Cultural Relativism

[Invincible Summer]

How does one reconcile a more libertarian (not Libertarian), culturally relativistic stance with the desire to end oppression?

For example, most of us leftists say that a society/culture shouldn't be told by another how best to do things, or that certain aspects of their culture are wrong (cultural imperialism/hegemony). But at the same time, what about some forms of oppression and inequality that exist because of beliefs embedded in these cultures?

Is the concept of inequality itself Eurocentric?


A very contemporary example would be the hijab debate. When is it right to allow the hijab, and when is it "oppressive?"

[Raúl Duke]

This is a good question...albeit difficult to answer...
I think the left should reject cultural relativism (at least of the type this question is directed at)

(cultural imperialism/hegemony)

Eurocentric

A very contemporary example would be the hijab debate. When is it right to allow the hijab, and when is it "oppressive?"

The hijab, in it of itself, isn't per se oppressive yet only a possible symptom of oppression (i.e. view of women as inferior/inequal and women accepting this image of themselves), whether real or in an ideological sense. The hijab is just a symbol.

But for the sake of your argument, yes the hijab is "oppressive" specifically what it represents (in all contexts).

The issue (the reason this is a controversy for the left) is not the hijab, but the context of the bans.

The bannning of the hijab in Europe (France) is usually due more to implicit xenophobia, etc than anything. In Syria, they've also passed a law banning the hijab but the reasoning is most likely behind the ideas of secularism/'modernization' (mostly) and woman's rights (somewhat).

However, it's my opinion that the left in Europe has nothing to gain in getting involved over the issue of the hijab when more pressing concerns are at stake, such as other laws that are more oppressive to the immigrant population. After all, the left does not support what the hijab represents. This doesn't mean that they should jump on the bandwagon on the side of the people who want to ban it, because the hijab is only a symbol/aspect of patriarchy/sexism and banning the hijab does nothing to target the root of sexism/patriarchy plus the real implicit rationale behind the ban is straight-up xenophobia.

In Syria however, the left could (if they wish) be involved in arguing for the ban of the hijab (since in that context such demand is not xenophobic) but as I said that's just targeting a symptom/aspect of the problem and not the root (sexism/patriarchy).

[Invincible Summer]

Yeah, good point about the context (Europe vs Syria).

However, what about the stance of some feminists who claim that taking up the hijab is a form of anti-imperialism?

This touches on another topic involving libertarian thought vs ending oppression... it's sort of patriarchical/paternal to tell women what they should/shouldn't do, but to what extent is, for example, choosing to be in porn "oppressive" vs. "a woman's choice?"

I always have problems reconciling these things in my head, and it drives me nuts.

[Raúl Duke]

it's sort of patriarchical/paternal to tell women what they should/shouldn't do, but to what extent is, for example, choosing to be in porn "oppressive" vs. "a woman's choice?"

On that point it's a clash. The ideas that are against the hijab (particularly what it stands for) come from feminism, a movement mostly headed by women and who's ideas came from women. So one could be against the hijab based on the ideals of feminism and it would be ridiculous to say that such a position is patriarchal. However, if one was to take a consistant feminist view than it's obvious that it's a waste of time to target the hijab instead of targeting the root of the issue that allows/accepts the wearing of the hijab in the first place.

However, we know that in Europe the talk about "woman's rights" as being behind these bans are at most a farce and at least a minor reasoning behind the actual reason: xenophobia.

choosing to be in porn "oppressive" vs. "a woman's choice?"

Personally, I think it depends on what kind of porn we are talking about.

Women "forced" (i.e. working in porn is a more financially rewarding occupation, due to capitalism, than the other occupations that are accessible to the women who join this industry; thus, forced by circumstances) into porn and placed towards doing/participating/etc acts that may be normally disagreeable to them (i.e. for a mild example, getting slapped in the face) and degrading to women in general than yes in this context it is oppressive (that last part oppressive in a patriarchal context while the 1st is exploitative in a capitalist context).

But a woman making a sex/porn tape, without doing anything (or have anything done to her) that she would normally consider degrading as a woman, and due to exhibitionist nature posts it online (whether for free or for cash yet in a "self-employed" manner), I do not find this oppressive per se.

Context is important

[Adil3tr]

A very contemporary example would be the hijab debate. When is it right to allow the hijab, and when is it "oppressive?"

I'm a Muslim. The hijab is something thats good for women to do, as a matter of modesty, Men have their rules as well. Fucking right wingers take it too far and make it part of their retard pseudo-Muslim sharia law. Its supposed to be a choice, and cover just the hair, not their entire goddamn body.

We should also look at the positive and more socialist aspects of national cultures and identity.

[jake williams]

Oh wow.

I'm going to try to respond to the thread question fairly directly. "Cultural relativism" is liberal postmodernist bullshit. A basic material analysis of culture makes it pretty clear that all cultures are the products of a history of class struggle over their content. Successive ruling classes have promoted reactionary, anti-working class values with legacies in all cultures - and we should fight them in all cultures, not by racist essentialism nor by liberal relativism, but by class struggle.

[NGNM85]

[FONT=Verdana]It’s certainly an issue for people who subscribe to cultural relativism. I, for one, think it’s total bullshit. Just because behaviors are culturally reinforced just means they’re more prevalent, it doesn’t make them less wrong. I have absolutely zero problem making critical judgments. If a society promotes abusing women, slavery, ethnic cleansing, etc., it’s barbaric and wrong, period. I feel totally comfortable making that assessment.[/FONT]

[ContrarianLemming]

How does one reconcile a more libertarian (not Libertarian)

Question: what is the distinction between big L Libertarianism and little l libertarianism, the former is the capitalist kind?

[NGNM85]

However, what about the stance of some feminists who claim that taking up the hijab is a form of anti-imperialism?

This touches on another topic involving libertarian thought vs ending oppression... it's sort of patriarchical/paternal to tell women what they should/shouldn't do, but to what extent is, for example, choosing to be in porn "oppressive" vs. "a woman's choice?"

I think the "woman's choice" argument is a lot stronger in areas where a woman isn't likely to get stoned to death or set on fire if she doesn't wear one. If it's actually a decision of her own volition, I say go ahead.

As for pornography, unless you buy into Cartesian dualism, every woman exploits her body for money. I don't see why the particular organs involved are philosophically relevent. I see no reason why a woman shouldn't be allowed to choose this, again, as long as it's their choice.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Question: what is the distinction between big L Libertarianism and little l libertarianism, the former is the capitalist kind?

Yes.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm a Muslim. The hijab is something thats good for women to do, as a matter of modesty, Men have their rules as well. Fucking right wingers take it too far and make it part of their retard pseudo-Muslim sharia law. Its supposed to be a choice, and cover just the hair, not their entire goddamn body.

We should also look at the positive and more socialist aspects of national cultures and identity.

Why is modesty for women "good?"

Oh wow.

I'm going to try to respond to the thread question fairly directly. "Cultural relativism" is liberal postmodernist bullshit. A basic material analysis of culture makes it pretty clear that all cultures are the products of a history of class struggle over their content. Successive ruling classes have promoted reactionary, anti-working class values with legacies in all cultures - and we should fight them in all cultures, not by racist essentialism nor by liberal relativism, but by class struggle.

Yes, I know it's bullshit. But it is very similar to attitudes that I've encountered from leftists... that the West has no right to tell ______ that their practice of ______ is wrong, because it's cultural hegemony. It's argued from the premise of anti-imperialism.

I guess what I'm asking is to what extent is this permissible?

Also, in regards to class struggle, surely some portion of the working class has internalized reactionary values. How will 'reactionary' values be exposed if it's been the norm for potentially centuries? Besides, I'm sure that there are some reactionary practices that did not originate from the ruling class.

I'm not saying that some things are essentialized into a culture, but rather that claiming "class struggle will solve this issue" isn't enough. Culture and norms can and do operate beyond socio-economic class boundaries, so how does a revolution filter out "reactionary values?" You can't just say a proletarian revolution will topple reactionary values which are inherently ruling class; what about reactionary working class values?

[jake williams]

I guess what I'm asking is to what extent is this permissible?

Also, in regards to class struggle, surely some portion of the working class has internalized reactionary values. How will 'reactionary' values be exposed if it's been the norm for potentially centuries? Besides, I'm sure that there are some reactionary practices that did not originate from the ruling class.

I'm not saying that some things are essentialized into a culture, but rather that claiming "class struggle will solve this issue" isn't enough. Culture and norms can and do operate beyond socio-economic class boundaries, so how does a revolution filter out "reactionary values?" You can't just say a proletarian revolution will topple reactionary values which are inherently ruling class; what about reactionary working class values?

I gave a bit of a hasty response to a complex question worthy of extensive debate, because we're talking about the very serious and sticky problems of backwardness in the working class, something anyone who's done political organizing has dealt with and knows is not easy to solve.

There are a lot of really racist attacks from Western countries on the cultures of non-Western countries, an excellent present example being the European attacks on the niqab. I think it is an unhealthy, sexist cultural practice to force women (culturally or personally) to cover their faces in public, but the attacks are clearly racist, I mean they're being spearheaded in some cases by "ex-"fascists, and the sort of scapegoating that is going on of Muslim immigrants is fucking terrifying on a continent which just a few years ago used much the same rhetoric to justify the genocide of several million "outsider" populations, most notably Jews.

It's a backward practice, but the solution isn't racist attacks, and in fact the racist attacks often exacerbate problems they're ostensibly targetting. (Often very hypocritical) Western moralizing about gay rights has buttressed attempts by particularly ruling classes in Africa and western Asia to portray homosexuality as a Western conspiracy, against the cultures of their given country in general. There's no way to do that with, say, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid - who are obviously against homophobia in Palestine and don't support reactionary policies against queer people there, but also can't be attacked for collaborating with imperialism, because they aren't. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for many or most Western feminists and LGBT activists.

As for "reactionary working class values" - there have been reactionary ideas "astroturfed" or social-engineered into the working class, by the ruling class, for decades if not centuries. A lot of things which are believed to originate from the working class in fact do not. Moreover, a lot of reactionary cultural values (I would argue, actually, many about gender) don't come from the bourgeoisie but from complex cultural processes - inseparable from class struggle - that have gone on throughout previous centuries in millennia. To say that something is the consequence of a "class struggle" is a bit of a trick - no major historical processes occur outside of class struggle because it encompasses virtually all of human activity, however indirectly.

Not all reactionary values come directly from the ruling class itself, some do in fact arise within the working class itself. Those that do set back the political strength and the unity of the working class, which means they are generally fostered and supported by the ruling class as they arise (I think the reaction to immigration is arguably an example of this), even liberal segments of the ruling class claiming to disavow those same values. But even if they aren't - the only way that ever works to fight reactionary values is for people to acquire a real understanding of solidarity within the working class and the way that those values interfere with it, and the only way for people to learn that is in the process of class struggle.

If there are people around with their heads screwed on right, even pretty right-wing, testosterone-pumped unions can learn pretty easily that if they let sexism divide the working class, they'll lose. If male-dominated unions let employers get away with paying women much, much less than men, then eventually all of those men will lose jobs. It's not helping anyone except the bosses. The connections aren't always immediately obvious, and there need to be politically advanced people fighting to make the analysis clear, but it's a pretty natural process.

[Shokaract]

[FONT="Georgia"]Culture is not something sacred, and it should not be beyond criticism.

Cultural relativism is dangerous.[/FONT]

[NGNM85]

I'm not saying that some things are essentialized into a culture, but rather that claiming "class struggle will solve this issue" isn't enough. Culture and norms can and do operate beyond socio-economic class boundaries,..

It would be hard to overstate the value of this simple, yet profound observation.

[bcbm]

i think cultural relativism as used in anthropology is actually a very useful tool in ending oppression as it seeks to understand the role of oppressive practices in a given culture and from this understanding can work towards dismantling them.

[GPDP]

i think cultural relativism as used in anthropology is actually a very useful tool in ending oppression as it seeks to understand the role of oppressive practices in a given culture and from this understanding can work towards dismantling them.

Exactly. As a professor of mine once said to me, you don't have to accept, or even tolerate certain practices, but you should always, at the very least, understand them. Without understanding, in the context of foreign cultural practices, the only answer lies in racist judgmentalism.