| |
|
I believe that certain aspects of other cultures are primitive and uncivilized. I might disagree with my leaders about what these are, although, on the whole, I doubt it, and I might even be wrong about what they are. It does not follow from this disagreement or fallibility that there is no such thing as cultural advancement.
But surely you then have to accept that people from other cultures might believe that certain aspects of your culture are primitive and uncivilised - such as, to take the most obvious example (to me at any rate) the death penalty. You may personally disagree with it, I don't know, but it is still a part of your culture.
I think it might be useful to think about what constitutes 'advancement' or 'development' - are we talking about technological advancement? Industrialisation? A post-industrialisation service economy? Military power? A capitalist economy? Declining birth and death rates? A narrowing poverty gap? Good provision of public services? A healthy environment? Secularisation? Religious concord? Democracy? Human rights?
I'd propose that it's probably a combination of many of those things. From my particular British perspective, for example, I would say that the influence religion has on politics in the US is undesirable; that the widening poverty gaps in Britain and the US are not great signs of the 'advancement' caused by the extreme free-market capitalism which dominates legislation for businesses and workers in thsoe countries; and that democracy in both those countries is flawed in practice. On the other hand, I think that the high taxation regimes in Scandinavian countries have produced greater social equality and are more advanced in that respect. Cui bono?
I am not saying that it is impossible to characterise some regimes and some elements of some cultures as being worse than others - just that it is wise to consider one's own culture in the same light. A little humility never goes amiss.
Perhaps this is what Tom meant when he said that our systems were only better tha a dictatorship by a small amount. It can sometimes seem that our rights are being eroded away from under our feet by governments whose legitimacy is questionable; and that we are governed by oligarchies who are unaccountable and are not hugely different to the hierarchies of some dictatorships. This is of course an exaggeration; but on a wider scale of possible regimes, from dystopia to utopia, perhaps we (western democratic governments) are closer to dictatorships than we might like to think.
What would follow here is that we should promote a lie (there is no such thing as a primitive/savage culture), because it supports our conclusion (we shouldn’t conquer these cultures). If we disdain our leaders when they do this to us, what should we expect if we try to do it to them?
I would suggest that whether a culture can be characterised as 'primitive' or 'savage' has absolutely no bearing on whether or not 'we should' conquer them. Of course 'we should' not. (I am using scare quotes because I am not sure who 'we' is - do you mean the whole culture of which you are a part, or just the governing elements of that culture? Or even, just the elements of your culture which agree with such a conquest? I think it is dangerous to think about cultures as large, simple entities like this - it is unsubtle and more open to manipulation, I think).
One of my problems with characterising cultures as 'primitive' is that it is a relative term. They are primitive in comparison to us - which assumes that our cultures are, if not at the pinnacle of development, at least further along the road to that pinnacle. It's very Whiggish... the idea that we are on a road, 'progress', which consistently rises towards 'perfection', the pinnacle of human attainment. What if that conception of progress is wrong? What if it has led to problems that did not previously exist, and which contribute towards the debasement of humans? I think it might be more helpful to stop thinking of human societies and cultures as existing at different points on a linear scale, and to consider them as different forms of society and culture, which coexist (not always very successfully) but which have different attributes. We would be able to consider level of technological progress alongside the religious status of a society, with its human rights provision, type of economy, standards of living, habitat, resources, political culture and so on - a more sophisticated way of thinking about other societies and cultures, which might help avoid the assumption that what we have is automatically the best and would automatically be the best for other cultures and other people. I do not mean to deny that there are certain things which are definitely better than others - human rights legislation, emancipation, education, equality, for example, are better than no human rights legislation, slavery, ignorance, and inequality. I mean that it is a fallacy to assume that we have achieved the optimum conditions of human existence, and to deride other societies because they have not.
I hope that wasn't too muddled - happy to clarify anything if I can. |
|
|
