I generally agree with the central thesis, but some element of the analysis does feel like cultural imperialism. It's not that the characterization of honor cultures is necessarily wrong, but the...
I generally agree with the central thesis, but some element of the analysis does feel like cultural imperialism. It's not that the characterization of honor cultures is necessarily wrong, but the contrast that's made with the effect of Christianity on the West, given that there's still a continuous meddling in other countries' social, political, and economic self-determination (on top of a mountain of other stuff from the last half century alone), I feel makes an otherwise relatively benign comparative analysis that might be a starting point for mutual cultural exchange problematic.
That aside, the article seems seems to imply that shifting towards the nuclear family structure is a universal sign of progress, which I'm not sure is the case. America has a remarkably weak social fabric, and the outsized obsession with romantic relationships is often at the cost of platonic and familial relationships. Also, guilds are described as problematic by design, but they could also be understood as essentially pre-modern unions that maintained a balance of power between the common people and the ruling class. I also feel obligated to defend the Puritans since they get too much of a bad rep; their emphasis on sincerity of faith and on the importance of the mystical laid the foundations for much of American transcendentalism and the philosophy of "learning for the sake of learning". It's really no coincidence that Massachusetts is and has pretty much always been the most educated state in the Union.
It's interesting you read it that way, as I didn't get that sense at all. Ditto for guilds - I took it as the author examining these things purely from a gendered lens and not touching on...
That aside, the article seems seems to imply that shifting towards the nuclear family structure is a universal sign of progress, which I'm not sure is the case.
It's interesting you read it that way, as I didn't get that sense at all. Ditto for guilds - I took it as the author examining these things purely from a gendered lens and not touching on politicoeconomic factors at all. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong - I literally mean that it's interesting how differently things can be interpreted.
Entirely separately - the cultural imperialism is tricky, because yes, the author is using a default assumption that greater gender equality is better. But... Isn't that accurate?
The cultural imperialism is not in promoting gender equality, but in the prescription of a solution with the overhanging reality that some of these countries have been deprived of the...
The cultural imperialism is not in promoting gender equality, but in the prescription of a solution with the overhanging reality that some of these countries have been deprived of the sociopolitical self-determination to figure things out on their own terms. Each culture has its own route toward progress, and you can't merely import what seems to have worked in the West to another society without risking losing things that may work better in that society than in the West. Without the power imbalance, I don't have any issue with different cultures critiquing each other and advocating for specific changes.
It's worth noting that there is a non-western reaction to western progressivism and its ideals of gender equality and liberation, LGBT rights, and so on. Russia, China, Iran, and many African...
It's worth noting that there is a non-western reaction to western progressivism and its ideals of gender equality and liberation, LGBT rights, and so on. Russia, China, Iran, and many African countries are finding common ground in their opposition to those ideals. I think it is worrying that opposition to those ideals have become an instrument for international political organization.
We sometimes have to defend them under very difficult circumstances. The world has changed beyond recognition over the past decades. I do not mean so much the political map, or the economy, or technological progress as much as I mean the dangerous spiritual and moral climate, which Western countries are fostering actively and even aggressively. Moral relativism, the cult of consumption, freedom misinterpreted as permissiveness, and the eradication of the traditional family are only some of the problems of the system of values, which certain forces are promoting in the West, or rather anti-values because their adoption will inevitably bring humanity to deep cultural and spiritual degradation.
Thankfully, this danger is not only apparent to Russia, where laws are adopted to protect society from the propaganda of a culture that is alien to us and features that are amoral, but also to African countries.
I know that despite the powerful pressure placed on them, the absolute majority of African countries categorically reject the legalisation of the so-called same-sex unions, euthanasia, and other phenomena that are religious sins. This mutual rejection clearly brings our positions closer together. We proceed from the same basic principles, and therefore we are always happy to meet with likeminded people.
Unfortunately, today, not everyone in the international arena is always ready to engage in a dialogue of equals. Several Western countries still cannot overcome their colonial past and continue to think and act according to this template. Hopefully, the development of good relations between Russia and the African countries will help further promote traditional moral values around the world.
(anyway, in that conference Russia and a slew of African countries co-signed a declaration to that effect.)
Gotcha. This is well-stated. I think that even though you're right that importing Western cultural norms risks losing other things that might be working quite well in that society, importing those...
...some of these countries have been deprived of the sociopolitical self-determination to figure things out on their own terms. Each culture has its own route toward progress, and you can't merely import what seems to have worked in the West to another society without risking losing things that may work better in that society than in the West.
Gotcha. This is well-stated. I think that even though you're right that importing Western cultural norms risks losing other things that might be working quite well in that society, importing those norms is still often worth the cost - especially in the areas with the biggest divergence between local norms and Western cultural mores. As an example, Uganda recently signed strident anti-LGBT laws that include the death penalty for certain homosexual acts. In response the US enacted some visa restrictions and other sanctions against officials thought to be responsible for the laws. Uganda is now furious and is accusing the US of pushing a "gay agenda." To your point, I don't think there's any question that if the US is successful here, it runs the risk of inadvertently altering some other things that work really well for Uganda. But it's worth that cost, in my opinion, specifically because the gap is so large.
For countries where the gap between Western values and local values isn't as large (e.g. your example of Pakistan), I think my opinion on whether that sort of cultural pollution is worth the risk probably varies on a case-by-case basis.
I would say that there's a distinction between a country shuttering diplomatic, cultural, or even economic ties (assuming it's just bilateral trade and you're not blackballing them from the global...
I would say that there's a distinction between a country shuttering diplomatic, cultural, or even economic ties (assuming it's just bilateral trade and you're not blackballing them from the global financial system) and a country throwing its weight around through an implicit or explicit threat of regime change over a cultural dispute or the way another society has chosen to organize itself. The first is akin to deciding to stop talking to someone who said something mean and is a fair way for countries to influence each other, and the other I'd say is fairly imperialistic.
I don't want to continue this argument since it's way off-topic, but in the case of Imran Khan, he was ousted for the crime of being open to buying oil to feed his starving country and, in the...
I don't want to continue this argument since it's way off-topic, but in the case of Imran Khan, he was ousted for the crime of being open to buying oil to feed his starving country and, in the language of the state department, being "aggressively neutral". Parliamentary members were bribed or physically threatened to leave his party, ordinary members of the party were picked up and tortured, a Pakistani journalist was assassinated, his party was banned and he was thrown in prison over trumped-up charges. All the while, the state department refused to condemn what was happening after being repeatedly pressed, until after all was said and done. The US already has an established track record of pushing for regime change in Pakistan, and the Bush administration said they would "bomb Pakistan back to the stone age" if they didn't support them in the war in Afghanistan. It would be naive to think that there's no coercion behind the statement "all will be forgiven". You're also entirely ignoring the basic history of conflict in the Middle East and Latin America over the last seventy years.
Just want to note that this requires a big "allegedly." It is being reported based on leaks of internal Pakistani documents (not US documents) and the Department of State has repeatedly denied the...
he was ousted for the crime of being open to buying oil to feed his starving country and, in the language of the state department, being "aggressively neutral".
Just want to note that this requires a big "allegedly." It is being reported based on leaks of internal Pakistani documents (not US documents) and the Department of State has repeatedly denied the allegations.
Interesting essay, thanks. Having spent a lot of time in partriarchal parts of the world - and having gotten to know many, many of these people closely - I have definitely noticed that the...
Interesting essay, thanks. Having spent a lot of time in partriarchal parts of the world - and having gotten to know many, many of these people closely - I have definitely noticed that the relationships in which romantic love exists tend to be much more equal, so anecdotally it seems to make sense.
I do think the author may be under-emphasizing the effect of time. She contrasts South Korea to Europe, noting that they have similar levels of economic development but dramatically different levels of gender equality. Obviously this is very true, but I also think it's worth bearing the time scales in mind. South Korea went from a nation of peasant farmers to an advanced economy in about 40 years (starting in 1961) while Europe made the same transition over centuries. It wouldn't be unreasonable to hypothesize that gender equality does depend heavily on economic development and newer nations are simply catching up.
Of course, Ireland had a similar economic transition over a similar timeframe and is doing quite well in terms of gender equality, so ignore me :)
I know very little of what's happened in Ireland, but is it possible that because Ireland and England are culturally and geographically close Ireland was able to import English memetics? Ireland...
I know very little of what's happened in Ireland, but is it possible that because Ireland and England are culturally and geographically close Ireland was able to import English memetics? Ireland could progress through the backlog of stories English people were told that got them through various stages of patriarchy? Or perhaps they were culturally but not financially in sync through the years?
Absolutely. I mentioned Ireland because it flies in the face of what I'd just said about the author under-emphasizing the effects of time when she concludes that economic factors are not what's...
Absolutely. I mentioned Ireland because it flies in the face of what I'd just said about the author under-emphasizing the effects of time when she concludes that economic factors are not what's responsible for gender equality.
The Ireland-South Korea dichotomy suggests exactly your point - that cultural factors are probably most important here.
I generally agree with the central thesis, but some element of the analysis does feel like cultural imperialism. It's not that the characterization of honor cultures is necessarily wrong, but the contrast that's made with the effect of Christianity on the West, given that there's still a continuous meddling in other countries' social, political, and economic self-determination (on top of a mountain of other stuff from the last half century alone), I feel makes an otherwise relatively benign comparative analysis that might be a starting point for mutual cultural exchange problematic.
That aside, the article seems seems to imply that shifting towards the nuclear family structure is a universal sign of progress, which I'm not sure is the case. America has a remarkably weak social fabric, and the outsized obsession with romantic relationships is often at the cost of platonic and familial relationships. Also, guilds are described as problematic by design, but they could also be understood as essentially pre-modern unions that maintained a balance of power between the common people and the ruling class. I also feel obligated to defend the Puritans since they get too much of a bad rep; their emphasis on sincerity of faith and on the importance of the mystical laid the foundations for much of American transcendentalism and the philosophy of "learning for the sake of learning". It's really no coincidence that Massachusetts is and has pretty much always been the most educated state in the Union.
It's interesting you read it that way, as I didn't get that sense at all. Ditto for guilds - I took it as the author examining these things purely from a gendered lens and not touching on politicoeconomic factors at all. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong - I literally mean that it's interesting how differently things can be interpreted.
Entirely separately - the cultural imperialism is tricky, because yes, the author is using a default assumption that greater gender equality is better. But... Isn't that accurate?
The cultural imperialism is not in promoting gender equality, but in the prescription of a solution with the overhanging reality that some of these countries have been deprived of the sociopolitical self-determination to figure things out on their own terms. Each culture has its own route toward progress, and you can't merely import what seems to have worked in the West to another society without risking losing things that may work better in that society than in the West. Without the power imbalance, I don't have any issue with different cultures critiquing each other and advocating for specific changes.
It's worth noting that there is a non-western reaction to western progressivism and its ideals of gender equality and liberation, LGBT rights, and so on. Russia, China, Iran, and many African countries are finding common ground in their opposition to those ideals. I think it is worrying that opposition to those ideals have become an instrument for international political organization.
Straight from the Kremlin's mouth: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/71814 (Ok, technically from Patriach Kirill's, but everyone knows the church is just an extension of the state.)
(anyway, in that conference Russia and a slew of African countries co-signed a declaration to that effect.)
I don't really see the connection between what you're discussing and what I was talking about. I don't think two wrongs make a right.
Gotcha. This is well-stated. I think that even though you're right that importing Western cultural norms risks losing other things that might be working quite well in that society, importing those norms is still often worth the cost - especially in the areas with the biggest divergence between local norms and Western cultural mores. As an example, Uganda recently signed strident anti-LGBT laws that include the death penalty for certain homosexual acts. In response the US enacted some visa restrictions and other sanctions against officials thought to be responsible for the laws. Uganda is now furious and is accusing the US of pushing a "gay agenda." To your point, I don't think there's any question that if the US is successful here, it runs the risk of inadvertently altering some other things that work really well for Uganda. But it's worth that cost, in my opinion, specifically because the gap is so large.
For countries where the gap between Western values and local values isn't as large (e.g. your example of Pakistan), I think my opinion on whether that sort of cultural pollution is worth the risk probably varies on a case-by-case basis.
I would say that there's a distinction between a country shuttering diplomatic, cultural, or even economic ties (assuming it's just bilateral trade and you're not blackballing them from the global financial system) and a country throwing its weight around through an implicit or explicit threat of regime change over a cultural dispute or the way another society has chosen to organize itself. The first is akin to deciding to stop talking to someone who said something mean and is a fair way for countries to influence each other, and the other I'd say is fairly imperialistic.
I don't want to continue this argument since it's way off-topic, but in the case of Imran Khan, he was ousted for the crime of being open to buying oil to feed his starving country and, in the language of the state department, being "aggressively neutral". Parliamentary members were bribed or physically threatened to leave his party, ordinary members of the party were picked up and tortured, a Pakistani journalist was assassinated, his party was banned and he was thrown in prison over trumped-up charges. All the while, the state department refused to condemn what was happening after being repeatedly pressed, until after all was said and done. The US already has an established track record of pushing for regime change in Pakistan, and the Bush administration said they would "bomb Pakistan back to the stone age" if they didn't support them in the war in Afghanistan. It would be naive to think that there's no coercion behind the statement "all will be forgiven". You're also entirely ignoring the basic history of conflict in the Middle East and Latin America over the last seventy years.
Just want to note that this requires a big "allegedly." It is being reported based on leaks of internal Pakistani documents (not US documents) and the Department of State has repeatedly denied the allegations.
Very fair.
Interesting essay, thanks. Having spent a lot of time in partriarchal parts of the world - and having gotten to know many, many of these people closely - I have definitely noticed that the relationships in which romantic love exists tend to be much more equal, so anecdotally it seems to make sense.
I do think the author may be under-emphasizing the effect of time. She contrasts South Korea to Europe, noting that they have similar levels of economic development but dramatically different levels of gender equality. Obviously this is very true, but I also think it's worth bearing the time scales in mind. South Korea went from a nation of peasant farmers to an advanced economy in about 40 years (starting in 1961) while Europe made the same transition over centuries. It wouldn't be unreasonable to hypothesize that gender equality does depend heavily on economic development and newer nations are simply catching up.
Of course, Ireland had a similar economic transition over a similar timeframe and is doing quite well in terms of gender equality, so ignore me :)
I know very little of what's happened in Ireland, but is it possible that because Ireland and England are culturally and geographically close Ireland was able to import English memetics? Ireland could progress through the backlog of stories English people were told that got them through various stages of patriarchy? Or perhaps they were culturally but not financially in sync through the years?
Absolutely. I mentioned Ireland because it flies in the face of what I'd just said about the author under-emphasizing the effects of time when she concludes that economic factors are not what's responsible for gender equality.
The Ireland-South Korea dichotomy suggests exactly your point - that cultural factors are probably most important here.