Borderlands
I have always believed that borderlands — of ecosystems, of civilizations, of art — foster creativity and innovation. Having finished the first chapter of Bernard Bailyn’s short — 150 page — To Begin the World Anew, I am struck by the similarity of this belief with Bailyn’s description of the creative tension between provincialism and sophistication that formed the the fertile soil from which grew the revolutionary ideas of American political thought.
Particularly intriguing is the sense that this creativity arose out of the colonists’ uneasyness with having one foot planted in the Old World and one in the New:
For many — the ablest, best informed, and most ambitious — the result was a degree of rootlessness, of alienation either from the higher sources of culture or from the familiar local environment
Quite a contrast with the current state of affairs. The United States is now comfortably established as the predominant world power. Popular culture takes its lead from the United States. Students from across the world seek out a U.S. education. Wealth and class discrepancies at home have never been greater. Narrow specialization rules the day. Culturally, we are no longer living on — nor stimulated by — the frontier.
Which leads to the inevitable questions: Where is the frontier today? Where can fertile circumstances such as those existing in pre-revolutionary America be found today?
2 Responses to 'Borderlands'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Interesting thoughts. It seems to me that frontiers, borderlands, are really states of minds, an awareness of being midstream and in the midst of often and usually uncomfortable transitions. In actuality, impermanence is the name of the game, the only reality. We are always in transition, always in a borderland between what was and what will be, and that state is NOW. We are always in this situation and almost always trying to deny or escape from it rather than facing it in its richness, ambiguity, and potential, and then fruitfully embracing it. By doing the latter we can escape the suffering that otherwise is inherent in non-acceptance. The essence of all this is wisdom.
I don’t agree with the hypothesis that the US has achieved a stable worldwide cultural hegemony. To be sure, many people across the globe are still trying to realize what they view as our cultural “advantages,” but it is clear to me that a major reaction is setting in and that cultural forces are moving (beyond?) in other creative directions, as yet unclear. This should not be surprising since Western culture has about reached (if it has not already moved beyond) its limit in terms of sustainability, and creative reaction is inevitable. This is not other than a predictable Hegelian dialectic, and current Western thesis and inevitable alternative antitheses will result in a new synthesis.
This all represent an exciting frontier and obvious present borderland.
It may, in addition, be legitimately argued that a new frontier is internal rather than external, a renewed exploration of the nature of mind and internal experience itself. This can be confusing and ephemeral in light of our current cultural values, and it is tempting and all too easy to create and postulate alternative and in a sense specious frontiers such as moon and Martian colonization, to say nothing of our seemingly endless attempt to continue to force our own cultural values on the world and create a global civilization in our own (extremely flawed) image.
bknagle
29 Dec 06 at 10:32 am
I think you are misunderstanding me a little. I certainly did not mean to imply that the current dominance of western/US culture throughout the world is a stable state of affairs. It most certainly is not, and my original rhetorical question pondered where the inevitable antithesis might arise, with a focus on wondering where conditions are most ripe for this emergence.
A valid argument is that a strong, durable antithesis might arise from within the culture, which is what I think you are suggesting.
snagle
1 Jan 07 at 5:07 pm