Cultural Relavitism

[david_carnell]

To prevent the LibDem/Tory thread becoming bogged down in a side debate I want to discuss this openly and fully.

Should those, and this will be all members of the EDF, who belong to modern, liberal, western and democratic societies believe their opinions on related matters to be superior to those from societies that are backward, illiberal, authoritarian or fundamentalist?

To put a cat amongst the pigeons here is an interesting article from the Guardian's weekend magazine last week, written by a female Somali refugee who is now a Dutch MP, describing the dangers of tolerance towards Islam.

But should I, or anyone else in our society, view such issues as the treatment of women as something that is culturally relative? Should the fact that I cannot appreciate belonging to a society that believes in female circumcision, for example, prevent my belief that such practices are abhorrent and should not only be outlawed here (in this instance it already has) but also worldwide. And that I'm right in dictating that to a backward, misogynistic culture.

Or is this a case of western arrogance telling everyone how to get their house in order?

[Keef]

No one should believe that their opinion on anything is "superior" to anyone else?s, simple as that.

If they do, they are quite simply arrogant.

[Ladymuck]

Very brave and complex subject DC - probably a bit too complex for me to be honest.

But one little question please. You refer to "backward" societies/culture. Could you clarify exactly what you mean by "backward" here?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Bit of a cop out answer maybe but ? ?case by case? basis for me

The point in question on the original thread was female circumcision ? which is so nuts and so barbaric and so demonstrably backward, anyone condoning it (and that includes saying the male elders in that culture have their own history) needs to have a good hard look at themselves

But that is a long way from agreeing with a blanket ?modern, liberal, western and democratic societies believe their opinions on related matters to be superior to those from societies that are backward, illiberal, authoritarian or fundamentalist??

So by keef's measure I am arrogant for my views on female circumcision.

But keef you can't seriously mean that 100% down the line. If you know a guy who beats his pregnant wife up regularly are you honestly saying your opinion is only equal to his? really?

[mockney piers]

The problem with relativism is that it undermines everything.

Keef is absolutely right except insofar as very few people in the world think like him and his opinion by self-definition carries no weight or indeed truth whatsoever.

I hate postmodernist relativism, it's so fucking far up it's own arse, but sadly, as an atheist who thinks that we are just a cosmic accident, I don't for a second believe in any absolutes, making righ and wrong entirely a cultural definition, meaning that for one culture to judge another cultures actions is purely that, judgemental.

Having said that, the world we live in is a very much smaller place than it used to be, and we do all have to try to live together (that being a personal imperative for most non lunatic types). What do most people want? A life free of pain fear and conflict to pursue personal ambitions and perhaps progenise in safety and comfort.

Healthy societies are those that pursue this and much about modern western culture typifies .......... Oh fuck it what's the point.

[silverfox]

The short answer to your question david_carnell is yes. We should of course argue against such practices from other cultures and not be frightened to adopt a superior moral tone. In doing so we are of course expressing our views/opinions.

However, as you argued on the other thread, this is not the same as claiming that such practices are 'wrong' in an objective sense. Rather that we consider them wrong by our standards/ beliefs.

Now, the notion of Cultural Relativism rears its head here and while some people might like to dismiss the idea as a game, playing "let's pretend to come from another culture" - it cannot be dismissed so easily.

To take your example of Female genital cutting (FGC), also controversially known as female circumcision, female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), or female genital mutilation (FGM). To quote Wikipedia:

"...Amnesty International estimates that over 130 million women worldwide have been affected by some form of FGM, with over 3 million girls at risk of undergoing FGM every year. FGM is mainly practiced in 28 different African countries... It is common in a band that stretches from Senegal in West Africa to Ethiopia on the East coast, as well as from Egypt in the north to Tanzania in the south; ... It is also practiced by some groups in the Arabian peninsula. The country where FGM is most prevalent is Egypt, followed by Sudan, Ethiopia, and Mali. Egypt recently passed a law banning FGM..."

Note the (emotive) use of the initials FGM here by Amnesty International rather than FGC.

Personally I think the practice is abhorrent and should be banned world-wide. However, many people would seem to disagree with me, including many women, due to their religious and cultural practices.

[david_carnell]

LadyM - you don't do yourself justice to suggest this is too complex for you.

It's too complex for everyone, including the great philosophers of history, so don't worry about it. Just jump in.

I used backward to describe any culture that still views, in this particular example female circumcision, as either preferable or justifiable.

I would extend its use though to include (although not exclusively) any society or culture that actively permits:

Capital punishment

Oppression of women or children

Denial of freedom of speech, association and movement

Torture

Sharia Law

Racism

Anti-democratic principles

I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe modern, western, liberal, rational, democratic, judicial, enlightened culture to be as good as it currently gets. And that we, as befits those who are lucky enough to live within such a society, should encourage its spread throughout the world.

Essentially, I feel that cultural sensitivities have a breaking point that I cannot cross. It's incredibly subjective (as Sean says "case by case") but I do not believe in a world where we turn a blind eye to injustices on the excuse of cultural or moral relativism.

[Keef]

I was taking things a bit literally.

Should those, and this will be all members of the EDF, who belong to modern, liberal, western and democratic societies believe their opinions on related matters to be superior to those from societies that are backward, illiberal, authoritarian or fundamentalist?

It was the word "superior" that got me.

I think female circumcision is dead wrong. But how can I say my opinion is "superior" to someone who thinks it's acceptable. What makes it superior? Am I in some way, a better designed human than them?

It's just that word that gets me. It, in itself, suggests arrogance.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'd be interested in finding out hust how many "many" is in this context

I wonder if many = a majority

As far as women's rights go every progressive measure is always fought with the same "men know best" ideology. And there is never a shortage of women to support that view either. Doesn't make it right. We aren't going to repeal women's right to vote because many of them thought it was a lot of fuss about nothing at the time are we?

In fact you could find almost any subjugation of a body of people and find many of the victims "support" the very thing that keeps them down. See also slavery. Doesn't mean we don't fight the fight

[Jeremy]

I'm not even convinced there is such as thing as right and wrong, in an absolute sense.

I'm sure most parents who subject a daughter to genital mutilation believe their actions are morally justifiable... and even benefiting their child. I'm sure a terrorist would attempt to justify murder as a way of fighting against oppression.

A moral framework is something that is developed through experiences, socials norms, beliefs, teachings. It's not something we're born with, and it's not something which occurs naturally in the aether.

[silverfox]

Yes, it's a difficult one. The fact that a majority of people hold a view doesn't make something 'right' and religious and cultural norms, accepted practices going back hundreds of years doesn't make something 'right'. But the obverse of that is that that something is 'wrong'.

The Jewish practice of male circumcision is acceptable but the same criticism of lack of consent can be made for at least postponing the practice until the child is old enough to make up his own mind. But that begs the question, if the child is from a deeply religious family and doesn't want to upset his parents, in what sense is his decision to go ahead really made with his own free will.

I'm not an anthropologist. Is the practice of female circumcision meant to make the girl a more marriable prospect in a poor, agricultural or nomadic society? - ie meant to increase her prospects of security and well-being, however foreign an idea to our values?

[SteveT]

DC wrote:- I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe modern, western, liberal, rational, democratic, judicial, enlightened culture to be as good as it currently gets. And that we, as befits those who are lucky enough to live within such a society, should encourage its spread throughout the world.

One of the problems I have with the islamic faith is you cannot live peacefully along side it, because it is written in the koran to change and convert all who are not of islamic faith.

One should be allowed to live and let live in theory, in practice one feels that the islamic culture is soooo in your face one cannot ignore it.

The way the catholic faith has had its nose rubbed in the dirt by expecting the pope to open an aids clinic and other demeaning chores, yet the islamic faith is tip-toed around for fear of upsetting some islamic nutter who might plant a bomb.

You can refer to people as Yankies and Ozzies but not as Pakkies.

Is this the way we can expect things to progress in the future?

My guess is yes.

[Magpie]

Its this kind of intellectual masturbation that results in the left being mocked as "tree huggers" or "Guardian readers"

Judge things on outcomes - is FGM a good thing - well it's dangerous (short term and long term), painful, and reduces or removes female sexual pleasure. Any advantages? well it protects women from "sin" apparently.

Its simple - FGM is wrong, and it is more patronising to say "Ah but you can't judge people by our standards, you have to think about their culture" than to take a firm stance on this (and other) issue.

Are Western liberal democracy's "better" than other methods of structuring society - well in terms of living standards, freedom, quality of life etc then yes they are.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Go on Steve - you can figure this one out.

It's ok to say Yankees and Ozzies (winners in whatever war/genocide they were involved in ) and it's not ok to say "Pakis" (people who get beaten up just because of the colour of their skin) because.... come on Steve you can do it....

[SeanMacGabhann]

oh and Magpie - why so quick to say this is "the left" masturbating. Intellectually..

From what I can see of the lefties on here they are all against it. Silverfox who I would guess is more right-leaning is the most ambivelant of the bunch at the moment (and he is also against it)

[mockney piers]

Steve, I'm pretty sure that Islam isn't by definition an evangelical religion*, whereas Christianity by definition is, so not sure where you're getting that from. And trust you to bring pakkies(sic) into it.

*generally people who found temselves in territory conquered by Muslims enjoyed much more religious tolerance than those conquered by post enlightenment europeans. Conversion tended to happen of their own volition because Muslims were spared paying taxes!

[????]

So Magpie, if you were looking at this in 1938 is Hitler's National Socialist state better at delivering jobs, prosperity and a sense of national pride for the majority of the non-jewish german people than the Weimer republic?

[mockney piers]

In a totally relativistic fashion quids, the answer is simply yes.

[Jeremy]

Steve, it's not the literal meaning of "paki" which is the problem, it's the negative/spiteful/aggressive connotation the word has taken on. Not sure why opening an AIDS clinic is a demeaning chore either... but maybe that's another example of "cultural relavitism"??

[ But it is an interesting point about people treading carefully around Islam while criticizing Catholicism more openly... see the article in DC's original post... ]

[Magpie]

Did you miss the "Liberal democracy" bit in my post?

[mockney piers]

Actually that's a lie. It wasn't really a cultural thing in that sense, more a sense of ignorance.

And this is the thing.

If we can look at 20s Munich and say that they all believed that the majority believed house price rises and the rise in the cost of living was to do with Jewish profiteers, not simple economics in a rapidly changing world, we can say they were wrong, the consequences of course being ultimately 6 million dead jews.

Now we can look at genital mutilation and say that they believed that it was probably something to with spirits or something equally bananas, the consequence being pain and suffering for millions of women, and we can say they are wrong, and we have to go...ooh, but they believe it, and they aren't privileged enough to have our western liberal values which are onanistically superior... blah blah blah, and wring our hands and fart on about relativism.

No, bunch of cock. Wrong is wrong, and bad decisions are made through ignorance and stupidity and tradition and mob rule etc etc.

I'm with D_C on this one. Pontificate from our ivory towers that everyone is wrong wrong wrong!!!

[SeanMacGabhann]

?But it is an interesting point about people treading carefully around Islam while criticizing Catholicism more openly... see the article in DC's original post...?

I?m never sure about this one ? in the last week we have seen the release of 4 Lions which could easily be seen as an attack on Islam ? it isn?t but it could be seen as one. And there is more critiquing of Islam as a religion than the ?treading carefully? suggests

Then again, when hear people say how it?s not fair to criticise Chatolocism when people ?tread lightly? around Islam, I can?t help but feel there are good life and death reason behind that, what with the examples of Danish Cartoons, Fatwahs and all the rest of it. Do we want, say, the Catholic church to achieve parity by becoming as aggressive ?? I don?t THINK so?.

[????]

The Weimar republic was a Liberal Democracy.

[mockney piers]

Oranges are orange.

[david_carnell]

Whilst I think Steve is tilting at windmills for the most part, his vague assertion that we "tiptoe" around Islam is an interesting one.

It is, to the best of my knowledge (and I'm open to corrections), a religion based on patriarchy and misogyny. At it's heart is a legal system that is diametrically opposed to our own and its religious heartland is based in a country that is run by an autocratic monarchy.

The original article I posted is by a "reformed muslim" who intelligently argues that due to these, and other aspects of Islam, it is fundamentally incompatible with liberal, western society. Muslims who settle in those societies should be encouraged to renounce the repugnant aspects of their faith but this is an unpopular and explosive stance to voice. We worry, due to cultural sensitivities, that strongly criticising female oppression amongst the Islamic diaspora is something we should shy away from.

I don't think it should be. Perhaps it is a fear of being branded racist. But this would be wrong, Islam is a religion that stretches from North Africa, to the Middle East all the way to Malaysia and the Philipines. Not to mention it's western-world emigrees. Nor is it islamaphobic, this would imply some irrational fear, like that of spiders, when it is in fact a rather rational and passive critique and not a fear.