I feel Orthodoxy, as a product of a schism with the West, is inherently anti-western. Not in any aggresive sense but certainly, that two seperate histories exist here means something. Contemporary western society on the other hand does have many facets that are anti-Orthodox, and in some cases, incredibly aggresive or counter to Orthodox culture.
You think that there is only on "Orthodox culture-+? I don’t.
There are many "separate histories" in Orthodox history and they did not end up in schisms. They are all in a union inside a timeless (non-historical) eschatological frame. (by the way, just look at the multiformity of Orthodox Church all over the world and to the homomorphy of the Catholic church all over the world - this is mainly because in Orthodox Church each bishop has the powers of the Pope-except from the papal infallibility - but in Vatican church there is only one Pope)
I think that in the west (I mean the French and German Latin authority over Europe that invented Vatican as we know it since then) the schism was exactly this denial of the timeless eschatological frame.
We can see this historical behaviour of past time in current Pax-americana “religion” that is the master ideology today.
If the schism had not happened then and if there was today one united church, with no separate Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox churches, I think that the pax-americana religion/ideology would have invented a “Vatican” of its own in order to get rid of the annoying non-historical eschatological frame in which “pax-americana” has no place to stand.
By “pax-americana” I am not referring to the USA as a country or as a political system but I am referring to the reality of being the only super-power on Earth. Today this reality is substantiated from USA. In the years of the schism, it was substantiated by the Franco-Latin Kingdom in Europe.
Obviously today, after the schism, there is no need for anyone to invent “a new schism”, because the original one gave the opportunity to countless of other separate churches to be born and to follow the example of Vatican.
It’s exactly like the original sin of Adam, committed once made an example to follow.
As of your answer that "Orthodoxy, as a product of a schism with the West, is inherently anti-western" I think that you are right in the context that you said that, but you are wrong in the real nature of things.
Orthodoxy is not a product of the schism, neither the Vatican is. The schism was not the origin of products but the schism itself was a product.
Being the Church in a non-historical timeless eschatological frame means that whatever life is being lived from Her members on earth, their life have a justification found in a future that is not “our future” but the Future that Christ, the Father, and the Spirit already live as timeless Eternity. So if I, as a member of the Church, find a fellow man in slavery I am not obliged to free him because his freedom has no effect to the non-historical timeless eschatological frame as long as he can also participate in it as a slave. There are no boundaries or restrictions on who can participate in Church but his own will to do so. Now, by that I do not mean that slavery is accepted as a natural human condition, or that we must be careless for human suffering and pain. No. The point is that the spiritual law in Church has a reverse logic: as a member of the Church, I am eager to free the slave from his bonds and to heal the suffering and the pain of my fellow man because his slavery, his suffering, his pain is mine under the union of the non-historical timeless eschatological frame of the Church that we both potentialy share. In this context I freely choose to suffer myself in order to make good to the fellow man.
Now, for a super-power (and for its leadership) this interest for the freedom of others and for the welfare of others has a meaning only if is compatible with its own timetable: for a super-power the timetable contains only one thing, to become stronger and wealthier. It is unthinkable to accept personal weakness or depletion of wealth. So for a super-power the existence of the non-historical timeless eschatological frame of the Church is the most annoying issue as it introduces a self denial “commandment” that it can not be accepting at all.
The replacement of the non-historical Church with a historical church as the absolute substitute, is the answer for the super-power in order to keep the prospect of being super power in the future. So before the time of the schism Franco-Latin Kingdom of Europe invented the “Vatican” church, which is exactly this kind of substitute.
The schism was the product of this invention, and it was not actually a separation from the Church, but the invention of a new historical “religion”. Of course according to Vatican theology there is a perspective of a “future” eschatological frame but it has only a historical timeframe that is compatible with the timetable of the earthly super-power. This is why the Catholic church has a past of religion wars and human's rights supression "in the name of Christ".
In this context Orthodox is not “inherently anti-western”. The west is caged in a historical frame and the East is living in a non-historical frame. The “anti-whatever” can only exist in a historical frame. The non-historical frame can only be expressed through affirmations.