On Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy asked the French Parliament to pass legislation banning the burqa - the most concealing form of the traditional Islamic hijab - in public, arguing it subjugates women. Predictably, the proposal touched off a debate between proponents of universality and relativism, with the former arguing a universal value of women's equality and the latter arguing for respecting other cultures' values. President Barack Obama has spoken on both sides of the issue, in support of the hijab in Cairo on June 4th, then calling for Iran to respect "universal norms" of freedom to peacefully dissent in his press conference this past Monday.
Respecting the values of other cultures seems attractive to many Americans, especially progressives. But it is an idea with a checkered history, and has often led to dismissal of others' suffering. "Live and let live" can easily become "Live and let die."
More below the fold....
Relative to Whose Values?
Yesterday Morning Feature explored the roots and challenges of universality. Today we'll look at the roots and challenges of its opposite, relativism. Tomorrow we'll conclude with the claimed middle ground of pluralism.
First, relativism is not a position of "anything goes, do whatever you want." The notion of "Live and let live" captures some of relativism's essence, but it's a bit too facile. Rather, relativism asserts that values cannot be argued in isolation, but instead must be considered in light of the totality of the conditions and value structures in which they exist. A value we might vehemently disagree with in isolation may serve its culture well, because its deficiencies are made up in other values of that culture, or because it addresses conditions of that culture which do not exist in our own. The "live" part of "Live and let live" is vital to understanding relativism. If the value does not help those of that culture survive and thrive, not even relativists would defend it.
Yesterday I suggested that universality has roots in arrogance, empathy, and simplicity. Today I'll suggest some cognitive roots for relativism, and two of them are very similar.
Roots of relativism: arrogance, empathy, diversity.
Like universalists, relativists are often (and sometimes accurately) criticized for arrogance, albeit of a different sort. Where the universalist arrogantly assumes that others 'really' want to be just like them, some relativists assume with equal arrogance that people get what they 'really' want (or deserve). If a culture subjugates women, the women of that culture must 'really' want that, and since that's their culture it's their problem. This is how "Live and let live" slips into "Live and let die."
However the criticisms are not always valid, and sometimes they merely deflect discussion from one's own arrogance. For example, those who objected to neoconservatives' claim of an American mission to spread democracy were often met with criticisms of arrogance: "You think only Americans deserve democracy and freedom?"
More often, and again like universality, relativism is rooted in the concept of empathy. We like our culture and its values, at least to some extent, and we want others to respect our culture and its values and leave us free to practice them. Empathy suggests we should give others equal respect and leave them free to practice their cultures and values, or at least try to understand a culture and its values before we demand that people change their culture and values.
Where universality has a basis in a desire for simplicity, relativism has a complementary basis in a recognized need for diversity. Where simplicity asks for a common set of ground rules to resolve disputes, diversity notes that we do better when we have more options for solving problems. A species or society which has only one way to solve problems faces extinction if confronted with a problem that cannot be solved in that one way. A more diverse species or society is more likely to have members ready to offer other alternatives. Relativism preserves cultures offering value sets tailored for the conditions to which they are accustomed. Should others face those same conditions, they can turn to cultures with a body of values derived by long experience to meet those conditions.
Challenges of relativism.
But like universality, relativism has its problems. A professor once offered a quip on the difference between relativity (in physics) and relativism (in culture studies): "Relativity is the rule of light; relativism is the rule of might." When different cultures meet, the result is often conflict. The more different the cultures, the more likely each will find the others' values incompatible, and in the absence of core universal values by which to resolve their dispute, they are likely resolve it by brute force.
His argument was that different cultures cannot coexist unless they acknowledge some universal values: the values by which they can resolve their disputes without violence. He then offered a defense of Hegemonic Stability Theory, which proposes that both societies and the world at large need a hegemon - a superior power to enforce established universal values - in order to permit different cultures to coexist. He argued that hegemony differs from imperialism in that a hegemon will also obey the universal values it enforces, and of course he offered a nominee for the role in the modern world: the United States. Only a world dominated by a benevolent hegemon, he said, would permit any measure of relativism to survive in an increasingly global society.
But history suggests that Lord Acton's maxim of "All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is as true in international relations as in local politics. The naked self-interest of U.S. hegemony has been all too evident in recent decades. Many raise similar objections to any proposed body of international law. If such a body has its own courts and more importantly, a police power by which to enforce decisions of those courts, they suggest it will inevitably yield to the temptation of power and become a worldwide empire.
Was his stark view of relativism true? Can different cultures coexist absent some set of universal values to which each is willing (or forced) to sublimate its own cultural values? Arrogance and empathy aside, does simplicity trump diversity, or vice-versa?
+++++
At least we know relativism reigns in the Kossascopes, except for the universal need to relax:
Cancer - Welcome to center stage for a month. We'll be watching you.
Leo - You need a vacation. We all do. We'll meet at your place. Tonight.
Virgo - You are ruled by either a large asteroid or a dwarf planet. Sort it out, please.
Libra - Finally, a truly great weekend for you. It starts at the Leo's house.
Scorpio - Be nice this weekend. Give a Libra directions to the Leo's house.
Sagittarius - Psst. While they're all at the Leo's house, let's meet somewhere else.
Capricorn - Oh doesn't it figure you'd be jealous of the Leos and the Sagitarii.
Aquarius - Yes, you can come too, but bring more of that dip this time.
Pisces - Your reasoning skills will help the Virgos figure out what Ceres is. Or not.
Aries - Your social skills will make the party at the Leos more lively. Or it's the wine.
Taurus - Your love of motion will have you dancing on the table. Or it's the wine.
Gemini - Yes, you get to bring the wine. Lots, please, for the Arieses and Tauruses.
+++++
Happy Friday!