Here’s a second offering rescued from the archive. It is, I think, still pertinent. Written in the wake of the Muhammad cartoons hysteria, the piece outlines the dishonesty of cultural equivalence – a belief that is widely held yet rarely stated clearly, and therefore rarely analysed. To the best of my knowledge, the essential point being made here made has yet to be refuted, though it has been ignored. And hence the reposting.
“Presumably, Enlightenment values are fine for Guardian columnists, but wrong for poor women in rural Pakistan. And, given Madeleine Bunting’s recent Hello-style interview with the Islamist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who insists that disobedient women should be beaten, albeit ‘lightly’, perhaps we can assume she’s prepared to accept similar chastisement, all in the name of the moral relativism she claims to hold so dear?”
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 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 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, 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.
Nor, apparently, should we notice that restricting the education of women and their social interactions has obvious consequences for healthcare and prosperity, both of which Ms Bunting seems to disdain. Indeed, she has explicitly argued to this effect, insisting women in the developing world should reject the evils of capitalism and material advancement as this disrupts their “traditions of keeping children with them in the fields” – traditions which, of course, we must respect and, better yet, romanticise, albeit from a safe distance.
Perhaps Enlightenment values, including tolerance, education and free speech, should only apply in the nicer parts of London, but not in Iran, or Sudan, or Saudi Arabia. Presumably, Enlightenment values are fine for Guardian columnists, but wrong for poor women in rural Pakistan. And, given Ms Bunting’s recent Hello-style interview with the Islamist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who insists that disobedient women should be beaten, albeit “lightly”, perhaps we can assume she’s prepared to accept similar chastisement, all in the name of the moral relativism she claims to hold so dear?
During her tirade against ‘muscular liberals’, Bunting argued that Enlightenment values should be “reworked” (in ways that were, mysteriously, never specified), then said: “One of our biggest challenges is how we learn to live in proximity to difference – different skin colours, different beliefs, different ways of life. How do we talk peacefully with people with whom we might violently disagree?” This sentiment echoes those of Ken Livingstone’s race advisor, Lee Jasper, who maintains that “you have to treat people differently to treat them equally.”
But judging by Bunting’s own assertions, and the claims of those who share her views, perhaps we should assume that “reworking” Enlightenment values means pretending they don’t exist in certain kinds of company. Perhaps we should pretend we don’t disagree at all – as demonstrated by Bunting’s own flattering interview with an Islamist cleric who advocates suicide bombing, the murder of apostates and the stoning of homosexuals. Though one can’t help wondering what would have happened if Ms Bunting had actually dared to challenge Qaradawi’s prejudices with any rigour. How would he have reacted? And what would this tell her – and us – about the limits of moral relativism?
Perhaps we should assume that when faced with bullies and bigots we should say nothing, do nothing, and pretend everything is fine. Though quite how that polite little lie will help the victims of bullying and bigotry isn’t entirely clear. And one has to raise an eyebrow at those who will happily bask in the advantages of values that they refuse to defend and pointedly disdain for the sake of appearance. But such is the nature of cultural and moral equivalence, and those who espouse it.
Cultural equivalence came to fruition of a sort in strands of postmodern leftist theory, obscurantists like Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard, and in anthropological studies, where it was essentially suggested that the local meaning of certain practices should be determined for greater insight. All well and good, one might think. But in terms of leftist political rhetoric, cultural equivalence has broadly come to mean than no objective judgment should be made as to whether those practices and beliefs are better or worse than any other, or have consequences that are measurably detrimental given certain criteria. The actual moral and practical content of a given worldview is, of course, to be studiously ignored, as this would imply some kind of judgment might be made. In common usage, this assumption reduces analysis to mere opinion and is corrosive to critical thought for fairly obvious reasons. In order to maintain a pretence of ‘fairness’ and non-judgmental equivalence, there are any number of things one simply cannot allow oneself to think about, at least in certain ways.
One could, for instance, imagine a hypothetical culture which ascribed great meaning to the assumption that the Sun revolved around the Earth. However deeply held this belief might be, and however much cultural significance might be attached to it, it would nonetheless be wrong, and demonstrably so. And one is under no obligation to pretend otherwise, or to start revising textbooks in order not to give offence.
Perhaps more to the point, advocates of cultural equivalence don’t actually believe in it. It’s frequently just a façade for grumbling about capitalism, or consumerism, or choice, or whatever it is the person in question doesn’t like, but nonetheless indulges in, and upon which their own livelihood generally depends. The titans of cultural equivalence clearly wish to identify with (or be seen to identify with) the perceived underdog, and to find suitable explanations for why those cultures don’t function particularly well – say, in terms of child mortality, education or life expectancy. In order to do this, they must construe their own cultures as malicious, vacuous and predatory, even when they’re not. (Cue the term “hegemony” and “Bush-Hitler” T-shirts.) Almost any assertion can be made, regardless of its incoherence or deviation from reality, provided one arrives at the preferred conclusion. Which is to say, whatever the problem is, it is always and forever ‘our’ fault.
This prejudicial outlook and willingness to overlook the obvious can have surreal and grotesque effects. As when the faded Marxist Terry Eagleton informed Guardian readers that suicide bombers are actually “tragic heroes” who “have no choice” but to arbitrarily kill and maim for Allah. Eagleton went further, insisting these “tragic heroes” are morally equivalent to their victims – say, the 57 unsuspecting guests who were killed at a Jordanian wedding party.
Oblivious to this curious moral inversion, Eagleton happily attributed these acts of homicidal ‘martyrdom’ to “despair”, which, naturally, suits his own Marxist narrative and view of ‘imperial oppression.’ He was, however, careful to avoid any reference whatsoever to the religious ideology that actually drives the phenomenon and shapes its expression, despite the fact jihadists invariably mention it as their motive. (Oddly, ‘martyrs’ don’t usually mention “despair” as a motive; quite the opposite in fact. But Eagleton knows which conclusion one is supposed to arrive at, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.)
In such an atmosphere of pretension and mental disarray, it’s no great surprise that conspiracy theories flourish. As when the Guardian’s Al Kennedy salaciously implied that “on 9/11 covert US government intervention killed thousands of innocents [in the WTC] and handed the country, if not the world, to a … torture-loving, far-right junta.” Unhampered by things like evidence, Ms Kennedy also believes that the British government seeks to “harass and murder Muslims anywhere [it] can.” Doubtless she and Mr Eagleton have much to talk about.
Despite their evident lunacy, these culturally equivalent postures are almost obligatory among a certain kind of middle-class leftist. Curiously, the academics and theoreticians who advocate moral relativism, or variations thereof, seem reluctant to illustrate their theories with practical examples. One fashionable CE advocate, Kwame Anthony Appiah, a professor of philosophy at Princeton University, has advanced the notion of a “cosmopolitan” approach to morality. But, again, it’s all but impossible to find any explanation of how “cosmopolitan pluralism” – which sounds wonderful, of course – would actually address radically conflicting values. How would moral relativism fare when faced with jihadist demagogues or practitioners of voodoo who beat small children to exorcise bad spirits?
A ‘cosmopolitan’ moral worldview is obviously appealing, at least superficially – provided conflicting values never actually meet. Relativism must seem quite plausible if one is a well-heeled moral tourist and can flit from one culture to another, nodding appreciatively at the local colour and whistling about diversity, while committing to none of the values in question. But what happens when incompatible views bump into each other on the same piece of turf, and over something rather important, like the education of women or freedom of speech?
And what, I wonder, would Professor Appiah or Madeleine Bunting make of the following real situation? In a crowded shopping centre, a man sees an apparently unaccompanied woman shrouded in a niqab stumble and fall down. He extends a hand to help the fallen woman and asks if she’s alright. This enquiry is met with a look of horror and the man is angrily waved away by the woman’s husband, who promptly berates his fallen wife for reasons that aren’t clear. Does this reaction – which we’re supposed to respect – foster basic civility and encourage strangers to help? If we memorise the various conflicting religious and moral codes of each minority, will we learn to hesitate before offering to assist an injured woman? Will we have to first search out the husband and ask for his permission? Or, more likely, will we learn to ignore her altogether? And will this make us better people?
I thought to return to the ‘behemoth’ and post the recent article by Pascal Bruckner attacking Ian Buruma and T.A. Ash, but thought better of it. Not that I believe there is no defense to at least some of his charges, but this damning quote in particular deserves repeating in support of this article and arguments 🙂
…This vicious mechanism is well known. Those who revolt against barbarism are themselves accused of being barbarians. In politics as in philosophy, the equals sign is always an abdication. If thinking involves weighing one’s words to name the world well, drawing comparisons in other words, then levelling distinctions testifies to intellectual bankruptcy. Shouting CRS = SS as in May ’68, making Bush = Bin Laden or equating Voltaire to Savonarola is giving cheap satisfaction to questionable approximations..
Brendan,
Thanks for the quote. I’ve been following some of the exchange over at B&W. And, for all our sakes, let The Behemoth lie.
I suppose “naming the world” is a big part of what I’m getting at. For instance, I’d like to see the word “primitive” return to considered use. It’s a perfectly good word. Likewise, the phrases “superstitious claptrap” and “sanctimonious phoney” shouldn’t be beyond the pale when debating with certain religious spokespeople. I don’t think one need start any debate with those terms, but they should remain part of the arsenal and be deployed as and when necessary.
But maybe that’s just me.
Fascist Islamaphobes may your wives be infected with the camel’s ear parasite and they become barren. How dare you insult Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi of course he is correct that in Islam it is admissible to beat the woman but we never touch the face, for this would be haram. We administer punishment according to the holy scriptures and we do it with love. As you say ” it hurts us more than it hurts you”.
The Guardian’s Madeleine Bunting is a beautiful woman but with her hair on display and her lips having make up gives me unnatural desires. Far better if she would cover up this indecency like Yvonne Ridley – she lovely Islamic lady.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northeast/series4/i/ridley200.jpg
[We administer punishment according to the holy scriptures and we do it with love. As you say ” it hurts us more than it hurts you”.]
Heh, now that’s one for all time. Tell me hierophant, when –and where– do muslim women get to beat their men? One can only presume that your “unnatural desires” deserve a good sound–but loving–beating.
Oh Brendan dear Brendan
don’t worry unnecessarily we only admonish under strict guidelines – relax we are a peaceful and just people, for example one of our scholars Muhammad Kamal Mustafa “recommends verbal correction followed by a period of sexual abstinence as the best punishment for a wife, but does not rule out a beating as long as it is kept within strict guidelines… to avoid serious damage, a husband should never hit his wife in a state of extreme or blind anger. He should never hit sensitive parts of the body such as the face, head, breasts or stomach. He should only hit the hands or feet using a rod that is thin and light so that it does not leave scars or bruises on the body. The husband’s aim, should be to cause psychological suffering and not to humiliate or physically abuse his wife.
You see Brendan we are very civilized, unlike you Europeans who just think of women as sexy objects. I assume you are European with a name like Brendan (Irish? perhaps) maybe you could choose nicer Islamic name when you convert (by choice there is no compulsion in Islam) How about Ali or Mubarak? Keep your silly Irish name if you must, but you will have to pay the poll tax if you are to remain a kuffir. Al hum dil il Allah
Well, hierophant, I’m no dhimmi or dummy for that matter. Your silly superstitions are all well and good in the less educated parts of the world, I suppose, until we can educate them of course. Here, we are all equals chum, and I chide you as I would chide my brother for his silly or regressive habits. I would of course lovingly beat my brother until he relented his religious deference to a supernatural deity and accepted rational thought and, of course, equality of the sexes. You should be proud of human accomplishment, particularly in the ‘west’, as we send our women into space… while you islamists do not beat them on the face. Do you see the lack of equivalence in that, pray tell?
Dear dear Brendan
you say you are no Dhimmi by that I assume you no longer are an infidel and have embraced the superior faith of Islam. Any one who does not accept the fact that the one and only true god is Allah and Mohamed is his messenger is a Dhimmi “Here we are equals chum” what nonsense you will never be my equal until you embrace the truth and as is writen in the holy book men are above women
[4:34] The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD’s commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.
You see infidel we only beat them when they disobey.
Obey us and everything is fine…..Allah u akbhar
Resistance is futile
You will be assimilated!
Hierophant,
You, and your superstitious religion, are anachronisms, a hangover from the previous age. To trot out your supremacist leanings based on such ‘revelations’ is embarrassing to us all and will serve only to speed the demise of the entire paradigm that supports muslim foolishness. Assimilated? Only to subvert my brother.
“Resistance is futile
You will be assimilated!”
This is great Start Treck quote! Greatly enjoyed. 🙂 Thanks for the hillari-ous put-on!
On a serious side, the key to moral relativism seems to be “committing to none of the values in question”. Which means, we have to choose our culture, and we have the right to make our choice. We are not some kind of angelic super beings pretending to coldly judge any and all culture, infallible, as postmodernists pretend to be. Rather, we are moral creatures, and as such are entitled to, and responsible, for choices we make, be it to serve as a useful idiot for the Army of Islamic Imperialism, or to stand guard for values of Reason and Freedom of Thought.
You’re being referred to over at this blog –
http://imomus.livejournal.com/265541.html?page=2
You may wish to defend yourself…!
Georges,
Thanks for the heads up, but I don’t see much need. None of the points I’ve made have been addressed in any way, let alone refuted. Though bearing in mind my offending articles criticise xenophobia and suggest that women shouldn’t be beaten in the name of God, it’s a little odd to then be dismissed as “a good old-fashioned xenophobic right winger.”
Moral Tourism
The Perils of Moral Tourism, from David Thompson last Spring. Quote: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 term