Value of Culture?
February 2, 2006 4:01 AM   Subscribe

How important are cultural and religous values? Children might starve, free speech might get banned, and a fledgling democracy might fail. Is American Constitutional legalism a culture of it's own, or is it our only hope?
posted by ewkpates (22 comments total)
 
Where does American Constitutional legalism come in on any of these links?
posted by adzm at 4:13 AM on February 2, 2006


With a global society rich in heritage and tradition, no absolute morality can hold up to scrutiny. American democracy, like all other forms of representative governments, is always going to be swayed by the masses it represents.

Therefore there always must be control over cultural and religious issues infecting democratic debate and counsel. How well these work IRL is of course iffy, but one principle seems rather global: freedom. Libre. Where one is not judged by thoughts, only actions; where an entire spectrum of opinions and belief is fostered. Where punishment is only for direct cause of harm or explicit violation of anothers' rights.

So what is our only hope? I doubt it's our inefficient, broken governments; any of them. What everyone needs is a cup overflowing with empathy.
posted by adzm at 4:25 AM on February 2, 2006


Cultural relatavism surely does argue against deontological moral certitude, but the solution doesn't reside in turning a blind eye to injustices.. Rather, in the case of Kenya, the government spokesperson should spend more time looking at the corruption of the Kenyan government that has presided over these local shortages--while food in other parts of Kenya rots because it can't get to market (source: Kenyan critic on the Beeb yesterday); the Arab League might want to assess whether cartoons mocking the prophet are a greater insult to religion than Hamas & the Iranian president calling for wiping out Israel (and Hamas won the election, but has no legitimate reason to expect support from western governments--perhaps the Sultans of Brunei or Dubai can lend a few dollars), and finally, the culture of American Constitutional legalism is a term I don't fully undeerstand (or at least I don't understand your meaning) but America can expect criticism if it hopes to stand in judgment of other societies, when there is more than enough inequality to address withhin its own boundaries.

I am not arguing isolationism in that last comment, just that the principle you are deriding as cultural relativsm may instead be expressed in action as a tendency to work on problems at hand rather than feeling culturally superior to another and in a position to impose our values on another country.

Clearly, such as the case of Palestine, the people can elect bad leaders (though to be fair, Hamas hasn't yet had a chance to show what they will do when they hold the reins); after all, Hitler was elected (again, thanks Beeb for reminding us of that point). I'm not going to go godwin here, but this FPP is guilty of the same sort of solopsisitic reasoning that it accuses cultural relatavism of endorsing.
posted by beelzbubba at 5:28 AM on February 2, 2006


I think most sane anthropologists argue for a limited cultural relativism. That is to say, cultural relativism is a tool that can be used to ensure that a situation is properly assessed before rushing to (ethnocentric) judgements. I don't think, however, that many--or at least many well respected--anthropologists argue for a complete caution-to-the-wind acceptance of cultural relativism. But they're also hesitant to endorse a system of universal human rights based on a western tradition that heavily emphasizes individualism...

At any rate, many anthropologists that I've read and respect work actively to improve the living conditions of those they study ethnographically. There's a variety of interesting literature out there about exactly that. One well known ethnography by Nancy Scheper-Hughes examined infant mortality rates in a South American country, I believe (the name escapes me at this late/early hour). Essentially the mortality rate before the first year was so high that mothers did not develop a bond with their children until far later than is traditional in western cultures (some time after their first year). Because of this, many malnourished infants died of neglect because they didn't have "the will to live". Scheper-Hughes was aghast at the practice, of course, but as an anthropologist examining the situation through the lends of cultural relativism she was able to understand the cultural reasons for the practice. However, she ultimately worked to effect a change in the culture by challening the complicit role doctors and the catholic church played in the cycle.

So while she understood the cultural reasons for what was happening, she also believed it was unacceptable for her to sit idly by and do nothing, and she argued passionately that this is the true job of a cultural anthropologist. It is, I think, one of the central questions an anthropologist asks herself.

That's not nearly as well written as I would like, but I'm running on fumes at the moment :)
posted by The God Complex at 5:50 AM on February 2, 2006


lends = lens, is = as

I forgot to mention one thing: one of my anthro profs suggested that "ethnocentrism" and "cultural relativism" are actually two opposing sides of a slider. An anthropologist can never escape their ethnocentric beliefs, but uses cultural relativism to keep it in check and ensure the ethnography is value free. Similarly, moving too far to the cultural relativism side of the slider presents many of the moral and ethical dilemmas detailed in one of the links above.
posted by The God Complex at 5:54 AM on February 2, 2006


There are fears in the Palestinian Authority that a Hamas election victory last week could worsen the fiscal situation after the United States, along with the European Union, threatened to cut off funding unless Hamas renounced violence and recognised Israel.

Israel halted a $55 million tax payment due February 1 to the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday.

But the United States later on Wednesday pressed Israel to keep up the payments at least until Hamas was in the government.


There's your respect for democracy.

Hamas did not only win, they won a clear majority, capturing 76 of the 132 seats in a vote that was widely accepted as a fair. On that basis, Hamas has more democratic legitimacy - and clearly a bigger mandate - than either of the current American or Israeli governments. If you say you respect democracy and that you support democracy that democracy is terror's anti-dote, I think it has to be accepted that Hamas is the legitimate government of the people they represent. They should FIRST be given a chance.

Israel should not default on a tax payment simply because they do not like the new landlord. Respect for the rule of law has to mean something - especially if you demand that others have respect for law.

All of the pressure is on Hamas - "No talks until Hamas renounces violence" - "Hamas must disarm" - "Hamas must recognize Israel and the peace plan". Equally important, I think, is how others receive this new government of the Palestinian people. Show Hamas the respect they deserve as the legitimate government of the Palestinian people and perhaps they might act as a legitimate government of the Palestinain people. Treat them like Arafat and Abu Mazen - or worse - and the result can only be more violence.
posted by three blind mice at 6:02 AM on February 2, 2006


On the 'renouncing violence' bit...how does the U.S. get away with saying that without everyone laughing in our faces.

I mean, do you just have to renounce violence until you get a billion dollar defense budget, or is it a more permanent pacifism we require for dialogue?
posted by wah at 6:12 AM on February 2, 2006


Now, horror of horrors, the Palestinians have elected the wrong party. They were supposed to have given their support to the pro-Western, corrupt, absolutely pro-American Fatah, which had promised to "control" them, rather than to Hamas, which said they would represent them. And, bingo, they have chosen the wrong party again.

[...]

How terrible to speak with those who have killed our sons. How unspeakable to converse with those who have our brothers' blood on their hands. No doubt that is how Americans who believed in independence felt about the Englishmen who fired upon them.

From Democracy Isn't for Our Friends Only.
posted by The God Complex at 6:19 AM on February 2, 2006


On the 'renouncing violence' bit...how does the U.S. get away with saying that without everyone laughing in our faces.

That's the thing wah. Cultural relativism, if not bold faced hypocrisy, is the sine qua non of the Bush administration's geopolitics. It is within the rules of the game to use tanks and laser-guided missiles, but outside the rules to use terrorism.

Conservatives as cultural relativists. Yet another instance of conservatives relying on liberal ideas. They really have made a pact with the devil.
posted by three blind mice at 6:20 AM on February 2, 2006


Two thoughts: First, by American Constitutional Legalism, I meant the secular representative government restrained by constitutional limits that American has pioneered. Second, democracy is about peaceful transitions of power, it's about representatives negotiating with other representatives. If Hamas won't negotiate, then cut them off until the people vote them out.
posted by ewkpates at 6:36 AM on February 2, 2006


three blind, while I agree in general wtih your conclusion, I have to call you on the use of "cultural relativism" as you did. Conservatives in general, and this administration in specific believe in moral certitude, and a firm belief in the transcendental nature of those moral proofs. They are as far from relativist as you can possibly get.
posted by beelzbubba at 7:06 AM on February 2, 2006


ewk, there has been quite a bit of literature published lately showing that democracies negotiate peacefully with other democracies only and if they are in a relatively equal position of power and strength. When they are in a stronger position, they tend to use that strength as the basis of negotiation, not their hallowed democratic ideals.
posted by beelzbubba at 7:08 AM on February 2, 2006


6,000 packets of dog food for 4 million starving children is an insult ... i can't think of a culture that wouldn't consider it to be one
posted by pyramid termite at 7:13 AM on February 2, 2006


There were some very interesting comments right off the bat, before we got derailed into an IP debate.

Personally, I have to question the blind obedience to universal suffering. Why should people be allowed to vote if they're not going to even pay intellectual attention to what they're doing?
posted by delmoi at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2006



6,000 packets of dog food for 4 million starving children is an insult ... i can't think of a culture that wouldn't consider it to be one


I get the impression that the person who made the offer is nothing more than overly pragmatic, rather than some kind of insensitive monster. From the link:

"The offer was very naive and culturally insulting given the meaning of dogs in our culture," he said. "We understand where she was coming from, and we appreciate, but it is culturally unacceptable."
posted by Ickster at 7:33 AM on February 2, 2006


Conservatives in general, and this administration in specific believe in moral certitude, and a firm belief in the transcendental nature of those moral proofs. They are as far from relativist as you can possibly get.

I disagree beelzbubba. Yeah, that's what it says on the label, but you have to look at the contents. Although applied with the fervor of moral certainty, there is nothing like a universal, absoute standard in present "conservative" foreign policy. Everything about the "conservative" approach is steeped in the relativist tradition. Israel and North Korea can have nuclear bombs, but Iran can't. U.N. resolutions must be enforced against some, but are ignored for others. It is wrong for some to use violence to achieve polical ends, but we use violence achieve political means. The double-standard real politik policy of the Bush administration can not be anything but relativist.
posted by three blind mice at 7:41 AM on February 2, 2006


Personally, I have to question the blind obedience to universal suffering. Why should people be allowed to vote if they're not going to even pay intellectual attention to what they're doing?

You mean suffrage, of course, and that would be the (elitist) view of a cultural relativist. Surely you are not serious. Haven't we left the literacy test in the past?
posted by three blind mice at 7:51 AM on February 2, 2006


On a different note, this Cartoon War is a very interesting case, as it places two highly regarded cultural values in direct confrontation.

In the West Corner: the right to express ourselves freely, which is known to be sometimes painful, but often considered to be worth the loss of life to defend (see: Voltaire)

In the Middle Eastern Corner: a cultural tradition formulated to defend against the evils associated with idolatry. Again, often considered to be worth the loss of life to defend.

Personally I think this would be a good time for some nice dialogue and exchange of reasoning. In the West's defense, we can look at our rampant and agreeable creative output which is a direct result of the value at stake.

In the Middle East's...who wants to take that one? (I'm wondering if there's anyone here qualified to do so...)
posted by wah at 8:26 AM on February 2, 2006


What, you need to be an expert in Middle Eastern affairs to participate in a debate about freedom of expression? Bullshit.
posted by slatternus at 8:32 AM on February 2, 2006


What, you need to be an expert in Middle Eastern affairs to participate in a debate about freedom of expression?

No, you just need to act like one.
posted by wah at 8:40 AM on February 2, 2006


In the West Corner

the youngster, a product of the Enlightenment Gym, weighing in at 300 pounds, with a record of 100-0, 99 by knockout... the reigning heavyweight champion "the right to express ourselves freely."

And in the Middle Eastern Corner

the challenger, coming out of 1000 years of tradition, weighing in at 299 pounds and sixteen ounces, the "cultural tradition formulated to defend against the evils associated with idolatry."

Let's get reeeeeeeeee-ady to rumble.
posted by three blind mice at 8:50 AM on February 2, 2006


Most of western thought's emphasis on universal rights and ethics is driven by the necessity of compromise between competing moral frameworks, and divergent interperetations of those frameworks. Western Law, for example, covers the 'may', but not the 'can' or 'should' of human potential.
posted by verb at 10:09 AM on February 2, 2006


« Older Lost in translation   |   Amusez-toi avec mon coeur Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments