Many people infantilize traditional societies, like those performing Honor killings and FGM, with a demagogic, twisted discourse based on a terribly wrong interpretation of Max Weber's famous "axiologic neutrality", and a misuse of the word Respect.
Mostly, all modern education is based on the philosophy of Enlightenment and Humanism. A belief in Mankind. An optimistic view that things will get only better if we put our minds to it. Everywhere.
It is the philosophy that brought us a few Revolutions, including scientific revolutions, and the various Declarations of Human Rights, especially the first principle: all men are born with equal rights, equal dignity, and should be given equal opportunities. Everywhere.
By a strange deviation of the thought, there is a branch of academics known as relativists who extended that belief to claim that all cultures are equivalent, in all aspects, everywhere, and at any point in history. Therefore, no progress should ever be attempted to me made.
In other words, it means denying access to closed societies. Disguised as a very "open-minded" approach to the world, this is, in fact, a terribly despising, conservative posture.
It means "we (from rich countries or the wealthy classes in developing countries), are the happy few. We have had access to culture and opportunities, but you guys (Africans, South American natives, poor people everywhere, etc) should stay as you are, because we respect your culture".
So I met a well-intentioned anthropologist, well-educated, who was explaining that NGOs should not tamper with local cultures. She said in substance that NGOs should "respect" local cultures and not try to suggest to implement ideas they think are better. It's a philosophy that I understand. But allow me to have a doubt.
The problem is, it's a philosophy from the de-colonization time... 60 years ago. It was also the big debate in NGOs about 50 years ago. It was new and necessary then. Now, it's moot.
NGOs have evolved a lot in 50 years. They integrated this criticism, they changed their approach, became very aware of local cultures, of local empowerment, they started to listen before they suggest changes. But the victims of traditional societies cannot be left abandoned.
It poses an epistemological problem: if you cannot judge values, there are no values, everything is worth the same, good or bad. There is no good, nor bad. No beliefs. Especially it contradicts the platonician belief that the aim of democracy is the pursuit of happiness, and to have a better society. And it bans the pursuit of virtu, Machiavel's "civic virtue". Sometimes you just have to take a stand, with all due respect.
So... What of Relativism today ? It seems it's the ultimate lack of respect for "locals", actually.
Read the newspaper today in Jordan: ONE MORE HONOR KILLING. A man killed his 22-year-old sister for sleeping with her lover.
Relativists say let's respect him, the brother and his family. It's their culture. Let them learn with time, and not interfere. Let's maintain them longer in their ignorance and bigotry.
Denying that the other can be as good, and as bad, as myself and my society, is denying similarities, denying kin-ness, for better and for worse. It's denying the fact that, deep inside, we're all made the same way and have the same instincts. And we're all entitled to progress. And we can all learn. All societies actually make progress. No one can stop it, thank God. But we can slow it down or accelerate it considerably.
It is a good idea that progress should be shared. Those who had access to knowledge were just lucky, and should share it with the rest, just like Penicillin was shared, otherwise it's called being incredibly selfish, self-centered, and unfair. After years of expensive education, it seems ungrateful to believe that one should keep their ideas and experiences to themselves and not share them.
With great knowledge comes the great responsibility to share it.
The whole world has learned from all cultures. We've learned mathematics from the Arabs, we learned from the Chinese, from India, and yes, we do learn from Africa, and, yes, Africa learns from other continents. It is not a bad thing. Ideas should circulate, should adapt to societies, and they most of the time do, in a smooth way.
Take the best in all cultures, reject the worst. That seems sensible, common sense. Plus, sharing is also challenging. It shakes one's beliefs. It can shatter them or make them stronger, more firmly based, having been through the fire of a different reality.
8 comments:
Thank you for this post observer!! It must be really hard
to understand the different levels of consciousness in the middle east( Jordan & Egypt) with their different delivered cultures, though you're doing good so far!
with your high level of openmindness and the eagerness to change , can you tell me if there is any peaceful, nonviolent , and also non-arrogant way to retreat such issues?? , starting with the most well-educated but "stupid" people???
Can’t wait to read your answer!!!!
Thank you rebel without a cause... Actually you could pick one, there are so many, and I know you're brilliant: you could put your mind at it, I'm pretty sure that you'd come up with very interesting innovations.
The bottom of this post is not: is change good or bad ? It's not even: is change possible or not ?
It is: universalism vs relativism. And on a more practical note: "is it ok that NGOs promote change here today ?"
NGOs (that includes local, jordanian, grassroots NGOs) are being too often criticised as un-necessary, culturally insensitive organizations that do no good, because they rely on universal values.
Enlightenment is not European. Not French. It's not even English or American. It's, in its essence, a philosophy of the Human kind. Universal. Meant for all mankind. Ibn Rushd was Enlightenment.
Your pick your counter-examples as if this philosophy was meant for Europe only, and as an alibi for everything Europe has done wrong.
Napoleon, of course, was not enlightenment, even though he was European. Cortez was not enlightenment, nor the Company of the West Indies. Etc.
And nobody, NOBODY ever learns "by themselves". This is a myth, and if it were true, we'd all be, for a vast majority, except for polymath geniuses like Da Vinci, all still living in caves or swinging from trees (which I still like to do by the way).
Except for some limited events in a restricted universe, ALL learning that expands our known little universe always comes from teaching that comes from outside.
You didn't learn to read alone. You wouldn't even know ABOUT reading if it were not for someone else.
The Revolution, the French Revolution, came from the United States, for a large part. The American Revolution came from English philosophers...
Ideas circulate. They're meant to.
This age is an age where some people are dramatically LEFT BEHIND by all progress. But the worst part is, sometimes it is done willingly, in the name of generous ideas and "respect". The road to hell is so well-paved with good intentions.
I understand you think it's a "senseless debate" but it's in fact a very practical, down-to-earth one. What can be done to prevent honor killings ? Should we even try something ? Should NGOs just leave the country at once ? Are they doing more harm than good ? Very, very down-to-earth.
A simple exaple about FGM: Oxfam, the organization I worked for, started a program of training, at a grassroots level, in Sudan, that dramatically changed the numbers of FGMs.
That means trainers going in the field for months, doing meetings with heads of communities and foloow-ups, gathering women and presenting the dangers of it. Educating religious authorities, with the help of other religious authorities. That's what I mean by an intelligent way of CHANGING things. And yes, it works. Results are monitored and published.
Also, you say the crime is "STUPID, SENSELESS".
Well it's not senseless to the family who did it.
So why do you think it is senseless to you, and me, and not to them ? Do you think that you and me were born better persons than them ? Or is it possible that we were simply better educated and they did not have that luck ? I tend to think we were just lucky, and they deserve the same luck.
Change will not come, eventually, without external factors to help the change. So let's just rejoice and welcome those external forces. And everyone can help too, in our little circles, pushing the walls a little.
Dima,
It really depends on your definition of "arrogant" though. Wanting to modify anything in the first place can be seen as "arrogant". I think it's more like kindness, and arrogance would be to think that some societies are beneath progress...
Really depends on your point of view.
Well, there is a way, of course: it's called "education". It works wonders, though it takes formidable time, dedicated effort and investment. But it's not the only way.
There are other ways also known as "social engineering". Fascinating field, involving also mass media, legal systems, administration, public policies, etc.
There are ways. Non-violent, respectful ways.
For me, arrogance is to start a comparison between different eras (I won’t say different societies or even cultures)..Coz between cultures lay several centuries, time frame that cannot be similar at the same time, “Similarity is in the eyes of the beholder" that’s how the majority thinks ...But actually they end up saying;
“This is the way the society and the world works, and I should just do whatever I can to fit in and make the best out of it for myself.” Again this is what I always hear as a result of arrogance way of thinking...
Another thing I’ve wanted to speak out for ages, Education!!! What can education do, wonders!!! What If The majority of well-educated people are defeated by the world, let their surrounding determine their lives??This education thing would be a broad generalization..I just loved the title of this post Knowledge Respect and Responsibility …starting with Knowledge. Which is basically the result of both Education + Experience!
Well, we have a very large education landscape in Jordan , then what ???? I guess you would say now , that we should have the empowerment to experience and learn from our experience to finally gain the knowledge , accordingly the urge to change and to propagate our thoughts and ideas in a wider space would become more achievable , the question now should be , why don’t we don’t have this empowerment??? Why is it reserved for special classes!!? This is politics now …can we do anything???
But when you say Social Engineering!!! I salute you! Yes I do , but social engineering has nothing to do with anthropologists… it’s all about leaders ..Right?!!!
I’ve been meaning to ask you about a peaceful way to retreat , coz I’m really interested in reversing my way of thinking , away from revolution ,which has been always the original flame of Enlightenment, and try to take advantage from the fact that you’re interested in fruitful arguments .
Thank you again
Post a Comment