Bringing together a national society is made possible when its heterogeneity is molded into a single identity. That is made possible when coercive sacrifices are made for a conceptual standard that goes on to promise a better way of life. The only way to sustain any kind of unity is through measures that guarantee equality to each cultural minority that stands beneath the umbrella of the national structure in question. In one way or another one culture is able to observe itself as a minority even when it maintains a numerical majority simultaneously. Why? It is a question of perspective and when minorities rally together to politically and economically challenge the standing numerical majority it won’t be long until the latter is totally displaced.
Numerical majorities have demonstrated tendencies to impose a sort of hegemony on minorities; that is interpreted as an act of oppression and that encourages proactive uproar against the essence of what is recognized as the social status quo. History is rife with examples of societies developing in isolation from each other, but as time goes on measurements of social progress brings these cultures closer to each other. Does that stand as a testament to the eventualities of social evolution made under the auspicious of civilization? Primitive maritime communities and hunter gatherers develop structural sophistication once they are able to domesticate a sustainable food supply system for their own people.
All depending on which society reaches that threshold first will determine who will gain that first and definitive upper hand advantage. That is why Agrarian Revolutions can be classified as the first type of industrial revolution because the interlocking mechanization of its manifesting systems brings us definitely closer together beneath homogenous umbrellas. Arguably a critical observation is inclined to agree that when the moment of convergence arrives absolute equality does not exist between societies that are at different developmental scales. One is more developed while the other may be developmentally challenged; that explains a platform of mutuality that provides both interacting societies with tradeoffs which bring both compromises and benefits.
As history demonstrates, developmentally privileged civilizations abuse their power because they have learned from their own evolutionally experience when they started as primitively deficient. It isn’t possible to maintain either in any kind of extreme and the idea of progress is supposed to invite a better way of life for all involved. However, those “modern innovations” always have the potential to cause more harm than good which is why we can’t arbitrarily believe that progress manifests progression; often times the exact opposite is true. That is how the idea of a thriving national society is sold to societies that thrive off heterogonous cultural identities; broken down, each one folds into its own respective society.
These grandiose statements and proclamations that boastingly brandish pretenses for human rights are ambiguously conceptual. Why? Heterogeneous societies must figure out how to make these standards equitably accessible and that is often the responsibility of the society that has achieved the developmental advantage. Of course that is not to suggest that abuses and misappropriations of power won’t occur; developmental sophistication is not the same thing as maintaining a developed cultural consciousness. A nation that has managed to advantageously exert extroverted power has the tendency to lose touch with what it means to be humane and humble; as a result any conception of harmoniousness is jettisoned out the proverbial window and is rediscovered when the same nation reaches a period of decline.
Hence that correlates with one of the reasons why civilizations rise and fall and ultimately it all boils down to which endeavoring society reaches structural sophistication first enabling the creation of a sophisticated national type of civilization.
-Image is Courtesy of fema.gov-