Shweder's Lecture

In his lecture, Shweder presented three prophesies about the shape of the emerging world order. The first prophecy consists of the notion that "West is best," or the Washington Consensus. In other words, the superiority of Western capitalism and society will lead to the universalization of liberal democracy as the unifying factor of political order. The second prophecy suggests a world of robust cultural pluralism. Meaning that there will be a return of an ideologically divided world in which ethno-national states will compete. While they will compete with one another in the process of globalization, they will remain their own separateness and uniqueness. The final prophecy is what Shweder himself believes to be the most plausible. He suggests that we will have a return of global empire like that of the better feature of the Ottoman Empire: weak central state that only controls political/economic necessities like taxes, more local control, no standard family life, unique cultures and multiple groups/races/religions of people.

I think the most important indicator that would help predict the direction of global change is the variance in American or Western assumed superiority. Clearly, the Washington Consensus is still very much alive and is thriving, given his examples of speeches given at World Bank meetings. Moreover, he shared an experience of his in India that credits British colonial efforts, for without them, the man said "India would still be a land of barbarians." It is for this reason that I find the idea of the third prophecy to be very unlikely. I cannot see American society conforming to such a way of life in which American control and dominance cannot be exerted. Other indicators of global change include technology, trade relations and warfare. 

Culture is incredibly important in shaping economic outcomes. Shweder talked about a trade-off between inequality and diversity and used the ethnically cleansed European countries of Belgium and Switzerland as an example. He spoke of a rush toward income equality will lead to a decrease in diversity and that it is utopian to think that a country can have both at high qualities. This concept is very interesting to consider. It seems as though the universalization or watering down of culture could lead to more beneficial outcomes like income equality as seen in such European countries. Culture ultimately effects one's thought processes and thus how one views the world and participates in the economy. In regard to conducting international business, for instance, one's culture can be very limiting when trying to expand in to international markets of different cultures if you cannot incorporate other cultures/adapt to cultural changes. For instance, American expansion into Japanese markets can be very difficult simply because the cultures differ so greatly. Japan values collectivism over American individualism which will affect marketing techniques. Different personal/relationship values will also affect how the American market interacts with the Japanese consumers/investors. I think that this is the direction Shweder's lecture was going in. Culture should not be placed on a hierarchy: American way of life and their economic practices are not inherently superior.