A superb piece by David Thompson on the perils of the moral equivalence that is as common as breathing nowadays:
Last week, during a conversation about the ‘cartoon jihad’ uproar, I used the phrase “emotional incontinence.” This did not go down well. I was promptly told, in no uncertain terms, that I mustn’t “impose” my own cultural values. Apparently, to do so would be a form of “cultural imperialism”, an archaic colonial hangover, and therefore unspeakably evil. I was, apparently, being “arrogantly ethnocentric” in considering Western secular society broadly preferable to a culture in which rioting, murder and genocidal threats can be prompted by the publication of a cartoon.As the conversation continued, I was emphatically informed that to regard one set of cultural values as preferable to another was “racist” and “oppressive.” Indeed, even the attempt to make any such determination was itself a heinous act. I was further assailed with a list of examples of “Western arrogance, decadence, irreverence, and downright nastiness.” And I was reminded that, above all, I “must respect deeply held beliefs.” When I asked if this respect for deeply held beliefs extended to white supremacists, cannibals and ultra-conservative Republicans, a deafening silence ensued.
After this awkward pause, the conversation rumbled on. At some point, I made reference to migration and the marked tendency of families to move from Islamic societies to secular ones, and not the other way round. “This seems rather important,” I suggested. “If you want to evaluate which society is preferred to another by any given group, migration patterns are an obvious yardstick to use. Broadly speaking, people don't relocate their families to cultures they find wholly inferior to their own.” Alas, this fairly self-evident suggestion did not meet with approval. No rebuttal was forthcoming, but the litany of Western wickedness resumed, more loudly than before.
This tendency to replace a coherent argument with lists of alleged Western wickedness and an air of self-loathing is hardly uncommon. Indeed, in certain quarters, it is difficult to avoid. In her increasingly baffling comment pieces, the Guardian’s Madeleine Bunting has made much of bemoaning "our preoccupation with things; our ever more desperate dependence on stimulants from alcohol to porn." (One instantly pictures poor Madeleine surrounded by booze, drugs and pornography – and tearfully alienated by all of those other terrible material “things” she doesn’t like having, honest.)
In one infamous recent article, Bunting - a “leading thinker”, at least according to her employers – waved the flag for cultural relativism and denounced the idea of Enlightenment sensibilities: “Muscular liberals raise their standard on Enlightenment values – their universality, the supremacy of reason and a belief in progress… It is an ideology of superiority that is profoundly old-fashioned – reminiscent of Victorian liberalism and just as imperialistic…” Bunting’s argument, such as it is, suggests no objective distinction should be made between democratic cultures in which freedom of belief and education for women are taken for granted, and theocratic societies in which those freedoms are curtailed or extinguished. As, for instance, when Islamic fundamentalists took umbrage at Western-funded school projects in Northern Pakistan and promptly destroyed the offending schools, on the basis that illiterate girls were being taught ‘un-Islamic’ values.
Read it all.
What an excellent example of false moral equivalence which prevails in the intelligentsia. And of course, there is this threatening aggressive aura that the thinking dissenter will be expelled from the group of his peers. Better to say nothing and concur than be sent to coventry?
All this has become a new secular religion and those who digress are the new apostates of the liberal elites. What hope is there for the critical thinker today?
What patience from David Thompson! Difficult to keep calm in those surroundings.
How soon before this mindset will tell you that Female genital mutilation is part of a "cultural heritage" and it is irreverent to criticise it or oppose it.
Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but there has to be a point where writers like Bunting just take it too far, and even deeply confused moonbats start noticing a problem with this type of 'thinking'.
Condemning Enlightenment values as being 'imperialistic'? surely there will be a backlash - right?
errrmmm, right?
Tell the truth and shame the devil. Given sufficent time, truth will emerge triumphant.
chevalier
It's already happened. Some ten years ago in academia this type of thinking was beginning to become the norm: "You can't impose your values on other cultures, because it's racist and imperialistic." Of course, when challenged to say if they would have their own daughters' genitals mutilated, women who made this kind of argument had no answer.
It's already happened. Some ten years ago in academia this type of thinking was beginning to become the norm: "You can't impose your values on other cultures, because it's racist and imperialistic." Of course, when challenged to say if they would have their own daughters' genitals mutilated, women who made this kind of argument had no answer.
Posted by: ovidius_naso
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm not so sure I think in certain circumstances clitorectomies have their place in society. Who are we to impose our values on others you racist fascist nincompoop????!!!!
Last week, during a conversation about the ‘cartoon jihad’ uproar, I used the phrase “emotional incontinence.” This did not go down well. I was promptly told, in no uncertain terms, that I mustn’t “impose” my own cultural values. Apparently, to do so would be a form of “cultural imperialism”, an archaic colonial hangover, and therefore unspeakably evil. I was, apparently, being “arrogantly ethnocentric”
I don't know if there is a term to describe this pernicious moral/cultural relativism combined with self-loathing, but it is utterly illogical. First of all, how can one "impose" cultural imperialism on someone else? All human beings, even hypocritical left-wing morons like Bunting, believe that most aspects of their own culture are superior to others, whether they admit it or not. If they didn't, they would choose an alternative culture that better represented their values. Would these pathetic pseudo-intellectuals impose the values of a primitive, inferior culture on themselves? Of course they wouldn't. So why do they engage in these histrionic displays of ultra-hypocrisy?
How could anyone, much less a putative "leading thinker", correlate moral relativism with moral superiority?! How can one be a "leading thinker" and possess only one strong conviction--- that one's own civilization is culpable for all evil in the world, past and present. If Bunting actually believes that, she is historically illiterate.
IF ethnocentrism is a crime, why is it perfectly acceptable for minority groups, like muslims, to wear it like a badge of honor? Ethnocentrism, unless carried to the extreme, is a normal human condition, and it is certainly not exclusive to white Europeans. In fact, ethnic pride has almost been eradicated among white Europeans, which is a shame indeed. People like Bunting are effective browbeaters.
I would much rather be obtuse and ethnocentric than an insipid, fatuous, self-hating enemy of Western Civilization. Bunting's intellectual prowess is nothing more than carefully studied cultural Marxism. She may be a "leading" thinker, but she certainly isn't an original one.
"As the conversation continued, I was emphatically informed that to regard one set of cultural values as preferable to another was “racist” and “oppressive.” Indeed, even the attempt to make any such determination was itself a heinous act"
If all cultural values are equal, then a culture which is racist and oppressive and imperialistic is not morally inferior to a culture which is tolerant. That means that the old slave culture of the U.S. was morally fine by the logic of cultural relativism. It also means that the cultural relativist has no business informing us that it is morally wrong to be ethnocentric, racist, oppressive and imperialistic.
The cultural relativists are lying to themselves but they shouldn't be permitted to lie to the rest of us. The fact is that they actually believe moral relativism to represent a superior form of morality because they believe it leads to more tolerance.* That means they actually believe that tolerance is an objective moral virtue. So they are contradicting themselves. If they were consistent and honest with themselves they would admit that they value tolerance most of all and then they would be forced to judge various cultures by the degree of tolerance that they actually practice. That would lead to judging their own culture as objectively superior to Islamic societies that oppress women and homosexuals and non-Muslims.
*Moral/cultural relativism doesn't lead to tolerance. It leads instead to tyranny:
Mussolini said,
"Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. . . If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective, immortal truth. . . then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity. . . . From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable." (from Mussolini's Diuturna, pages 374-77)
"I don't know if there is a term to describe this pernicious moral/cultural relativism combined with self-loathing, but it is utterly illogical."
Roger Scruton coined the term "oikophobia" (the repudiation of inheritance and home) for this feature of Western intellectuals in the last half-century. He says "its symptoms are instantly recognized: namely, the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us'. and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours'. (A Political Philosophy (London & New York, 2006), pp. 23-24.) Many of the Guardian's writers are notoriously masters of it.
I didn't want to do this, in order to avoid being obnoxious, but I guess the fact is that these threads can get awfully slow at times and sometimes people just want to read something - anything, if they are really interested in a topic, or merely recently horrified upon discovering the reality of the global jihad and so eager to read anything whatsoever related to the topic. So keeping that thought in mind in terms of this cultural moral relativism thing, and considering that this is for all purposes a dead thread, I've actually spent a fair amount of time researching this moral relativism issue lately, and this is what I came up with (and if it incidentally helps anyone else who happens to find themselves genuinely interested in and debating this issue of cultural moral relativism, then it was certainly time well spent):
http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/3175.aspx
No need to apologize, Caroline. Excellent work on that research.