CULTURAL BLINDESS-CASE STUDY ROMANIA

PhD student Marcel Epure

“Al.I.Cuza” University
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration

Abstract: Cultural blindness is the phenomena in which a person follows the cultural
tradition and values without judging that either it is good or bad. Despite the move of most
organizations towards globalization, many people in the organization remain insensitive
towards cultural differences. They somehow fail to respect differences because they believe
that it is the duty of the minority to adapt to the dominant culture and not the other way
around. Cultural blindness could also be an indirect effect of rampant discrimination towards
the minorities. However in the perspective of the General Power theory, the coined term,
cultural blindness has an altogether different meaning. Paul Fudulu a professor from
University of Bucharest has come with an alternative to Weber’s rationalism, for explaining
the economic performance of a culture.

Keywords: cultural blindness, mega-goods, absolute power, relative power

From Fudulu’s perspective, Weber has not explained the exact relation between
religion and economic performance. “the logic in Weber’s idea of Western rationalism as a
partial determinant of modern capitalism is that a certain type of religion—Protestantism,
especially English Puritanism as derived from Calvinism—is based on a type of rational
behavior that favors the shaping of capitalistic spirit and the type of economic system which
has prevailed in Western countries in the modern age. This effect of Protestant rationalism
was unintended, derived from purely religious characteristics” (Fudulu, 2009, ¶, 4). Weber
can’t explain the origins of economic rationalism specific to a certain religious denomination,

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1905808

and even goes as far as searching for possible explanations in anthropology. This is a dead
end as we know it. The emergence of western civilization can’t be explained using the ideas
of racial superiority. Weber argues that the cultural determinations of economic development
are weak enough, that capitalism would have been possible anywhere ales in the world.

Paul Fudulu’s General Power Theory is considering a few basic assumptions. First of
all, the Weber’s theory is only considering the validity of a generally desired human meta-
objective: the mega-objective of absolute wealth. If this was not the case, talking about the
failure of some rich countries to develop capitalism would make no sense. Because it is the
case of a single mega-objective, adopting the efficient institutional setting—capitalism—is
not a problem of choice but a technical problem, or a problem of identifying and being able to
adopt the proper means for a single human mega-goal. (Fudulu, 2009, ¶, 5). The issue is not
that Weber neglected some other aspect, or underlying cause for economic prosperity. Weber
was simply affected by what Fudulu describes as cultural blindness. From this perspective
Weber was not able to identify the elusive obvious of the cultural dimension of a society,
because his culture is centered mainly on a single mega-objective: absolute wealth and so
individuals extend this reality to the whole humanity.

The new paradigm that Paul Fudulu is suggesting is based on the anti-entropic nature
of life: Living beings naturally tend to reduce the entropic degradation by maximizing the
trapped entropy from their external habitat. Consequently, with reference to the human
species, the assumption should be that individuals maximize the trapped low entropy from
their external reality without any initial or given differentiation among its living or non-living
components. The components of external reality can be classified in: (I) one component
consisting in the other human beings and (II) another component consisting of any remaining
components (living or non-living). The individual’s ability to control the first component is
referred as relative power, and the ability to control the latter is referred as absolute wealth...
An individual’s general ability to control all his external reality makes up his general power.
(Fudulu, 2009, ¶, 7)

Relative power and absolute wealth are the all-inclusive mega-objectives or mega-
goods that can be used to define fundamental concepts like rules, institutions and cultures.
Institutions are opportunity cost rankings and cultures are preference rankings in terms of the
two mega-goods. Each institution, irrespective of the particular field or sector to which it
belongs, consists of a ranking in terms of opportunity costs for the two mega-objectives.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1905808

Whatever the specific activity of a sector within the same community, that is, within the same
culture, all of that community’s institutions have the same representative ranking of the two
mega-objectives in terms of opportunity costs. The institutions of a church, an economic
system and a school, for instance, which belong to the same community, should have the
same opportunity costs attached to the two mega-objectives. . (Fudulu, 2009, ¶, 9)

Absolute wealth has two remarkable proprieties: first, it can be conserved and used to
produce more prosperity, and economic growth, and second it drives individuals to engage in
positive-sum games, while relative power as a mega-objective drives people to play zero-sum
games. Paul Fudulu distinguishes two types of wealth (relative and absolute), the later being
the ordinary concept of wealth emptied of any relative position or power aspects. Wealth can
be utilized to gain a position of relative power in a community, and promote zero-sum games
in a community. In this case an individual will trade involuntary more wealth for power. A
community with a preference for relative power will have a diminished economic
performance, and a community with a higher preference for absolute wealth will create much
more wealth.

There is no longer any difficulty in placing culture at the core of economic theory, and
the relevant question becomes: What factor shaped the particular cultural preference ranking
of the two mega-objectives? Whatever cultural determinants theory suggests, it is clear that
they are not in the range of human choice. Taking into account that the absolute wealth level
is now a derived result of a more comprehensive maximization, the differences in economic
performance are not a matter of rationality but a normal result of different constraints and
preferences faced by individuals belonging to various communities. (Fudulu, 2009, ¶, 9)

Theological particularities of a confession can shape the economic pedigree of a

community by associating a higher or lower cost of opportunity for the two mega-goods.
Fudulu argues that people may be indeed much more rational that a scientist may think in the
first place. An individual does not make a conscious decision in this matter. He or she simply
is acting rationally according to the culture in which they were raised. A higher preference
for relative power, makes wealth just another mean to obtain that power thru luxury for
example. The absolute wealth is associated with the activities like maximizing profit as an end
in itself, functional asceticism (not monastic ascetism, this asceticism is compatible with
efficiency and thriftiness), and labour as calling (beruf) and specialization, and practical
technological education. An Individual shaped by Protestantism, has no interest in power that
could be obtained from wealth: “He avoids ostentation and unnecessary expenditure, as well
as conscious enjoyment of his power, and is embarrassed by the outward signs of the social
recognition which he receives” (Weber, 2003:71). Relative wealth or the relative power
aspect of wealth is associated with a preference for, luxury consumption, ostentatious
activities, sports and. This means, that wealth that could be utilized to produce more wealth is
wasted. In most of the cases this wealth is obtained in the first place by taking part in zero-
sum games. Weber’s quotation which is a good proof: “Even Confucius would strive after
riches, though it might be as a servant, whip in hand” (Weber, 2003:53).

The conclusion is obvious and Paul Fudulu delivers it bluntly: Lacking the deep
understanding of (absolute) wealth as power over natural environment, and not being able to
grasp the grotesqueness of the logic, many economists even today identify resources as a
determinant of economic growth. (Fudulu, 2009, ¶, 9)

Paul Fudulu is making a point by describing the fact, that the existence of the mega-
objective relative power was well documented by scientists in past. Weber, Hofstede,
Sombart, even Smith have identified this mega-objective, but never managed to reach the
correct conclusions. Modern science has been the product of men and women that were
educated in culture that regarded absolute wealth as a main objective for the human race. In
other words these people were blind , and could not identify relative power as one of the
objectives.

The reality of these two mega-objectives puts in a new perspective the way in which
we look at institutions. A high preference for relative power would result in creation of
institutions that do not efficiently promote economic development. Titu Maiorescu in his one
of the most celebrated articles from 1868 Against nowadays direction in Romanian culture,
criticized the implementation of certain institutions imitated after the Western ones and to
which no appropriate root corresponded in the mentalitaty, and cultural legacy of the
Romanian people.

"Before we had any village teachers, we created village schools, and before we had
any professors, we opened universities, and [thus] we falsified public instruction. Before we
had a culture outside of the schools, we created the Romanian Atheneum and cultural
associations, and we despised the spirit of the literary societies. Before we had even a shade
of original scientific activity, we created the Romanian Academic Society, with philological,
historical-archaeological, natural sciences departments, and we falsified the idea of an
Academy. Before we had any notable artists, we created the Music Conservatory; before we
had a single worthy painter, we created the fine art schools; before we had a single valuable
play, we founded the National Theatre, and we devalued and falsified all these forms of
culture. “ i(Maiorescu, 1998:109)ii

This modernization of Romanian society was forced, and contraproducvtive. Only

natural local developed institutions could be effective in developing a national culture. This
aspect points out a cultural paradox in which, this country situated at the limits of western
civilization has been. The simplest solution for the Romanians was to adopt quickly the
widest possible range of western institutions in the hope that this would produce the benefits
and prosperity at a desired scale. Maiorescu pleads for institutions that are rooted in real
changes in the mentality of Romanians.

Although this may be a non-issue from the economic perspective, the situation of the
Romanian culture isn’t a far cry from the economic situation. The ruling elites of the country
forcibly adopted institutions that governed the economy, despite being totally strange to the
populous. The idea was that the transplanted institutions would somehow manage to produce
the desired effects by simply imitation of western types of rules and customs. This institution
didn’t have the human capital capable of running them in a western fashion. Of course there
were plenty of well trained workers from Western Europe that were brought here to ease the
transition, but their impact was only marginal. This new institution have been high jacked by
the locals and put in the service of the predominant mega-objective in this country: relative
power. The new, modern institutions have become part of the problem, part of an endless
transition specific for balcanic countries.

On the other hand the westerners that happened to pass by saw the real potential of
Romania, and find it hard to explain why Romanians cannot implement rules, institutions
that were effective in promoting economic and social progress. That was very obvious for
them, but very unobvious for Romanians. A few remarkable minds have managed somehow
to have some remarkable insights and produce a few solutions. Dinicu Golescu (7 February
1777 – 5 October 1830), a member of the Golescu family of nobles, was a Wallachian
Romanian, man of letters noted for his travel writings. n 1826, he published an account of his
travels through Europe, Însemnarea călătoriei mele ("Account of My Travel"), which is the
first travelogue of a Romanian in Western Europe.
 He studied the administration and economy in Austria, which he describes through
comparisons with the situation at home. The text contains a plea for a general reform of
institutions in a "European" direction Viewing European culture as more advanced, he
managed, to convey a message of change that was effective. One of the solutions proposed
was to send as young as possible children to study in the Occident. He argues that being very
young the children wouldn’t be affected by local mentality and customs and upon their return
they will be able to promote real and effective change in the country. The cultural blindness is
affecting all those who came in contact with an exotic culture. People raised in a culture are
very likely to be affected by cultural blindness. This has consequences regarding the way we
explain our situation, or in this case the lack of wealth in the most counties of the world.

Western or orthodox economic science is built on the assumption of an infinite

opportunity cost for relative power (infinite preference for absolute wealth). In other words,
the orthodox economic science accepts an individual’s interest in just one of the two mega-
goods. In reality, the opportunity cost of relative power is not infinite, even for extreme
cultures like the Jewish or the present Western one; it is much lower and variable across
communities and historical epochs. Consequently, it is rational that in some social contexts
(e.g., when there are power inequalities), to sacrifice more or less absolute wealth to get
relative power. (Fudulu, 2009, ¶, 7)

Wealth

power

Fig. 1.a: roman and greek culture: high preference for power (source: Fudulul.2007:67)
 wealth

power

Fig. 1.b protestant culture: low preference for power (source: Fudulul.2007:67)

Institutions are opportunity cost rankings and cultures are preference rankings in terms
of the two mega-goods. Culture can be described with a function of utility illustrated graphic
by and indifference curve.

From Paul Fudulu’s perspective a correct deffintion of institution must aknolege the
existence of the two mega-goods ( relative power and absolute wealth), only the can we
elimnate the efects of cultural blindness. The reason is simple: only then can we fuly
integrate culture in economics and find scientific explanation for different levels of
development. Institution alone is not enough to promote prosperity. One country must have
also the right tipe of isntitution, otherwise wouldn’t be rational for the people to accept them,
if they have as maximand the cultural good of relative power.

Wealth

Power

Fig.2 cultural blindness. In western society the good power is invisible (dotted line) (source. Fudulu.
2007.160)
 Being blind to the good power western economits have stated that wealth is an absolute
objective for the entire human kind. Culture blindness made it impossible for them to
integrate in their economic theories the other mega-good, relative power. People would
sacrifice wealth for relative power. This would be a rational way of acting in a culture
with a high preference for relative power.

REFERENCES

Fudulu, Paul „The Economic Performance of Great Religions An Alternative to Weber’s

Rationalism”, World Press http://paulfudulu.wordpress.com/ [Accessed august 2011]

Fudulu, Paul, Compatibilitatea marilor religii cu performanța economică, editura

Universitară, București, 2009;
Fudulu, Paul, Teoria economică a culturilor și instituțiilor. Determinarea culturală a
performanțelor economice, Editura Universitară, București, 2007;
Ignat I., N. Clipa, I. Pohoaţă, Gh. Luţac, Economie politică, Editura Economică,
Bucureşti, 1998;
Golescu Dinică, Însemnare a călătoriei mele, Constantin Radovici din Golești, făcută în
anul 1824, 1825, 1826, Editura:Eminescu, 1971;
Maiorescu, Titu, Critice, Editura Albatros, București, 1998;

Weber, Max "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" translated by Talcott
Parsons Courier Dover Publications, 2003;

i
Translation in english from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junimea
ii
Romanian edition