I'd like to have a brief rant following Legal Eagle's critique of "cultural relativism", and its apparent sympathy for Islam in particular.
First, I am surprised that LE has come to these conclusions, and used these terms to describe them. In my experience, the concept of "cultural relativism" is a useful construct of neo-conservatism, rather like "political correctness". It's a way of criticising an argument by claiming that there is a flawed, overarching theory guiding it, and anyone who does not subscribe to the theory is not part of "the left".
I see no such theory in "the left" that I know. Perhaps as an undergraduate we all toyed with the Nietszchian (sp?) idea that "the only universal truth is that there is no universal truth", and its implications for public policy. Indeed, such post-modern understandings strongly influenced some very successful shifts in public policy and non-government approaches, which meant that do-gooders all over the (developing) world now "do-good" by listening and facilitating, rather than preaching, with largely far better results for those being helped.
However, in fact, it is possibly when "the left" forget to listen and collaborate that they do the most harm (ref Aboriginal policies of the 70s-80s).
Nevertheless, of all the people I know on "the left" - from activists to apparatchiks - I know very few who would justify human rights abuses, torture and oppression against anyone.
Second, Islam is, as far as I can see, given extremely short shrift when it comes to public opinion and scrutiny. In Australia there are a number of churches and religions which preach very oppressive dogma about women and lesbians/gay men - from orthodox judaism to christian fundamentalism, even catholic fundamentalism (which should be an oxymoron). I see no public scrutiny or criticism of these preachings and practices anywhere in the public sphere. Yet there is continuous debate and conjecture about the preachings and practices of Islam.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
On the point of cultural relativism.
I don't think it can be written off as a neo-conservative slur. Cultural relativism is a movement against the privileging of Western thoughts and ideas when looking at other cultures. It was originally used by anthropologists.
It became popular with some left wing postcolonial theorists (particularly those based in India) and was used in conjunction with postmodernist theory to deconstruct the depictions of "the postcolonial subject". I am thinking here of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Homi Bhaba, among others. Spivak wrote "Can the Subaltern Speak?", in which she said that Westerners should not "speak for" the "subaltern", being any person or group of inferior rank and station (whether because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion). Incidentally, the term "subaltern" was coined by Italian neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci.
I seem to recall reading a work by Spivak in which she deconstructed the practice of "suttee" (Indian wives throwing themselves, or, in some unfortunate instances, being thrown by force, on their husbands' funeral pyres). I seem to recollect that she criticised Western feminists for being horrified by this, because they were privileging their own ideas of what was right and wrong.
Also in the area of postcolonialism, the late Edward Said questioned the West's representation of the Middle East and Islam and deconstructed these representations.
Now, I would say that being careful about privileging Western thoughts and ideas over the ideas of other cultures is definitely a left wing trait. And it can be a creditable trait BUT...I think it can be taken too far in some instances.
On the point of "sympathies with Islam"
In your post, you say:
"Nevertheless, of all the people I know on "the left" - from activists to apparatchiks - I know very few who would justify human rights abuses, torture and oppression against anyone."
Well, that's a good thing! But there are those who excuse or choose to ignore human rights abuses, depending on who is commiting them.
Let's take the example of female circumcision: see Pamela Bone's interesting and controversial article:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/03/1107409981815.html
I think you misunderstand my point. What I was trying to get across is that *some* commentators are not critical in the way they analyse world affairs. The attitude towards Islamists was just an example. I think some commentators simplistically divide the world into "oppressors" and "oppressed". The "oppressors" are evil, the "oppressed" are good.
All I was trying to say is that when we see a simplistic analysis like that, we should look behind it. Often, the reality is more grey than that.
I second the views of Legal Eagle. In addition I think all three of the main monotheistic religions are getting short shrift. For all the reactionary teachings in relation to these religions (and which even some subscribers to these faiths find abominable), there are a number of fundamental things to note:
1. Judaism: this (and not Thomas Aquinas) is the religion that first taught the world (at a time when kings/emperors were ultimate divinity) that there is a higher conscience.
2. Islam: it was the most tolerant of all the monotheistic religions until a mixture of Ottoman/Arab nationalism, Wahabi-ism and western colonial powers radicalised them.
3. Catholicism: of the monotheistic faiths they tend still to side on the side of the poor and the politically and economically oppressed - eg notwithstanding the papacy, the Catholic Church on the ground in Germany during the Nazi era did much more than the Protestants in opposing Nazism, and it was the John Paul II who told his Polish flock "be not afraid" when they were oppressed by the communists.
4. Protestantism - their revolution gave the west the prosperity it has today (and the wealth from which self-righteous leftists can now pontificate)
5. Eastern Orthodoxism: they were the eastern version of the Catholic church when it came to standing firm against mass-scale oppression - the wartime Bishop of Athens was saving Jews left right and centre and when threatened by the Nazis with the firing squad, said "In our culture clerics are executed by hanging. Please respect our traditions!"
Separately, whilst, on an intellectual level, the "no abolute truth" argument makes sense, the fact is that even when (with respect) you are saying the "do gooders" are now "do gooding", that already shows that you have an implicit sense of what is and isn't right.
Post a Comment