Cultural Philosophy, to define it directly, would be the general views toward human interaction held by a society.  These views mold the type of ethos a society will follow, thus judging for it its Social Doctrine, and finally, its system of government.  Ultimately, all the philosophies in the world can be summed up by a single query: "What matters, and why?"  This simple question determines the ethics of human interaction.  The views of human interaction can be summed up into two different philosophies that beget different views of ethics.  Philosophy is the root of all thought.  It was the study of philosophy that led the naturally inquisitive human to medical sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and law.  Like I've said, without a discussion of philosophy, a discussion on ethics is useless, and without a discussion of ethics, a discussion of politics is useless.  So in order to understand political science (the study of societal interaction), one must first understand philosophy.

Most views and ethos can be traced back to one of two general philosophies: Individualism and Collectivism which contain their own general ethics that beget sublets with much stricter ethical standards.  In the ultimate question of political systems, the question of Cultural Philosophy is the first unanswered question to be answered.  Whether they seek to break free from the philosophy of their current rulers or they simply developed the outlook in the absence of government is irrelevant; it is the Cultural Philosophy that dictates their preferences in a government.

So let's reconstruct the political spectrum.  Picture it the way it's presented now: atheistic communist-socialism on the left and religious nut-job fascistic super-capitalism on the right.  Now throw that away--left and right are not ideologies, they're directions.  The spectrum the founders of our nation believed in had no government on one end and too much government on the other but that's not right either.  The many political ideas can't simply be put properly on a spectrum based on no or too much governance, there's too much to political discussion to simplify it to that single issue.  It doesn't get down to the philosophy of a civilization, nor does it give a direction to that civilization.  If a nation wants a strong central power, who will benefit?  That question is not answered by a simple no/too much government spectrum, and it surely isn't answered by the right-left spectrum we have now.

I'm sure you'd like to know what it is if it isn't a spectrum and I'll tell you now: it's a circle.  A cycle based on the growth and collapse of a government.  No and too much government aren't ideas on opposite ends of the spectrum, it's a tipping point where a government collapses.  The stability of a nation is determined by what point on the circle a nation begins and that point is determined, ultimately, by that initial unconscious decision of the philosophies of Individualism or Collectivism.  Now, allow me to define those philosophies:

Individualism is the philosophy that makes the case for the autonomy and sovereignty of a human being  as the chief decider in his own life.  The individual has a right to private property and to live his life as he sees fit.
Collectivism on the other hand, makes the case for humanity being a brotherhood, a partnership.  Collectivism says that there is no individual without the collective.  The collective grants him his rights and all the individual does ought to be done for the benefit of the collective (whatever the "collective" may be.  It is a term defined by the authority).

How these Cultural Philosophies influence Social Doctrine and the political systems is fairly simple and self-evident.  In a society that believes in the individual's sovereignty and rights to property and life will have a natural inclination to make a small, non-intrusive government that allows the individual to fail or succeed as he sees fit while societies of the more collectivist persuasion will prefer a large safety-net of a government that supplies for the needs and wants of the collective. 

People tend to forget the strong links between science and politics these days.  We tend to see them as separate subjects but the early thinkers of all of the social sciences were heavily influenced by physics, astronomy, and biology--changes is scientific thought inspired change in socio-political thought as well.  Take for instance Thomas Hobbes, writer of Leviathan, considered one of the first true political scientists.  He was inspired not by statesmen and politicians, but by the astronomer and physicist Galileo.  It was Galileo's theory that the natural state of things was to be in motion that inspired Hobbes to theorize in Leviathan that society was constantly in motion, therefore it needed a strong sovereign to guide it to the most productive path; it was Isaac Newton's law of gravity that sparked that explosion of political ideas that birthed our nation called the Enlightenment; it was Charles Darwin's theory of evolution that revolutionized political thoughts leading to not only the acceleration of the progressive movement, but also the little known anarchist movement in the late 19th century.  Each one of these great discoveries shook the world, sparking arguments among the intelligensia as to its meaning to society.  Those debates created massive rifts in the societies that changed everything.

Take the aforementioned idea of Galileo who also proved that the Earth revolved around the sun.  His theory of motion, which he realized after proving Capunicus's theory of the sun, changed the debate.  If the Earth is constantly moving, then motion is natural, and if motion is natural, then surely human interactions are in constant motion, changing society and moving it forward into new ages.  Hobbes was fascinated by this and theorized that it was the government (the "Leviathan")'s duty to harness and guide that motion.  Others took it differently, arguing the obsolescence of monarchy in favor of granting all power to the House of Commons, sparking the English Civil War.  Do not misunderstand me and think I'm saying Galileo indirectly sparked the English Civil War, tensions had been developing for years before.  However, Galileo's theory did change the language of the time, sending the debates in new directions.

Newton's Law of Gravity had a similar impact on social thought.  The implications of the Law of Gravity and his other theorums were that there were certain "natural laws" (as Cicero called them) from which humanity could not escape.  If you jump off a cliff, you can flap your arms, but you will hit the ground and die.  Science took a new direction.  Galileo opened minds to exploration and curiosity of the superstitions and the functions of the world.  Newton's theory sent scientists to discover other natural laws.  The search for natural laws led to the birth of the study of economics, leading to a storm of new economic thought by the likes of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo to dispell the conventional wisdom of mercantilism.  They sought the "natural laws" of a market.  How the Law of Gravity punished bad economic decisions.

The Enlightenment is also the time of the birth of socialism.  While most Enlightemnent thinkers sought through the doctrine of Liberalism the individual impact of natural laws, Socialists sought to discover the utopia described by Plato as Atlantis.  While Liberals talked about natural laws and individual rights, the Socialists talked about universal brotherhood.  The Liberals won the debate because the utopianists sounded more like medeivalists yearning for the "good old days" of the dark ages while still wanting to reap the benefits of modern advancement.  The Liberals believed that what a man created should be his and should only be sold voluntarily for the sake of personal profit, thereby benefiting society by harnessing an individual's self-interest.  The Socialists believed that what a man created was not his, but the society's, and therefore should be given selflessly to the whole for the joy of benefitting mankind. 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution was equally as revolutionary to political thought in the latter half of the 19th century.  He was hailed as the "man who killed God", much to his disgust (he was a christian) and people began a hot new debate.  His theory, as we all know, was that species, when in a certain environment, adapt to better meet the rigors of what it takes to survive.  He spoke of "natural selection" harkening the ideas of "natural laws" that the Enlightenment thinkers sought to better define.  The debate changed.  If species evolve and change and adapt, then surely humans must too, and if humans adapt, then surely human thought adapts and evolves too.  It was a further confirmation of that Galilean principle that the natural state of things was in motion.

The debate with a subject as radical and polarizing as the Theory of Evolution was equally as radical in its socio-political implications and the thought it inspired.  Spurred on by the expansion of government under Lincoln and the progressive measures taken by his Republican Party after the Civil War, progressive intelligensia latched on to evolution, adapting it to their ideology and using it to justify Lincoln's destruction of states' rights, the racism of the earlier part of the century, and the death of Liberalism in general: since there are different cultures and different races and people, then they must evolve at a different pace, making some superior and other inferior.  For a society to prosper, the most "fit" should run things while the inferior stay below us until they've evolved to the point of being equal.  While the more extreme elements of progressivism sought population controls of the "unfit" through birth control movements, etc, others simply wanted to "take care" of the inferiors until they're ready.  This mirrors the pre-Civil War attitude towards blacks where the South wanted to keep them as slaves till they were "ready for freedom" and most in the North just wanted to send them back to Africa (called "colonization").  Banishment from paradise or subserviance would be the only options for the "unfit".  With this knowledge, it was the State's duty to oversee and control the "evolution" of a society in order to gain the optimal result.

However, the evolutionary idea also sparked a debate in a completely different direction.  The Individualist Anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Henry George argued that as humans evolve and become more enlightened, government becomes less and less necessary, and in order for humanity to truly thrive, government had to be destroyed and replaced by either a very small government, or no government at all.  Since humans are subject to evolution and even more capable of evolutionary thought due to the studies of science and philosophy, adaptation in a world sans government would be a snap.  Spontaneous order would occur and people would establish orders of their own in order to co-exist.  This, mixed with the Liberalism of the Enlgithenment, made what eventually became known as the Libertarian Movement.  Though both Progressivism and Individual Anarchism were both atheistic in nature, they did not match in ethics.  Progressivism rejected the ideas of natural law and put the "State" in its place.  This way ethics were no longer absolutes, but elastic, bendable to the government, or as they say; "will of the people".  The Anarchists, obviously, had a different view.  People had evolved into strong, capable, enlightened beings, therefore the "State" is not needed and a "Leviathan" is purely unnatural.  There was no "will of the people" anymore, we had evolved past that; there is only the "will of the person".

Now, we see the duality of a Cultural Philosophy.  With the advent of new debates and ideas, one philosopher takes one view and the other takes a completely different view.  This is the ultimate decider as to where on the circle a society lies and what type of Social Doctrine that society is proned to.  Individualists tend toward more delegated and personal control, whereas Collectivists tend toward more centralized and less personal control.  We'll see what kind of Social Doctrines are available to the Collectivists and Individualists in my next entry.

-W.D.P.