Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Cultural Relativism/Multi-Culturalism
What is everyone's take on cultural relativism? Are all cultures inherently equal? Can we objectively say that some are better than others? If all cultures are equal, is it still possible to make value judgments on various practices like slavery, women's rights, and other issues that ingrained in the fabric of some cultures?
0
Comments
Hey KOB! I believe that one must keep an open mind as the very basis for beginning assessment of how different cultures are open to objective, measurable truths, which should be the gold standard in deciding this question.
I'll offer two concepts as useful paradigms for deciding a similar question, one dealing with societies rather than cultures. The cultural question is just a bit over my head right now. In a way, I'm sorry to say, I'm not answering your question at all, but am changing the subject just a little. Me Bad.
The Prism and The Prison.
First, the Prism: Do the rulers, the ruled, the teachers, the workers, the students, the wee children, and all the citizenry go about their lives in clear view of each other doing what they lawfully do without needing to trample others? Is sincerity of purpose rewarded and friendship freely expressed and punishments only handed out to people who break the codes of lawful conduct? Are the labors exerted in building up this garden fairly rewarded? Are significant resources put aside and people trained to care skillfully for the sick and help nurse them back to health? And lastly, is there an acknowledgment or state-sanctioned statements of civil rights that people are free to follow the dictates of their own conscience and to pursue their own happiness, without having to bow down to some scriptural authority that legislates silly little rules...?
Second, the Prison: Is there a hierarchy above the people that stands above them and dictates many elements of their lives? Are the people used to exploiting people of a lower caste in their midst and would lash out at one of their fellows who would be just, lest the rest of the people of that lower caste come to expect better treatment also? Are people forced into servitude of others through no fault or action of their own? Are people kept from marrying or forming families through laws that advance the interests of others without due compensation of the people so assigned to loneliness and lack of companionship? Are well-to-do people and poor people taxed at equivalent rates, even though only the property of the wealthy is protected by the police? Are people kept from further education by their poverty, with no help from anyone at all? Are there religious societies that are allowed to scare people over silly misconceptions and beliefs? And lastly, are the people said to have any rights of their own, or are any rights that they have said to devolve from governmental authority?
Well, Sir Knight of Buddha. I'm sure I left out a lot in my quick response to this, but I hope you get my drift. Yes, some societies indeed ARE BETTER than others. Which would you choose?
If one were to take the Politically Correct position, I suppose that one would argue that all cultures are created equally, and that one has no right to impose one culture's norms on another culture. Who, after all, died and made you—or the culture you represent—God? What right do you have, after all, to tell people how to think?
I don't buy it, but I think that's how the Politically Correct crowd would put it. I don't buy it because it seems to me that scientific truth transcends cultural norms. Suppose there is a culture out there somewhere that believes that the moon is made out of blue cheese. Now, for them, the moon isactually made out of blue cheese. But, by any objective standard, they are wrong. Flat out wrong.
Suppose there's a culture out there somewhere that believes there are witches that can poison your blood with invisible darts. For the people living in that culture, this might be an obvious fact* ... but, really now ...
As Buddhism moves West, a surprising number of such cultural truths have moved with it. Speaking just for myself, I disregard anything "Buddhist" that does not pass the Kalama Sutta test ... which means, basically, that I disregard a lot .......
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/kalama1.htm
__________________________
*This culture does, in fact, exist. Well worth reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Pascal-Boyer/dp/0465006965/
I think there are more ways to judge a culture than through using science, which is rather limited in its scope actually. There are non-scientific cultures out there that I have a lot of respect for, like the aboriginal culture of Australia for one. They operate on a different level of reality than we do, so who are we to judge? I found the same thing in Mongolia. Generally speaking, the people there are much more in touch with nature than we are. I visited a sacred mountain down in the Gobi where the locals claimed that the mountain actually talked to them. Just because I can't hear it, does that mean it doesn't? I think it's more likely that the mountain really does talk to them and I'm just not attuned to nature enough to hear it.
There's certainly a lot wrong with the US culture that is insidiously taking over the world. It's sad to see the old cultures disappear under the weight of McDonalds and i-pods, quite frankly. It's a great loss.
Of course, there are certain inalienable rights, as was discussed in another thread, and when a culture violates those rights, then we must object and do our best to eliminate abuses. I can't ever see a way to justify slavery, for example. But there are other cultural differences that don't violate these rights. They may seem odd or even repugnant to us, but again, who are we to judge?
Palzang
Ragyaba, you mention 'political correctness'. There can be no such correctness (in the initial sense of the expression) unless we have first defined the end at which we are aiming. Only then can we say if an action is 'correct' (i.e. leads towards the desired outcome). So, if we apply this to our attitude and behaviour towards other cultures, we have to understand our own sticking points: are women's right to equity and equality of such importance that we cannot tolerate others (however ancient their culture and valuable some aspects of it) who deny them?
The history of the spread of Buddhism does give us some clues about how to act vis-a-vis diverse cultures: use their stories and transform them into fingers pointing to the Dharma. This is precisely what the Islamic women's movement is trying to do (and Christian feminist theology): revisiting the scriptures to rebalance the gender balance, without throwing out the Q'ran or the Bible. It may be an experiment that fails but it is worth the attempt.
Do we accept as equally 'valid' a culture which accepts slavery or canibalism? Can we respect such a culture for the bits that aren't about slaves and people as food? Cultural relativism also requires us to examine ethical relativism and that's a can of poisonous worms!
Multiculturalism is a different matter. From its foundation, the US went for a multi-cultural approach. Among the 2.5 million inhabitants of the 13 states wer Catholics, Quakers, desist, theists and others. They were each allowed to retain their individual character whilst giving assent to the fundamental documents. This didn't prevent tthe war against the Mormons. Of course, as non-European immigration grew, and as the Catholic Irish began to flood into the Protestant North, there were objections and complaints. We had the same in the UK, and still do.
My own approach is to say 'yea' to those aspects of other cultures which are harmonious or neutral when measured against my basic values. I will, however, object strongly to those which are inimical or deliterious. I support the decision of the French and Turkish governments of republics constitutionally declared as secular to ban 'religious' symbols and clothing in state institutions such as schools. I object, however, to Ankara's attitude to free speech and behaviour towards its Kurdish minority.
By definition, relativism requires us to make choices. we cannot buy the whole package. It also demands that we understnd that a culture is a complex structure. The Maori of Aotearoa (New Zealand) have wonderful spiritual beliefs but warfare and canibalism were integral to earlier forms. Without them, can the culture survive?
Palzang: I understand your admiration for some aspects of Aboriginal and Mongolian culture. It is, nevertheless, the case that Aboriginal women are even more disadvantaged than men. They also tend to be invisible in the Australian women's movement. In the case of Mongolia, it is true that, during expansion and imperialist warfare, women are mentioned as taking important roles but modern Mongolia restricts them.
In a real sense, we can only truly support limited multiculturalism: limited by the culture, laws and customs of the host culture. It is a sort of "Pick 'n' Mix multiculturalism" that seems to work.
So what was the question...?
Palzang
The whole process of choice of candidate, campaigns, election and inauguration has lifted my heart with joy. It seems to me to symbolise a truth that we often overlook: human beings, in society, across the millennia, make positive progress. Close up, from time to time, humanity appears to regress but, taking a longer view, things generally improve. Before the pessimists weigh in, let me specify:
In the past 300 years, North America has undergone the sort of seismic changes that are far in Europe or Asia's past. The movement from scattered colonies to union, republic or dominion in so short a time is unheard-of. Never before have secular philosophical reflections been translated into a new form of government. And it was so structured that it could move from slave-owning, discriminatory and male-dominated to an experiment in liberty.
Whatever comes now, however many unrealistic expectations will be dashed, the fundamental robustness of the system has been demonstrated. For the rest of the USA's history, a non-Anglo President, a new colour, will stare out of the pages, an affirmation of those extraordinary words, "we, the people".
I tell my children and grandchildren about modern historic events that I have witnessed, if only on TV but as they happened, like the Moon landing. Perhaps I shall live long enough to tell great-grandchildren about this moment too because I see it as just as significant: human beings are extraordinarily able to pick themselves up, dust themselves off and start all over again.
Otherwise, why would the Tathagata have bothered?
P.S, He is ONE-HALF (50%) ANGLO ..... facts, what me worry???
'Tis a gift to be simple.
As a mischling myself, I get very uncomfortable with the allocation of ancestral percentages or 'blood quantum' stuff. Truth is that this President's phenotype is outwith the norm set by his predecessors.