western, non-western

I just had a big debate with a friend about the distinctions of "western" and "non-western" in academia (there is a required “non-western” history course at GSAPP). The question is weather these terms are still useful distinctions? Every geographic location has its own unique primitive culture, but nowhere on the planet is truly isolated anymore. And intrepid Australian and Japanese backpackers are voraciously exploring, and for the most part, congenially initiating those last few groups of somewhat isolated people through adventure travel, like the manifest destiny of globalization, in which the least explored places are the most desirable. In this context I think that we need new words and taxonomies for style and culture. At the moment "western" is standing in for non-native or some sense of meta-networked culture or maybe the culture of global wealth. And "non-western" stands in for "primitive" or other less networked practices. You might not agree with these distinctions and I am still trying to define them myself, but what is clear to me is that the word "western" in this context is no longer a geographic distinction, and its usefulness is increasingly dubious.

I was just looking at Hel Looks a catalog of street fashion in Helsinki, and was amazed at how much a lot of these kids look like the kids in Fruits, street fashion from Japan. It was one of those moments when you want new conceptual lense to understand the world. Finland is one of the most homogeneous societies in the "west"(replace with better term) with a strong design culture and so their adoption of street style form tokyo must be part of the "western" experience? I don't think so. The manner of adoption is very different for the anesthetization of the rococo designers of the 17th century who included "oriental" elements in there compositions. I think that there is a great deal of implicit empathy for their not-so-other in the style decisions of the kids from Hel Looks. Thanks Jean for the link.