Rating: 
Summary: Of Course Culture Matters!
Review: It's vexing to again read that some historian or journalist "rediscovers" what scholars from other academic disciplines have long taken to be commonplace. This is the case here, where the authors "discover" the cogency of culture and beliefs in determining the nature of a society and the basis of the good life. Whether exploring the depravities of communism or fascism, the horrors of the Japanese occupation of Nanking or the murderous impluses of Rwandan tribes, one always comes back to the cogency of the classic observations of sociologists and cultural anthroplogists regarding the amazing plasticity of man's nature, and his frightening ability to chase either sweet reason or deepest depravity with equal enthusiasm. What restrains us and orients us, then, are our common beliefs and cultural rules. Their nature and content make us who we are as human beings living in a society with a particular world view and characteristic way of interpreting it. Without them the most cruel, base, and inhumane behavior consistently seems to emerge. Yet no one today, especially authors pandering to tastes of the vox populi, seems to be too excited about the fact that the much-vaunted "Third Wave" showering many of us with a flood of material wealth also hoses all such cultural systems of belief and purpose from us as we watch, rendering them irrelevant. Yet the two authors in question skate bravely over these issues without citing the historical precedents in way of honoring recent scholars such as Neil Postman, C. Wright Mills and G. William Domhoff, or classic scholars like Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, who have discussed the moral vacany and dangers of contemporary culture with such accuracy and verve. There is nothing new here; it may be novel for these scholars, but what they cite as breath-talking is conventional knolwedge for graduate students properly schooled in the classical works of sociology and cultural anthropology. The fact that they claim to have "discovered" it is just more evidence of how specialized knowledge has become. Instead of substantive beliefs and some sort of value-laden systems of meanings, all contemporary culture offers us is ceaseless creature comforts and endless entertainments and amusements, as though such comforts and amusements represent the culmination of the culture, the fruit of its realization, instead of its actual negation and specious denial. Consumerism has little or nothing to do with community, friends, and may in fact represent its antithesis, yet anyone who dares to criticize the politically correct and ultimately desireable nature of the present situation is shouted down as a non-progressive neo-Luddite. Indeed, no one can show in any substantive way that (aside from the benefits of medical health and public sanitation) the way we live is preferable to that of the Victorians. Indeed, a culture based solely on such puerile impulses as pursuit of material wealth cannot long endure, cannot withstand the inevitable tests of history. Increasingly, however, material concerns are the sole driver in the economic juggernaut. Yet the Russians didn't beat the German Army because of their material capability; they did so in spite of their poverty, because of their cultural values and their unconquerable will to survive. We live in a society where lesbians can claim that their unions are "the same" as heterosexual unions. Perhaps they are in some fashions a rough functional equivalent, but to wave away all the cultural baggage that makes them distinct is to make them unintelligible. To so do also betrays the depths to which our lack of cultural orientation has fallen, that we cannot see basic differences in things because to acknowledge them is to be accused of some politically-incorrect bias. They certainly are not the same. The fact that no one points out such glaring logical differences is indicative of the degree to which our lack of behavioral codes and cultural rules leaves us with no basis for interpreting the world outside us, and renders us confused and unable to see basic differences among things that previous cultures saw quite distinctly. Unfortunately, we will likely learn to our horror in coming decades how well the symptoms portrayed by Columbine, environmental decay and general social chaos and confusion mirror our rapid cultural and moral decline. Don't bother buying this book; instead, go back and read classical sociologists like Marx, Weber, Durkheim, who 100 years ago of the dangers implicit in increasing rational, non-traditional, and valueless societies based exclusively on nothing but the material impulses of its inhabitants. Greed is an insufficent basis for a sustainable society, and until we learn that fact, and begin to adopt a more meaningful moral code and system of beliefs we are in real, palpable cultural danger.
Rating: 
Summary: Romanticizing traditional cultures, tribalism causes poverty
Review: Multi-culturalism is a conceit of a tiny group of academics in the West. They resist any suggestion that the condition of underveloped countries might possibly have something to do with the underveloped countries themselves. According to them ev eryting is orchestrated by the West.
Intellectual freedom promotes progress. Democracy correlates with material prosperity. The United States of America was the first country in the WORLD to create a right to free speech protected by a constitution establishing a government of laws. Yes, a revolution was required to free the United States from Britian, but the revolution did not create the legal system, the founders did.
In order for art, music, literature, drama, poetry and the higher human activities to florish a society must have a minimum level of material prosperity. Comfortably fed, housed and clothed academics claim that Third World people prefer living in a grass hut to a home with running water.
Time is passing and the colonialism excuse is wearing thin. Some former colonies have progessed mightily by embracing democracy, rationalism, and modern science. Look at India, Singapore, Hong Kong. Some have stagnated.
The Islamic world suppresses the talent of half of its population then claims its undervelopment is the fault of the West. African governments rejected modern science and thereby promoted the spread of AIDs which is destroying their country.
Rating: 
Summary: Needs a wiser production editor
Review: My comments are at tangent with the rest (with most of which I agree) because I think the publishers have ruined the readability of this book by printing on cheap paper, poor quality binding and most importantly by selecting the smallest sized font. Publishers should know that the bulk of the readership for this type of book is above 50s and this book is hard to read unless your eyesight is as good as that of a 10 year old! Of course, there are unnecessary footnotes right at the end of the book. One would like to see that they are minimized and prefer on the text page. I cannot see why the available technology cannot be used to improve the quality of book production.
Rating: 
Summary: Let's Have Truth In Reviewing For This Book!
Review: Potential customers should know that Mr. Hamilton is a former official for the U.S. Agency for International Devlopment, an infamous front organization for the CIA both in Latin America and elsewhere, so he has a long career as being a front man and toady to big business and the corporate community in general. So how is Baby Doc Duvaliar doing these days, Mr. Jordon? How wonderful that his willingness to serve the interests for multi-national corporations in the third world has turned out so well for him; he now walks the hallowed marbled halls of the Harvard School of Business (a reward from a grateful spook community?) Now this bureaucrat turned firebrand academic crusader presumes to lecture us on values and culture. Based on what, compadre; your DBA? What he really wants is to forward the pleasant fiction that the business community cares about the direction we are headed in, when in fact they are the bad guys leading us astray in the first place. Indeed, as a previous reviwer points out, he ignores a very long and well-documented tradition in social science that have shown just how badly the business community in particular and western governments in general has ravaged the cultures they are part of. He also has the dishonesty to have one of his toadies write a review for his own book (see below; the guy actually admits he is one of the contributors). What a surprise he gives a glowing report and trashes another reviwer who didn't appreciate the book or sing its praises. So much for honesty and fairness in book reviewing! Personally, I agree with what the other reviewer had to say; there is nothing really new or original here, just the rehashing of old news by a very conservative seminar full of academic hasbeens with a new set of clothing and a colorful dust-jacket for the millennium. There are a whole rafter of better books to buy. You can find them right on this site. I advise you to pass this one by, folks. It is a poor, thin gruel masquarading as potatoe bisque. Peace!
Rating:
Summary: outdated
Review: Short and sweet:
Read this if: 1) you want to understand the mindset that creates a foreign policy that makes other countries think the US is arrogant; 2) you can abstract from the ethnocentrism and think about the importance of institutions in the context of capitalism. Don't read this if: 1) you are likely to be bothered by the lack of attention to history -- this text ignores studies that tie the very progress and institutions they are discussing to colonial legacies; 2) you won't appreciate the overview of value systems around the world (which is very helpful) because it relies on homogenizing cultures.
Rating:
Summary: This Book Sucks Air........
Review: Talk about much ado over nothing; this book appears to be a desperate, pompous, and silly attempt for a bunch of stuffy academics to either publish or perish. For example, one reviewer calls Seymour Martin Lipset one of the foremost sociologists of the 20th century. Sure comes as a news flash to those of us working in the field of academic sociology. I don't know what this guy is smoking, but I would like to have a kilo of it, since it must be REALLY powerful stuff to make him write such silly and self-serving nonsense for public consumption. Chill, baby! Lipset hardly deserves such extravangant billing or this presumptuous claim of legendary stature. He should take his place in back of the dozens and dozens of sociologists who have earned the legitimate and well-deserved respect and esteem of their fellows. So far as I can see, Lipset's only recent claim to fame is to have grabbed tenure at Harvard, which only goes to prove that even they make mistakes. Harvard, by the way, is what most of these guys seems to have in common. As an aside, Lipset's most famous effort, "Political Man", has been laughed at as a contrived and overwrought apologia for old-style political sociology that served mainly as justification for the policies of the "ancien regime" in American politics for decades. His chief claim to fame in all this has been to serve as a loyal albeit overwrought academic apologist for the positions and policies of conservative Republicans. This whole book sounds suspiciously like way too much hot air packed in a rising balloon. How it ever saw its way into mass circulation has to be the most interesting question of the year. Not for long, though. It can never survive close scrutiny or an extended review. Watch, everybody, as its sales figures go POP!
Rating:
Summary: Addresses issues of culture relativism
Review: The book is a collection of essays on "culture." I am not giving away the book if I tell you that the punch line:is "do you know how many anthropologists it takes to get a pound of brains?" -- This old joke (usually about lawyers) is rehashed in an article by Richard Shweder that takes an opposing view to most of the articles in the book. Though most of the essays start with the premise that it is better to be rich and healthy than it is to be sick and poor, Richard Shweder represents a huge segment of people who oppose change in any form. Having an essay such as this in the book gives it depth, because his view is a common one that cannot be ignored. Most of the other authors look for ways that we can emperically evaluate and define our intuitions about culture. They dare to ask the question: is it possible that some cultural choices could lead to groups of people being mired in poverty, while others lead to greater health and happiness? Most of them address the subjectivity of what they are studying, but they often come up with very satisfying discussions. The book has wonderful discussions of Africa, Latin America, the role of women in various societies and other sociological information. It addresses foursquare the questions of post-modernist cultural relativism, including, as I mentioned, both sides of the discussion.
Rating:
Summary: One part of the equation
Review: The book must be put in the larger context, usually referred to as the nature~nurture debate, in this case nature~culture. The essays collectively beg the question: why have certain dysfunctional values emerged in certain societies (the same question could be asked of John McWhorter's book "Losing the Race")? The "Progressive" leftist reviewers fault the book for not taking into account the debilitating influence of Euro nations in third world countries: the now standard academic party line about Colonialism. But they too ignore why some groups succumb and are undone by outside influences, and some aren't. Most Asian societies had to confront westerners. But they adapted and then thrived. Why? because they have a population with the necessary biological capacity. One can rant and rave about racism and all the other PC terms, but it doesn't make this taboo area go away. The inability to grapple with the nature side of the equation only increases the suspicion that the apologists for the downtrodden are unable to rebut explanations based on genetic make-up. Culture emerges in various ways based on environmental factors to be sure; but those cultures that have not come to terms with modernity are most likely hamstrung by a citizenry and a leadership class with more limited intellectual potential (of course, many individuals will have the required equipment, but they are too few in number). Democratic institutions simply cannot flourish in certain parts of the world. We have to ask the pragmatic question: would some sort of autocratic regime with a heavy dose of capitalism (e.g. Hong Kong)have the potential to lift Latin America and Africa out of their doldrums?
Rating: 
Summary: Topic excellent, execution could be better
Review: The editors did a reasonable job of bringing in some good minds to explore the topic. However, though the issue of study was relevant and timely, these kinds of books that come out of symposium are generally a little too disultory to really do any topic justice. They are more to justify the costs of the conference and say to the sponsors, "look what we did." This book is no exception. Most of the authors are just re-hashing their own previosuly written articles and throwing a little cultural flavor in to make it presentable. The reason I give it even 4 stars is that it is in fact the best modern book out there on the topic. What I would like to see at this point is one of the authors to pick up the ball and write an in-depth and coherent work on the subject.
Rating:
Summary: Uneven, but ultimately revealing and rewarding
Review: The essays in this book are uneven. Some go nowhere, while others soar. Generally, the essays toward the beginning of the book -- those by David Landes, Michael Porter, and Carlos Montaner, especially -- are outstanding. In contrast, the essays toward the end of the book are, generally, uninspired and uninspiring. The theme of the volume is that culture matters. The best half-dozen essays in this book (along with the nice Introduction by Lawrence Harrison) make a powerful case that culture does indeed matter. It remains true that a generally accepted and precise definition of culture remains elusive; certainly, doing useful quantitative analyses of cultures is, as of now, only far off on the horizon. But the imprecisions that still mark discussions and analyses of culture should not prejudice scholars against recognizing the large role that culture plays in determining economic outcomes. Anyone who believes that economic outcomes are strictly determined by the laws and regulations enforced by a sovereign state should read this book. He or she will have an almost-impossible task defending that position.
| 
