that can give us a definite orientation in life. As nicely put by Arnold Gehlen, the human animal is thus the only animal that needs to ‘lead a life.’ The human answer to this lack of attunement/orientation is culture: a shared network of normative beliefs that makes our life possible and that regulates each and every aspect of it.
Now, thinking of cultural shifts requires us to assume that culture, this thick network of normative beliefs, does change, which seems to be a fairly unproblematic assumption. At different times in history, different beliefs have worked as a relief for our lack of orientation – but how does change happen? In On Certainty, Wittgenstein states “We are satisfied that the earth is round,” and, later, “My life consists in my being content to accept many things.” This vocabulary points to the fact that it ‘works for us’ to believe that the earth is round, the fact that the beliefs we live by are the beliefs according to which living works. It is obvious, for instance, why hardly anyone could seriously believe that fire doesn’t burn human flesh. Such a belief could hardly work for anyone, since living by it would make one suffer endless injuries, if not death.
A cultural shift is what happens when certain fundamental beliefs ‘stop working for us,’ when we aren’t satisfied with them anymore. Take the Copernican revolution: How was a cultural shift from the ancient Ptolemaic model to the new Copernican model possible? Especially considering that, although his model was simpler and more mathematically elegant, Copernicus had no way – no satellite photographs, say – of proving that he was right.
His model was attractive insofar as it fitted perfectly with an ongoing reaction to the theological absolutism (the idea that God is omnipotent and follows no rules) characteristic of early modern Europe. Contrary to the widespread opinion that Copernicus’s discoveries represented a step towards the belittlement of the human species, his discovery that the universe had no center (neither the Earth nor the Sun) meant that the laws that applied on Earth also applied everywhere else in the Universe, and hence that the laws that we had worked out by looking at our planet applied to all creation. The ‘Heavens’ respected the same laws as the Earth and, as claimed by Galileo, the book of nature was written in mathematical terms. God, finally, had to follow some rules: yes, he was the author of the book, but he had to write it in a specific language and one which we spoke very well. Dissatisfaction with an old set of beliefs required a new scientific model, and a cultural shift was thus possible.
What do you think? What is it for a culture to shift? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Be sure to check out our podcast!
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: A modern colorized version of the Flammarion engraving: ‘A missionary of the Middle Ages tells that he had found the point where the sky and the Earth touch…’
I did a BA in Philosophy and Politics at the University of Exeter, and I am now pursuing an MA in Philosophy at the New School for Social Research, New York. I have read a lot of Nietzsche and I have studied Philosophical Anthropology for a while, but I am now focusing on Gender Studies. I am also interested in Ancient Greek philosophy, and I study Ancient Greek. My favourite philosophical idea is Nietzsche’s concept of life-affirmation and his critique of Christianity. I also like provocative texts like Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto.