• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel.

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Blind Spots of the Western World View

Joseph Dillard

Western liberals, progressives, and intellectuals, including such savants and spiritually awakened figures as Ken Wilber, have notable blind spots regarding their assumptions of the superiority of the Western “enlightenment” world view. This persists, despite the absorption of many aspects of the traditional Indian spiritual world view into that of Integral thinkers. These blind spots are increasingly consequential, in negative ways, and require correction. The following exchange and the subsequent analysis of various strengths of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian world views, is presented to help generate the objectivity we need in order to adapt to the rapidly changing global circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Fischerking, in a post on “X”:

“One of the greatest aspects of Western culture has been tolerance for eccentricity. You don't get a bizarre man like Isaac Newton without this allowance. Einstein was weird too. Wittgenstein was bizarre. Beethoven couldn't get along with people. Bach is an outlier as pretty normal. You identify the brilliant people and give them space.

The Asian system of mass conformity - beating the individuality out of kids through rote memorization (which has its place, but shouldn't be exaggerated) and totally controlled time and space, all day, every day - does not give you a Scientific Revolution which puts Europe far ahead of China. There is a reason China hunkered down and Europeans transformed entire continents - building the modern world we all enjoy.

So the guys who want to recreate American culture along Tiger Mom systems might consider that their own education was just sucking up the achievements of what people not subjected to their childhood slavery developed. They scored great on tests, got into schools, made some dough. But following this model of 12 hours a day as a society will lead to stagnation and deep unhappiness.”

Arnaud Bertrand, in a response on “X”:

“The idea that "Western culture tolerates eccentricity" whereas "Asian culture" doesn't is ignorant to an insane degree.

First of all, there's no such thing as "Asian culture": I've lived in India, Nepal, China and Malaysia, and what I saw was Indian culture, Chinese culture, Malay culture, etc. Different histories, different heroes, different religions, different values.

Second of all, the belief that this part of the world doesn't have eccentric folks is beyond laughable. Just spend one day in India and I guarantee you that you'll see some of the "weirdest" people you've ever seen in your life, between the Sadhus, the Jains, the Hijras, the wandering mystics and countless others who would make Newton or Wittgenstein (somehow this guy's definition of eccentricity) looks boringly conventional.

Or take China and go to any ancient touristic spot: you'll invariably see people dressed up in clothes from that period, because they enjoy cosplaying historical figures. Weird, right? You don't see everyday European citizens cosplaying Louis XIV when visiting Versailles or Caesar in the Coliseum - that would be a bit too eccentric for Western culture... China's history is also replete with "weird" figures who are celebrated for their eccentricity. China's most famous poet Li Bai for instance was known for his wild, drunken wanderings and unconventional behavior. Or the "Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove", famous for their rejection of social norms.

In fact it's painfully obvious to me that "Western culture" (to the extent it exists) actually stands out for its intolerance of people who think differently. Which other culture has actually burned - literally - thousands and thousands of people who were deemed 'heretical,' including women accused of witchcraft, simply for having different beliefs? Which other culture has routinely executed people, from Socrates to Giordano Bruno, whose sole "crime" was to question conventional wisdom? Which other culture has spent so many centuries going on literal crusades because it couldn't tolerate the existence of different beliefs in other countries?

And it continues to this day. It's not China, India or any other Asian country that's trying to transform the rest of the world in its image because their values and system are deemed "universal", it's the West! This guy hilariously attributes the "reason Europeans transformed entire continents" to its tolerance but in truth it's the exact contrary.

Do a thought experiment and imagine you were truly 'eccentric' in that you had beliefs that fundamentally questioned conventional wisdom. Say for instance that you questioned some of today's most fundamental societal assumptions - about democracy, free markets, individual rights, or what "progress" means. Not in an extreme or harmful way, but simply by proposing radically different ways of organizing society or understanding human nature. How well would that go over in Western academia, media, or public discourse?

One thing he does get right is that the scientific revolution did happen in Europe. But ironically, this might have been more due to Europe's intolerance than its tolerance. The same absolutist mindset that burned heretics also drove Europeans to systematically prove their theories were the only correct ones, establish rigid scientific methods, and aggressively promote their findings as universal truths. The scientific revolution wasn't about tolerating different views - it was about finding THE correct view and eliminating alternatives.

The greatest irony here is that the post itself perfectly illustrates the West's tendency to see its own way as the only valid path. In the same breath he lauds the West's tolerance and goes on a smug, self-congratulatory narrative about Western superiority. That's not a display of tolerance but rather the mark of someone so convinced of their own rightness that they can't even see their fanatic bigotry.”

The above exchange gives rise to the question, “Are there blind spots in the Western world view? If so, what are they?” The following response reflects the assessments of Chat GPT on this issue.

Are There Western “Blind Spots,” and If so, What are They and What are Their Significance?

The Western worldview, shaped by Enlightenment values, liberal democracy, capitalism, and individualism, often has blind spots when interpreting non-Western cultures. Of particular note at this juncture in history are three major “villains” in the Western pantheon, Russia, China, and Iran. Bind spots, or misperceptions and mistaken interpretations of the motives and actions, can lead to oversimplified or mistaken assumptions about these societies, which affect diplomacy, policy, and mutual understanding. Far more nefariously, misrepresentations build public support for national policies of sanctions and war.

However, to point out the blind spots in any world view, in this case those of the West, is not meant to either ignore or deny what it gets right. For instance, there are core truths in Western criticisms: Russia, China, and Iran are hardly perfect societies. They each have their share of criminality, corruption, and delusion in their practices and world views. However, we are already familiar with those weaknesses, limitations, and delusions, since we are bombarded by them by our mainstream media every day. Therefore, what follows is meant to be something of a corrective for our understanding of these very different world views.

Blind spots in understanding Russian world view, society, and culture

Russia is a Monolithic Authoritarian State

Regarding Western blind spots in our understanding of Russia, the first is that Russia is a monolithic authoritarian state. Western narratives often portray Russia as entirely authoritarian, failing to recognize the complexities of its political and social dynamics, including regional diversity and grassroots movements. The Western assumption that Vladimir Putin's government has unanimous support ignores the diverse political landscape in Russia, including protests like those against pension reforms (2018), opposition figures like Alexei Navalny, and considerable Russian criticism for Putin for going “too slow”in his war in Ukraine. These protests and criticisms demonstrate significant dissent and complexity within Russian society.

Focus on “Great Power” Politics

The West tends to view Russia solely through the lens of geopolitics and military rivalry, overlooking the cultural and historical drivers of its behavior, such as its deep sense of historical grievance and its identity as a Eurasian power. The West often interprets Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 solely as a geopolitical land grab, neglecting Russia's historical ties to Crimea and its view of NATO expansion as a security threat. It ignores the long history, since Peter the Great, of Russian attempts to be incorporated into Western society, up to Putin asking Clinton for Russia to be admitted into NATO.

Misjudging Russian Resilience

Western analyses sometimes underestimate the Russian public's tolerance for hardship, shaped by a history of enduring invasions, economic turmoil, and authoritarian governance. Russians haven't forgotten that the U.S. invaded Russia under Woodrow Wilson in 1918. Economic sanctions imposed by the West on Russia after 2014 were expected to cripple Russia's economy. While they had significant effects, they underestimated the Russian population's ability to adapt and endure hardships, a resilience rooted in their historical experiences of economic and wartime struggles.

The Russian economy has shown resilience and rebounded from Western-imposed sanctions due to a combination of strategic government policies, economic adaptations, and external factors. These include diversification and self-sufficiency, energy exports and global demand, expansion of alternative markets, strong fiscal and monetary policies, trade with non-Western countries, public and corporate adaptation, global fragmentation, high commodity prices on world markets, leakages in enforcement in sanctions, such as the export of Russian oil and gas to India, which is then exported to Europe at elevated prices as “non-Russian oil and gas,” leakages in enforcement, and overestimation of the impact of sanctions on Russian society. When you add all these factors up, and add to them the enormous costs to European society in terms of higher energy prices and de-industrialization, the importance of this blind spot in the Western world view toward Russia becomes unmistakable.

Collectivism Over Individualism

Western individualism can clash with Russian collectivist tendencies, where loyalty to the state or community often outweighs personal freedoms. Many in the West view state authority in Russia as oppressive and assume that Russian citizens would naturally prefer a Western-style liberal democracy emphasizing individual freedoms. The reality is that Russian collectivist tendencies often prioritize stability, national unity, and loyalty to the state over individual rights. This is deeply rooted in historical experiences, such as surviving invasions, wars, and economic turmoil. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian government's strict measures, including the use of surveillance, were broadly accepted by many citizens as necessary for the collective good. In contrast, similar measures in Western democracies often faced significant pushback on grounds of personal freedom. The Soviet era fostered a culture of collectivism through shared hardships, such as World War II and centralized economic planning. This legacy continues to influence societal values.

A second area in which the West has a cultural bind spot regarding Russian collectivism involves misjudging public reactions to political protests. Protests in Russia, such as those against election fraud or corruption, are often interpreted as evidence of a widespread desire for Western-style democracy and individual freedoms. While protests reflect dissatisfaction with specific policies or corruption, many Russians still value a strong state as a guarantor of stability and security over political liberalization. For example, following Alexei Navalny's poisoning and subsequent imprisonment, Western observers expected a groundswell of opposition to the Kremlin. However, while protests occurred, they were limited in scale, partly because many Russians prioritize national stability over political upheaval, which they associate with the chaos of the 1990s.

The Western worldview also tends to underestimate the role of community and shared identity in Russian culture and society. Western cultures often emphasize individual identity and personal achievements, assuming that these values are universal. In Russia, shared identity and community bonds often take precedence over individual ambitions. This is reflected in the high regard for communal celebrations of national pride, such as Victory Day, May 9th, which commemorates the Soviet Union's role in defeating Nazi Germany. This day unites citizens across political and social divides, emphasizing collective sacrifice and shared history.

In addition, Russians typically prioritize familial or community obligations over personal desires, a value that contrasts sharply with Western notions of self-actualization. Western observers often assume that Russian citizens would naturally prioritize consumer choice, wealth accumulation, and individual economic freedoms. The reality is that Russian collectivism often manifests in a preference for state involvement in key industries and skepticism toward unregulated capitalism. For example, the privatization and economic liberalization of the 1990s, which were guided by Western advisors, are widely remembered in Russia as a time of chaos and inequality. Many Russians now support state control over strategic sectors like energy and defense, seeing it as a way to ensure collective welfare.

Historical Memory

The West often overlooks the profound influence of historical events like World War II, the Great Patriotic War, on Russian identity, leading to misinterpretations of its national pride and security concerns. Westerners tend to underestimate the social impact of having been invaded multiple times and having lost some 27 million citizens in the 1940's to aggression coming from the west. Russia's annual Victory Day celebrations highlight its role in defeating Nazi Germany, a source of national pride that influences its stance on foreign policy and NATO.

Geopolitical Flexibility

The ease of Russia's turn toward China and the West's inability to anticipate, understand, or adapt to it can be explained by several interrelated factors involving historical, geopolitical, economic, and cultural dimensions. These factors illuminate both Russia's strategic pivot to China and the blind spots in Western policy and perception. These include a shared historical context and many shared interests, geopolitical alignment, economic complementarity, strategic pragmatism, and cultural and political factors.

Shared historical contexts and shared interests include a shared legacy of mutual understanding and shared opposition to U.S. hegemony. Russia and China share a long history of diplomatic and economic relations, dating back to the Cold War. Despite past tensions, such as the Sino-Soviet split, both nations have a mutual interest in counterbalancing Western dominance. Both Russia and China view the U.S.-led global order as a threat to their sovereignty and interests. This shared perspective has created a foundation for cooperation in areas like military, trade, and technology. At the same time, the West underestimated the depth of the historical and strategic ties between Russia and China, assuming their ideological differences and past rivalries would prevent a strong partnership.

Regarding geopolitical alignment, Russia and China share common geopolitical goals. Both seek to establish a multipolar world order, reducing Western influence in global institutions and regional politics. After the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent sanctions, Russia accelerated its pivot to China to counteract its growing isolation from the West. China has been willing to support Russia indirectly, such as increasing trade and energy imports, while avoiding outright violations of Western sanctions. In contrast, the West failed to anticipate the speed and depth of Russia's pivot, misjudging the strength of its dependency on European markets and its willingness to align with China despite potential risks.

In the realm of economic complementarity, Russia is a major exporter of energy and raw materials, while China is a leading importer of these resources. This complementarity has facilitated their economic partnership. The Power of Siberia pipeline, delivering Russian natural gas to China, exemplifies their growing energy cooperation. Russia has increasingly turned to Chinese technology and investment to fill gaps left by Western sanctions. While this economic integration has been going on, Western policymakers have assumed that sanctions would isolate Russia economically, but failed to account for China's willingness and capacity to absorb much of Russia's trade and investment needs.

Both Russia and China share strategic pragmatism. Russia sees its partnership with China as a pragmatic move to counterbalance Western pressure while maintaining strategic autonomy. Russia has tended to view China as a partner of convenience rather than a long-term ally, but economic, military, and social exchanges continue to grow. China benefits from Russia's resources and geopolitical alignment without needing to fully commit to a formal alliance. To its own detriment, the West misinterpreted Russia's and China's strategic pragmatism as superficial or temporary, failing to see how shared interests could override ideological differences.

Both nations share an emphasis on centralized authority, national sovereignty, and resistance to Western liberal values. This ideological alignment fosters mutual understanding. Both Russia and China emphasize historical grievances against Western imperialism, which strengthens their narrative of resisting external domination. At the same time, the West often projects its liberal democratic values onto other nations, underestimating the appeal and stability of alternative governance models in Russia and China.

Western sanctions overreach has compounded the effects of Russian and Chinese mutual interests. Western misperceptions have included an underestimation of non-Western unity, an overconfidence in Western leverage, and resistance to recognizing the reality of fundamental global power shifts. Western sanctions against Russia after Crimea and Ukraine pushed Russia to seek alternative partners, accelerating its alignment with China. The West underestimated the willingness of non-Western powers to form coalitions that challenge U.S.-led global institutions. The West overestimated its ability to isolate Russia economically and diplomatically, assuming that Russia had no viable alternatives. The U.S. focus on countering China has inadvertently strengthened the Sino-Russian partnership, as both nations see a common adversary in Washington. The rise of China as an economic and geopolitical power has created a new center of gravity, making it easier for Russia to pivot eastward. The West has struggled to adapt to the reality of a multipolar world, clinging to outdated assumptions about its dominance and the inevitability of liberal democratic values.

Religious resurgence

The resurgence of Russian Orthodox Christianity is deeply significant for Russia and world geopolitics. It plays a key role in shaping Russia's national identity, domestic policies, and foreign relations. The Western worldview often underestimates its importance, which can lead to misjudgments in understanding Russia's motivations and actions.

The resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy represents a revival of Russia's pre-Soviet cultural and spiritual heritage. It has become a cornerstone of the state's efforts to rebuild a sense of national pride and unity. The Church serves as a link between Russia's imperial past and its contemporary aspirations, reinforcing the narrative of a unique Russian civilization distinct from the West. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Church filled the ideological and moral vacuum left by communism, offering a unifying and stabilizing force in a time of uncertainty.

The Russian Orthodox Church enjoys a symbiotic relationship with the Kremlin. It lends moral and spiritual legitimacy to Vladimir Putin's government, while the state supports the Church's expansion and influence. The Church has endorsed policies that align with traditional values, such as opposition to LGBTQ+ rights and Western liberalism, which resonate with conservative segments of Russian society. The Church also plays a significant role in shaping public opinion on issues such as family, education, and morality. Its influence extends to legislation, such as laws restricting abortion and promoting traditional family values.

The resurgence of the importance of Russian Christian orthodoxy has major geopolitical implications. Russia uses the Church to strengthen ties with other Orthodox-majority countries, such as Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria, fostering a sense of pan-Orthodox unity against Western secularism. The Church's support for Russian foreign policy objectives, such as in Ukraine and the Balkans, amplifies Russia's influence in these regions. Russian Orthodoxy is often viewed by Russians as an alternative to Western liberalism, emphasizing traditional values, sovereignty, and resistance to globalization.

Other major geopolitical implications are associated with Ukraine, the Middle East, and Global South. The conflict between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which declared independence from Moscow in 2019, highlights the geopolitical stakes of religious authority. The Church's alignment with the Kremlin has deepened divisions in Ukraine, reinforcing Russia's narrative that it is defending Orthodox believers against Western-backed secularism. Russia has positioned itself as a defender of persecuted Christians in the Middle East, using the Church as a diplomatic and moral tool to justify its interventions, such as it did in Syria. This role strengthens Russia's image as a protector of traditional and religious values, appealing to conservative and religious groups worldwide.

The West has tended to underestimate and misread the role of religion in Russia and for Russia in its relationships with other nations. The predominantly secular worldview of the West often underestimates the political and cultural power of religion in Russia. This leads to a failure to recognize how deeply Orthodoxy influences Russian policy and public opinion. Western analysis tends to focus on economic and strategic factors, overlooking the ideological and spiritual dimensions of Russia's actions, such as its framing of conflicts as a defense of Orthodox Christianity. Western policymakers may underestimate the extent to which Orthodoxy resonates with the Russian public, providing a source of legitimacy for the government and its policies.

There are unexpected consequences for the West due to its underestimation of the influence of Orthodox Russian Christianity. By underestimating the Church's role, the West may fail to counter Russia's use of Orthodoxy as a soft power tool, particularly in Orthodox-majority countries and the Global South. The West's inability to address the religious dimensions of the Ukraine conflict and other geopolitical issues may exacerbate divisions within Orthodox communities in Europe. Policies that focus solely on economic sanctions or military deterrence may miss the cultural and spiritual motivations behind Russia's actions, leading to ineffective or counterproductive strategies. Russia's promotion of Orthodoxy as a counterweight to Western liberalism may attract support from conservative and religious groups in Europe and the U.S., undermining Western unity.

There are even broader implications. The resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy reflects a broader trend of non-Western civilizations asserting their cultural and spiritual identities in a multipolar world. Russia's emphasis on Orthodoxy challenges the Western secular model, highlighting the enduring importance of religion in shaping global politics.

Western Blind spots in understanding Chinese world view, society, and culture

Linear Progress Toward Liberalization

A common Western assumption is that economic modernization inevitably leads to political liberalization. This misreads the Chinese Communist Party's ability to adapt and maintain control while fostering economic growth. After China's economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping, Western leaders assumed that economic liberalization would lead to political democratization. The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and subsequent crackdown demonstrated that the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese citizens as a whole, prioritize political stability over Western notions of democracy. China's admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 was based on the assumption that this would lead to the privatization of the Chinese economy and its opening to control by Western financial elites. When this did not happen, at the WTO started ruling in China's favor, the U.S. neutered its functionality by refusing to appoint sufficient judges to its arbitration court, which rendered it incapable of issuing legally binding conclusions.

Underestimating Confucian Influence

Western frameworks often ignore the influence of Confucian values, such as respect for hierarchy and harmony, which shape Chinese governance and societal norms. Westerners tend to interpret China's centralized governance as purely authoritarian, overlooking Confucian values of hierarchical order and harmony, which resonate culturally and legitimize the CCP's authority among many Chinese citizens. Viewing Confucianism as “conformity to authority” overlooks its importance in instilling individual virtue and meritocracy in Chinese culture and society, two major driving forces behind the spectacular resurgence of China since World War II.

Viewing China Solely as a Threat

The West frequently frames China as an economic and military rival, overlooking its internal challenges, such as regional disparities, environmental issues, and demographic pressures. The U.S. trade war with China from 2018 to 2020 framed China as an economic rival but often overlooked its internal challenges, such as managing vast income inequality and transitioning to a sustainable economic model. The result of this is a chronic misinterpreting of both Chinese motivations and behavior, often viewing them as expansionist when in fact they are primarily motivated by internal priorities and pressures.

Misunderstanding “Face” and Diplomacy

Westerners often fail to grasp the importance of “face” (mianzi) in Chinese culture, which prioritizes respect and reputation in interpersonal and international relations. Mutual respect is fundamental to human interpersonal relationships. Where it does not exist there is often an absence of trust, empathy, and reciprocity. As a consequence, both diplomacy and commercial relationships can suffer. During the U.S.-China trade negotiations, Western diplomats often adopted a confrontational tone. This clashed with China's cultural emphasis on saving face, leading to prolonged tensions and missed opportunities for compromise. This tendency to lecture and morally patronize Chinese hosts has been on view in recent visits by Anthony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State under Biden, and Annalena Baerbock, the German Foreign Minister, to China.

Different Views on Rights

The Western emphasis on individual rights contrasts with the Chinese focus on collective well-being and stability, leading to misunderstandings about the role of the state. Western criticism of China's internet censorship, such as “the Great Firewall,” often ignores that many Chinese citizens prioritize economic stability and national security over unrestricted freedom of speech. This also applies to the generally accepted Western interpretation of “The Tiananmen Square Massacre” of 1989, which ignores a mountain of relevant factual data.

Blind spots in understanding Iranian world view, society, and culture

Iran as a Theocratic Monolith

The West often reduces Iran to its Islamic government, overlooking the diversity of opinions within Iranian society, including secular and reformist movements. The 2009 Green Movement protests revealed a vibrant reformist and secular segment of Iranian society, challenging the Western stereotype of Iran as uniformly aligned with its theocratic leadership.

Underestimating Nationalism

Western narratives frequently conflate Iranian identity with religious ideology, ignoring the deep sense of Persian nationalism that transcends political and religious divides. Western strategies to isolate Iran, such as withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, often backfired by fueling nationalist sentiment and uniting Iranians against perceived foreign aggression.

Misreading Religious Dynamics

Western analyses may assume that Iran's Shi'a Islam is purely dogmatic, missing its flexibility and its role as a unifying national force. Western policymakers often assume Iran's foreign policy is purely ideological, driven by Shi'a Islam. However, Iran's pragmatic alliances with non-Shi'a groups, such as Sunni Hamas, demonstrate a more strategic approach, as does its strong and growing alliances with Russia and China.

Historical Grievances

The West often underestimates the impact of historical events, such as the 1953 CIA-backed coup and the US support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, which cost Iran some 750,000 casualties, on Iranian distrust of Western powers.

Misinterpreting Hospitality and Diplomacy

Western negotiators often misread Iran's indirect communication style during the JCPOA negotiations, mistaking delays or ambiguous responses as obstruction rather than a cultural norm of careful deliberation. There has also been a chronic Western governmental tendency to view non-responses and non-reactivity to provocations as weakness rather than as attempts to de-escalate and defuse tensions.

General Western world view blind spots toward other cultures

Universal Applicability of Western Values

The belief that democracy, free markets, and individual rights are universally desired or suitable ignores the unique historical, cultural, and social contexts of other nations. The U.S. invasion of Iraq of 2003 was partially justified by the assumption that democracy could be quickly implemented. This overlooked the region's complex social, sectarian, and historical dynamics, leading to prolonged instability. The vibrant Chinese version of democracy, which focuses on participation, feedback, and government responsiveness rather than on democratic structures, is largely ignored or misunderstood in the West.

Simplistic Binary Thinking

Framing countries as either allies or adversaries overlooks the complexities of their interests and actions. Western narratives often frame Russia and China as unified adversaries. However, historical tensions between the two, such as the Sino-Soviet split during the 1960's, highlight the nuanced and often competitive nature of their relationship.

Neglecting Non-Western Philosophies

Western frameworks often fail to account for non-Western philosophies, such as Confucianism in China, Eurasianism in Russia, or Islamic political thought in Iran. Western interpretations of China's Belt and Road Initiative as neo-colonialism ignore the Confucian emphasis on mutually beneficial relationships and the historical precedent of the Silk Road as a framework for Chinese foreign policy.

Underestimating the Role of History

The West often overlooks the long historical memories of other cultures, which influence their perceptions of sovereignty, security, and international relations. The West's dismissal of Russia's objections to NATO expansion ignored historical grievances tied to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the perceived betrayal of verbal assurances made in the 1990s.

Assuming a Western-Led Global Order

Many Westerners assume the current global order, led by Western institutions and norms, is universally accepted as legitimate, ignoring resistance from nations seeking multipolarity. The Western-led sanctions against Russia following the Ukraine invasion assumed global alignment, but many countries in the Global South, such as India and South Africa, refused to condemn Russia, revealing dissatisfaction with the Western-centric world order.

Are Russian, Chinese, and Iranian World Views Therefore More Adaptable in Current Geopolitical Realities Than the Western World View?

Yes and no. The answer depends not only on the specific contexts and challenges being considered, but on how one evaluates adaptability and the metrics used to assess success. Here are various factors to consider in arriving at a conclusion:

Flexibility in Governance and Policy

The Russian state emphasizes pragmatism and centralized control, allowing for rapid decision-making in crises. For example, Russia's ability to adapt to Western sanctions through economic pivoting and self-sufficiency reflects this flexibility. The Chinese Communist Party has shown remarkable adaptability, blending socialism with market-driven reforms to achieve rapid economic growth. Its long-term planning, for example, with the Belt and Road Initiative, contrasts with the often short-term focus of Western democracies driven by election cycles. Iran's theocratic system has demonstrated resilience by combining religious ideology with pragmatic diplomacy, such as maintaining ties with non-Western powers despite sanctions.

The Western world view has demonstrated limitations in its flexibility regarding governance and policy. Although democratic systems foster accountability and individual freedoms, they often struggle with gridlock and polarization, limiting their ability to respond quickly to crises. For example, consider the delayed response to COVID-19 in some Western countries. In addition, Western emphasis on individualism can sometimes hinder collective action in addressing global challenges like climate change or pandemics.

Alignment with Global South Perspectives

Both Russia and China have positioned themselves as champions of multipolarity, appealing to nations in the Global South that feel marginalized by Western dominance. China's investments in Africa and Latin America through the Belt and Road Initiative reflect an understanding of the economic and infrastructure needs of developing countries. Iran's anti-imperialist rhetoric resonates with countries that share a history of colonial exploitation, allowing it to build solidarity with other nations in the Middle East and beyond.

The Western worldview, rooted in liberalism and capitalism, is often perceived as imposing its values on others, leading to resistance. For example, Western interventionism in the Middle East has been widely criticized as destabilizing.

Cultural and Historical Resilience

Russian culture emphasizes endurance and resilience, shaped by historical experiences of invasions, wars, and economic hardship. This worldview supports a narrative of survival against external threats, which can unify the population during crises. China's Confucian traditions emphasize harmony, hierarchy, and adaptability, enabling it to balance rapid modernization with cultural continuity. Iran's Shi'a Islamic worldview integrates religious identity with political governance, providing a unifying ideology that has allowed it to withstand decades of sanctions and external pressure. Western societies, with their focus on individualism and material prosperity, may struggle to maintain cohesion in the face of prolonged crises or cultural shifts.

Pragmatism in International Relations

Russia's foreign policy is highly pragmatic, forming alliances based on strategic interests rather than ideological alignment, such as partnerships with Turkey, Iran, and China. This can be most recently seen in its non-reaction to Turkey breaking the Astana Accords regarding the fate of Syria and Russia's tolerance of Turkey's support of terrorists in the overthrow of the Assad government. China's non-interference policy in other countries' domestic affairs has made it an attractive partner for nations wary of Western moralizing. Iran's ability to navigate complex regional politics, such as supporting diverse groups like Hezbollah (Shi'a) and Hamas (Sunni), reflects a pragmatic approach to advancing its interests. The Western focus on promoting democracy and human rights can sometimes alienate potential allies, particularly in regions where such values are not prioritized. Africans, for example, often complain about being “lectured to” regarding human rights, comparing that to the relative non-intervention in internal affairs in the approach taken by China and Russia.

Economic Models and Adaptability

China's state-capitalist model combines market efficiency with state control, allowing for rapid economic growth and the ability to direct resources toward strategic goals. Russia's resource-based economy, while vulnerable to global price fluctuations, has proven resilient through diversification and pivoting to new markets. Iran's economy, though constrained by sanctions, has developed a degree of self-reliance, particularly in agriculture and defense industries. Western economies, while highly innovative, are often vulnerable to financial crises and market volatility due to their reliance on deregulated capitalism.

Critiques of the Argument

While the adaptability of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian worldviews has strengths, there are significant limitations.

Authoritarianism

The centralized governance systems in Russia, China, and Iran can suppress dissent and stifle innovation, which are key drivers of long-term adaptability.

Economic Vulnerabilities

Russia and Iran remain heavily dependent on resource exports, which are subject to global price fluctuations. In addition, China has been regularly accused of generating debt traps for its third world partners in the Belt-Road Initiative.

Human Rights and Social Stability

The suppression of individual freedoms and political opposition in these countries can lead to long-term instability such as protests in Iran and Russia. The Western worldview, while struggling with short-term challenges and internal divisions, remains strong in fostering innovation, human rights, and democratic governance. However, even these bulwarks of the Western world view are now being challenged by the innovation of China, which now leads in STEM patents in almost all technological fields. China, Russia, and Iran are also increasingly viewed by the Global South positively in the realm of human rights due to their non-interference in national interests of other states, in their opposition to the Western funded and armed ongoing Israeli genocide on Palestinians, and in the high levels of trust in their governments noted in many polls of Chinese, Russians, and even Iranians.

Ways to Address These Blind Spots

Cultural Literacy

Westerners need to read outside the Western mainstream media, engaging deeply with the histories, languages, and philosophies of these societies to gain a nuanced understanding.

Empathy and Perspective-Taking

Consider how the world looks from the perspective of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian citizens and leaders. Visiting China, Russia, and Iran, even as tourists, can be an eye-opening experience. However, this is much accentuated by living with local families and thereby experiencing the local culture and perspective on life from the inside out.

Avoiding Universalist Assumptions

Westerners need to recognize that Western models of governance and society are not the only viable paths to stability and prosperity.

Dialogue and Exchange

The fostering of people-to-people exchanges and academic collaborations are effective ways to bridge cultural gaps.

Acknowledging Mistakes

A willingness to confront and address historical grievances and policy missteps that shape current mistrust is an important signal that Westerners are not driven by elitism and exceptionalism.

Western minds naturally have a difficult time understanding or believing that they have these blind spots, or that they are as significant as they are. They tend to underestimate or discount them, believing Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intransigence is due to ignorance and oppression, and that Russians, Chinese, and Iranians will automatically change their world view if they are sufficiently exposed to Western “enlightenment.” We have to wonder, “Just how much failure in those assumptions is required before Westerners understand that the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian world views are as stable, self-sufficient, and resistant to change as is the Western world view?” “Just how much evidence is required before Westerners understand that Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are at least as happy with their world views as Westerners are with theirs?” By addressing these blind spots, Westerners may be able to break out of their proclivity to chronically miscalculate, ceding military, economic, and narrative ground to Russia, China, and Iran.