Judging Other Cultures

PAGE 2 OF 3

I think the question is *why* we are comparing cultures. In theory, the
conclusion that one culture oppresses women more than another can lead in
two directions. 1) if "they", whoever they is in a particular instance,
are so saddled with sexism, all resources should be directed to their
problems immediately, particularly to indigenous organizations, until this
emergency has been taken care of, or 2) their higher levels of sexism can
be used to dismiss them, and do the ethnic/racial/national/class work of
constructing them as inferior. When it is the second, which I think is
relatively often, the cultural comparison seems less motivated by the
*gender* task of finding the areas of most need, and more by the *ethnic*
task of justifying social inequalities. It is this that makes me think
that the motives for the discussion are far more important than its topic.

Aziza Khazzoom
Assistant Professor
Sociology Department
264 Haines Hall
University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551
phone: +310-825-1281
fax:   +310-206-9838

As someone who spent the fall teaching women in a
Middle East country, I agree that we often want to
rescue women or see them as inferior.  We often fail
to see their strengths. but, isn't that what feminism
is all about? Not putting women down, but seeing their
strengths?

The original question I had when I went was how to
stay true to my own  feminist values, teach as a
feminist and simultaneously respect the culture of
those I was teaching (which I did not see as
particularly feminist!) Surprisingly, I did not find
it difficult! The key for me was to stay open, to
think positively, to learn from my students and to
empower them...not much different than my usual way of
teaching. The more I taught, the more I saw our
similarities...the questions they struggled with  were
the same questions I struggled with: How do women
balance motherhood with work? How do we get fathers
more involved with children? How do we inform the
public of health care concerns? How do we reduce
divorce statistics?  What do we do about domestic
violence?  Etc.

It was clear to me that we, as Americans, often fail
to learn about other cultures, become afraid of what
we don't know, then either dismiss the culture or
pretend it doesn't impact us. We forget in our
"pull-yourself- up-by-your-own-bootstraps" world that
we are truly living in an interdependent world. It is
a small world. Sometimes we forget that. Feminism must
not.

Carolyn Wright, Ph.D., MFT
Onondaga Hill
Syracuse, NY

Carolyn I. Wright, Phd
cw13215  @  yahoo.com

Regina Oboler wrote:
>   Some of the points are clearly valid, such as the
> idea that those who defend "traditional" practices on grounds of
cultural
> relativism have a static view of culture.  Another important point is
that
> cultures are not monolithic.

 Suppose the attachment to genital mutilation doesn't change (the
culture is static) and the practice is uniform throughout the culture
(the culture is monolithic). Does that mean we must not criticize the
practice, as we would be entitled to do if the culture were not static
or monolithic? Static, Monolithic, or not, it is a horrible practice
that any sensible person (imperialist or not) would condemn. Let's try
a Rawls-type thought experiment.  If you had a choice, would you
yourself want to be born as a woman into a culture with such a
practice? Would anybody? If the answer to these questions is no, you
should condemn it. By refusing to condemn such practices, and taking
the attitude that you want to keep your skirts clear of accusations of
imperialism or insensitivity or orientalism or worse, you are helping,
admittedly in a small way, those practices to persist.

--
Barbara R. Bergmann bbergman  @  wam.umd.edu
Prof Emerita, Economics, American U and U of Maryland
5430 41 place nw dc 20015
tel: 202 537-3036

I highly recommend Uma Narayan's _Dislocating Cultures: Identities,
Traditions and Third World Feminism_ (Routledge, 1997) for an excellent
discussion of the complexity of issues surrounding cultural comparisons.

Jill Bystydzienski
Director, Women's Studies Program
and Professor of Sociology
Iowa State University
349 Catt Hall
Ames, IA 50011
e-mail: bystydj  @  iastate.edu

>  Suppose the attachment to genital mutilation doesn't change (the
> culture is static) and
>  the practice is uniform throughout the culture (the culture is
> monolithic). Does that
> mean we must not criticize the practice, as we would be entitled to do
> if the culture were not static or monolithic? Static, Monolithic, or
> not,  it is a horrible practice that any sensible person
>  (imperialist or not) would condemn. Let's try a Rawls-type thought
> experiment.
> If you had a choice, would you yourself
>  want to be born as a woman into a  culture with such a practice? Would
> anybody? If the answer to these questions is no, you should
>  condemn it. By refusing to condemn such practices, and taking the
> attitude that you want to keep your skirts clear of  accusations of
> imperialism or insensitivity or orientalism or worse, you are helping,
> admittedly in a small way, those practices to persist.
>

This overlooks an important issue: many women in the cultures where
FGM persists carry out the procedure and see it as an important
aspect of their cultural identity.  So what you're saying here is
that your academic Rawls thought experiment allows you to disregard
the opinions and values of women who don't agree with you.  I
don't exactly think you've successfully claimed the moral high
ground.

I think we need to recognize the serious moral dilemma here: on
one hand, if we use cultural relativist claims, we tacitly support
harm to women (at least some of whom are unenthusiastic about
FGM).  On the other hand, if we use Western moral philosophy to
condemn FGM in all cultural contexts, we implicitly support the
claim that our way of life is more civilized and superior to
theirs (blatant ethnocentrism).  I must say I have no easy resolution
to this dilemma.

However, it seems clear to me that ad hominem arguments
(e.g., "You're remiss because you support a barbaric practice")
aren't constructive.

Miles Jackson

All one can say to this is, the world is a pretty complex place, but there
are forms of reasoning that can easily make it very simple.

To start with, I am involved in planning and action to eradicate FGM.  It's
not reasonable to say that I "refuse to condemn" it.

When I lived in Africa, many women I knew were in favor of getting rid of
FGM, but didn't see it as their top priority. It came somewhere behind
property rights and getting women access to enough land to support their
families, and training women for remunerative trades that they could use to
support families.  One activist, annoyed by western feminist pressure on
this issue, even said, "If the government bans it they will say they have
done something big for women and now they don't have to do anything else."
You will no doubt find this horrifying, but I think we need to start by
understanding and respecting this perspective.

"Suppose (it) doesn't change"/"suppose the practice is uniform (or uniformly
supported?) throughout the culture." Personally, I think we ought to be
doing some hard thinking about whether there really is a need to denounce a
custom that is universally supported and under no pressure to change.

However, in the case of FGM (why is that always the favorite example?), why
suppose a false hypothetical?  Things are changing.  For me, the first
question to be asked in trying to generate change is whether the custom you
think needs changing does some objective harm that can be demonstrated with
data.  I certainly think FGM meets that criterion, but not all customs
Westerners dismiss as "barbaric" do.  Then I would ask if the custom is, in
fact, uniformly supported.  There may have been a time when FGM was
uniformly supported in some African societies simply because nobody could
envision an alternative.  That has changed, however, because cultures are
*not* static.  Now the thing to do is to offer support to local activists,
but let them tackle the problem in their own way.  Do people not have a
right to define their own oppression?

Can you, as a Western feminist, really be so sure that you have the moral
authority to know where various items should rank on African feminists'
priority list?  Isn't it possible that they know some things about their own
lives that we don't?

As to the "Rawls-type thought experiment":  Obviously each of us can only
come to the experiment with a value-system derived from our own culture.  I
can imagine saying to an African woman, "Would you want to be born into a
culture where your children may not personally care for you as you age, but
instead put you in the care of strangers and visit you only occasionally?"
and being answered by a resounding "Horrors!  What a barbaric way to live!"

Besides, to validly consider the question, "Would I as a woman want to be
born into such a culture?" don't I have to ask, "What are my choices?  What
else is true about the situation of women in the various cultures I'm
getting to choose among?"  Remember, the original question had to do with
ranking cultures according to "how they treat women."

It just seems to me too simple to say that anything I personally react
against is an evil that must be done away with.  It's got to be comforting
to be that sure about things, but it's a certainty that "what's normal in my
culture"/"what's foreign to my culture" gets very entwined with
"good"/"evil" as categories in such a system.

The odd thing, perhaps, is that in the end, I reach the same conclusion as
you about FGM.  I believe it has negative consequences and would best be
abandoned.  I would still maintain that reaching this conclusion after a lot
of soul-searching, trying to maintain a posture of cultural relativism, and
trying to see many different perspectives on the problem is better than
leaping to the conclusion after a simplistic, culturally-biased "thought
experiment."

I do think that we can think profitably about how to find a middle path
between ethnocentrism and cultural relativism, but it is not easy.  Only
falling back on the premises of one's own culture as absolute moral
authority makes it simple.

  -- Gina

Miles Jackson wrote:
<This overlooks an important issue: many women in the cultures where

> FGM persists carry out the procedure and see it as an important
> aspect of their cultural identity.  So what you're saying here is
> that your academic Rawls thought experiment allows you to disregard
> the opinions and values of women who don't agree with you.--

People who are brought up in a culture and spend their lives there are
usually powerfully constrained by social forces to follow and approve of that
culture's practices, whether it is foot-binding, genital mutilation, or
merely wearing pain-generating high heels, which was mandatory for women here
until a decade or so ago, or having one's ears pierced, which is stilll
mandatory for women, and is part of their cultural identity to this day.
Those who don't go along in the cultures that practice FGM are ostracised,
excluded from marriage.  That's why refusing to condemn cruel practices on
the ground that the members of the culture inflict them on themselves is
invalid.
    Speaking of cultural practices, and the coercion to maintain them, I'd
venture to say that denying people the right to condemn cruel practices in
other cultures is a cruel cultural practice among some  subgroups of American
academics. These practices that they are prohibiting us from  condemning are
so repellant, that only social coercion and socially enforced conformity
explains the passion with which the attempt at prohibition is engaged in. One
might notice that they have been attempting to practice social coercion  in
the course of this very exchange! They are quite successful in this--I
haven't noticed a lot of people chiming in on my side of the argument.

Barbara R. Bergmann bbergman  @  wam.umd.edu
Prof Emerita, Economics, American U and U of Maryland
5430 41 place nw dc 20015
tel: 202 537-3036

Barbara Bergmann writes in response to Miles Jackson:

>People who are brought up in a culture and spend their lives there are
>usually powerfully constrained by social forces to follow and approve of that
>culture's practices,

The parallel between FGM, the 'correction' of 'ambiguous'
genitalia, and -to a lesser extent- penile circumcision seems
striking to me.   In each case, the victim (I can't think of a
more appropriate word) is surgically damaged without their
consent in the name of self-evidently necessary conformity to
cultural stereotypes.   Any objection is met by the establishment
with bewilderment ('but it's for their own good!'), condescension
('you haven't the training to understand how important this is'),
or outright hostility ('how dare you question us!').

What price informed individual choice?

Margaret
--

Margaret / oneko  @  mindspring.com
--------------------------------------
Il felino pi· piccolo F un capolavoro.
--Leonardo da Vinci

>By refusing to condemn such practices, and taking the
>attitude that you want to keep your skirts clear of  accusations of
>imperialism or insensitivity or orientalism or worse, you are helping,
>admittedly in a small way, those practices to persist.

It is more complicated than that. In practice, the sweeping
condemnations from "the West" have put critics of excision on the
defensive in their own countries and often hampered their
effectiveness in articulating their own analysis, mostly because of
the West-is-better overtones from some opponents. So if effectiveness
is the standard, the condemnatory tone has to be chucked. Anyhow, the
West has its own female-targeted surgeries, from fat removal and
stomach-staplings to face-lifts to unnecessary hysterectomies. Some
have been fatal. So moral superiority falls flat, and not only for
that reason.

But I still think that absolute cultural relativism does clash with a
human rights stance where coercion is involved. Even though women
historically carried out excisions, physical restraint and sometimes
trickery are used to shortcircuit resistance, to say nothing of
crushing social sanctions and even violence against those who refuse
to undergo the excision. Women whose bladders or rectums were damaged
by the cutting are also shamed and shunned, even though they did
undergo the excision. I'd guess most people outside the culture in
question would say that these are injustices. Do outsiders have any
standing to declare this? I personally believe that the amount of
human suffering, and now in the age of AIDS, increased mortality, has
to count. Ultimately, though, the change has to come about from and
among the people in that country. And that is happening, from
grass-roots educational movements to local and national African
governments, so in a way I think this discussion about the cultural
values is a little dated, because they are in flux.

It's still worth asking the question, Who benefits? That question
applies in more than one sense (that is, beyond the usual theme of
masculine privilege), because excision has become bundled with the
ancient women's initiation rites which have great cultural value and
beauty. I understand that the reformers in some African countries are
moving to retain the female ritual leadership, the dances, costumes,
body-painting and other traditions as a precious and positive
heritage while eliminating the cutting. Cultures do change all the
time, and who it is that initiates those changes may also change.

I think Regina makes an important point about the variable forms of
patriarchy (my words), and the overlooked positives for women within
the cultures which practice excision, or other restraints on women's
bodies. Women may enjoy a cultural style that is personally
assertive, vocal, that offers females mobility or social leadership
or priestesshood or other kinds of power unfamiliar to the so-called
"advanced" cultures. It is important to perceive and acknowledge the
strengths, especially those we can learn from. Compare the marginal
status of old women in mainstream North American society, for
example, or the obsession with body size.

What bothers me about the cultural relativist stance is that it
declares gender-based issues off-limits as internal affairs, but the
relativism seems to dissolve in the face of practices imposed by one
ethnic group over another, such as some of the modern survivals of
slavery. Then the language of rights is deemed admissable and
relevant. Granting that the two are not strictly analogous, the
implication seems to be that the rights of women are relative to what
the dominant culture in their society declares appropriate for
females. Yet the issues involved are as serious as any other human
rights issues, including life-or-death matters. Is it really OK if a
Nigerian woman is stoned to death for fornication while her male
partner goes free, because outsiders have no right to protest? An
international outcry seems (for now) to have helped save this woman's
life, and Nigerian women's rights activists are glad for their
victory. That is not going to stop them from speaking out about
disagreements they have with western feminists, which is as it should
be.

I was just reading women's rights press reports from all over the
world on the wonderful aviva.org site (click on the world map to
access, and by the way,  this is a fantastic educational tool about
what's really going on with  women globally). What jumps out there is
how women are mobilizing to fight back against honor killings,
excision, a whole spectrum of discrimination and violence resting on
the sexual double standard including husbands' rights to batter,
vicious treatment of prostitutes, rape in prisons, trafficking in
girls and women, on and on. I for one believe it is possible to
support these women and publicize their work, without falling into
the errors of cultural arrogance and judgement which have been
described so well in some of the works listed in recent posts.
--
Max Dashu   <maxdashu  @  mindspring.com>
<http://www.suppressedhistories.net>
Global Women's Studies

Judge the entire culture based on how they treat women? No. Judge an aspect of
the culture on how they treat women? Possibly but with a big grain of salt.

A paper I did worked on the basis of that countries that have more women
astronauts are those countries that support women moving in such directions.
I picked 6 countries with astronaut corps (US, Canada, USSR/Russia*, Japan,
Israel, Syria). The first three rang high, the last three were dismal.

(operational definations, reasoning not to be covered in this post)

Therefore, we should judge the first three as great societies and the
last three of dismal societies? No, we shouldn't. We might, if we were
applying our standards of our society to them, but we shouldn't do
that either.

What we might consider odd or terrible may not that at all to a particular
people. I wouldn't want my teeth filed but to a culture that does it so they
won't be mis'ided as demons at the gates to paradise, it's somewhat
understandable.

Israel, for example, has a system where a woman can achieve monetary worth for
being a homemaker, a wife (from memory of the above mentioned paper).
Personnally, I would be against that for I see that as a way of reinforcing the
subservient way BUT in another view, it is better to be acknowledged for one's
worth in what one does than to receive no recognition at all.

Societies tend to be different. One can't take a good or bad quality of one
and say, just because of that, we should be like them/they like us. Such an
attitude, without considering the big picture, leads one to mistakes, some
of them rather serious.

Ie, the intelligence fiasco when Pakinstan went nuclear. Caught the community
off guard. Why? Because they were applying their own societal standards, not
that of the country in question. When the presidental candidate said he was
going to push the nuclear program, they applied US standards. "Campaign
promises! Words without actions to follow them up!"

There are different ways of life around the world.

*It doesn't matter for what reason the USSR pushed to have women cosmonauts.
The point is that they did it, they supported them.

-Traci
th06  @  swt.edu
("Well,their group name has no meaning to us but it does have significance on a
religious calendar."--Berkoff, (wtte), La Femme Nikita)

A story from history.

WWII time period, 2 territories conquored by NAZI Germany. The governors put
in place were given orders to Germanize their populations. One of them did it
the Himmler way. Determine who was of pure blood, get rid of the rest.

The other did it essentially this way: "You are now German. Here are your
papers. Go be German. NEXT! You are now ......."

In anaylsising the second's method, he demonstrates being in a corrupt system
and making some good, the best good possible, out of it. I suspect that he was
just lazy, but the end result is still the same. People who would have been
otherwise exterminated were allowed to live, even live something of a decent
life. Surely that is the better way and that man would not be looked down upon.

Or would he? There are those around who would hold him in low regard because
he denied those populations their heritage, took away from them all what they
knew before. That he was wrong and should not have done it. Keep in mind there
is no liberation by the Allies in that equation. His change would have been
permanent.

Similar item we are discussing here. How will the populations where
change is suggested from an outside source view such? This is not the
first discussion like this I've had this year. Earlier, it was one for
a push of democracy in all countries around the world.

So picture:

You are in a country where your king is considered a God. And then
someone tells you, no, he isn't. You can now rule yourself. How will
that go over? (if they are lucky, like France/Russia only without
Napolean/Bolshavek revolution). And how will they then see the person
who changed it?

To us, it is the better way. Probably because we grew up with it but to the
people who are getting the change, it is a new way, perhaps even frightening.

I have no easy solutions to the issue. As a student of Roman history, there is
certain merit to that approach. Rule your country as you want but we handle
international affairs (but they will resent you over the tribute). But it does
seem to be rather universal that if you change life of a person from their
heritage to something else, they will resent you.

And, if I had been in the place of the second governor, I would probably do the
same.

-Traci
th06  @  swt.edu
("You're going to work for the Corporate Sector Police???? The most corrupt
group around?"--Han Solo
"Where better to effect change than from the inside?"--Fiola, (wtte), book:
Han Solo's Revenge)