I feel like a really effective way to tie the debate about the bestowal or denial of humanness to other cultures (particularly to the native American cultures by the Spaniard conquistadores) is to go back and look at the enormous differences between the societies themselves. We can nitpick all we want about degrees of otherness, and to whom should or should not otherness be assigned, but in analyzing this particular case, it really is EXCEPTIONALLY easy to understand why the native American societies were grouped into that category by the Europeans and were thus denied an egalitarian conception of being "Human".
Todorov mentions it repeatedly. The very modes of thinking were inherently different between these two societies. Ways of conceptualizing, not only one's surroundings, but time itself were worlds apart. The cyclical understanding of time, omens and signs held by the Aztecs presented an enormous disconnect for the Europeans, one which would be almost completely insurmountable even by our own much more tolerant and "culturally relativistic" standards. Imagine trying to communicate something as simple as going to work and having to deal with a bunch of different problems -- that you didn't have to deal with the day before -- to someone for whom every single action is both a repetition of the past and an omen for the future... for indeed the terms "past" and "future" have no meaning. There is only "now", "now then" and "now later". Even after the Europeans were able to devise a way of communicating with the native Americans, they were presented with such a huge cultural impasse, likely like none ever before encountered, that truly and honestly coceiving as this race of people as "the same" seems immediately challenging. Even we, modern liberals, might be able to conceive intellectually of a certain sameness still existing between ourselves and such a culture, but I feel that in practice the barriers presented would almost necessarily give way to an "Other" assignment.
So this social divergence worked to the double disadvantage of the native Americans -- it both cemented their inferiority in the eyes of the conquistadores (for difference is, of course, tantamount to inferiority) and thus the justification for their slaughter; and the cyclical time conceptualization made the improvisation that would have been necessary for effective warfare against the Europeans impossible.
I guess what it all comes down to is that, simply by being fundamentally different in an unfortunate way (imagine if the Indians had had both technology and worldview which were strategically SUPERIOR to those of the Europeans... the world would be quite a different place), the native Americans were kind of screwed from the beginning. Upsetting at times.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
I agree that the order in which we read The Sparrow and The Conquest of America lends itself very well to a comparison between the two. I think one issue is very interesting in terms of a difference between the two works. The conquest of America was indeed one of conquest, of the side that entered new lands winning out over the other because the invadees did not conceptually understand the rules of the game, so to speak. However, in The Sparrow, paradoxically, the "invaders" ultimately fails to understand what will be done to them at a very basic, linguistic level. Because Emilio never understands the contract and gives his consent to have his hand stretched (which also kills Marc) and is ultimately sent back in shambles. Thus, it is also interesting that in The Sparrow, the side which most resembles the Spanish in that they are characterized throughout the novel as "the one" in relation to "the other", the Jesuit party, meets with drastically different results although they both claim to be on God's side.
I think in many ways, the cultural relativism employed in the way that Emilio's party interacted with "the other" is demonstrative of the new wave of thinking is demonstrative of the shifting societal viewpoint Todorov discusses on 249. He states that nowadays, there is more of an awareness that the predominant ideology that Westernism was superior has diminished in favor of an atempt to find a synthesis between equality and difference. "We want equality without its compelling us to accept identity; but also difference without its degenerating into superiority/inferiority" (249). I feel that this is tightly bound to the ideologies of postmodernism and post-colonialism.
Postmodernism, which forces us to disect and subsequently question the way in which society, knowledge, and basically reality is constructed also leads us to question whether anything can exist absolutely and objectively. Post colonialism, similarly, leads one to question whether one people is absolutely superior to another. The combination of these two ideologies necessarily leads to increased relativism.
I think that The Sparrow’s approach to the interaction between known humanity and unknown humanity is very indicative of a very post-modern, post-colonial mindset whereby objective superiority simply does not exist and things like morality become highly relative in the way they are perceived. The very knowledge that nothing can really be objectively superior was not present in the works of Colombus. As presented by Todorov, the explorers could not even contextualize the other as having an equal human identity (76) because to acknowledge that “the other” could be equal was not in their frame of reference—the one is always superior to the other in the mind of the one. Only in our modern day do we acknowledge that the other’s beliefs he is “the one” have just as much merit as our belief that he is the other.
I think in many ways, the cultural relativism employed in the way that Emilio's party interacted with "the other" is demonstrative of the new wave of thinking is demonstrative of the shifting societal viewpoint Todorov discusses on 249. He states that nowadays, there is more of an awareness that the predominant ideology that Westernism was superior has diminished in favor of an atempt to find a synthesis between equality and difference. "We want equality without its compelling us to accept identity; but also difference without its degenerating into superiority/inferiority" (249). I feel that this is tightly bound to the ideologies of postmodernism and post-colonialism.
Postmodernism, which forces us to disect and subsequently question the way in which society, knowledge, and basically reality is constructed also leads us to question whether anything can exist absolutely and objectively. Post colonialism, similarly, leads one to question whether one people is absolutely superior to another. The combination of these two ideologies necessarily leads to increased relativism.
I think that The Sparrow’s approach to the interaction between known humanity and unknown humanity is very indicative of a very post-modern, post-colonial mindset whereby objective superiority simply does not exist and things like morality become highly relative in the way they are perceived. The very knowledge that nothing can really be objectively superior was not present in the works of Colombus. As presented by Todorov, the explorers could not even contextualize the other as having an equal human identity (76) because to acknowledge that “the other” could be equal was not in their frame of reference—the one is always superior to the other in the mind of the one. Only in our modern day do we acknowledge that the other’s beliefs he is “the one” have just as much merit as our belief that he is the other.
The Other Aliens
Jumping off from Vanessa's post, I love that we're reading Conquest of the Americas right after The Sparrow. The parallels and contrasts between the Spaniards/Native Americans and the Jesuits/aliens are fascinating!
In The Sparrow, the Jesuit expedition went to Rakhat with a total respect for whatever alien culture they might find. When they arrived, they asked questions, learned the language, and tried to integrate themselves as best they could into the society they found. In short, the expedition treated the Rana and Jana'ata as, if not humans, at least as people.
As a contrast, the American "discoverers" - especially Columbus (who was HILARIOUS, in that I can't believe he actually acted like that kinda way) - went to the Americas ignorant and uncaring of the culture, motivations and desires of the Native Americans. Though Columbus took cultural notes, he imposed his own desires upon his interpretation of the indigenous people. When he didn't understand the natives he met (or, when he admitted he didn't understand them) or when they acted contrary to his expectations, he interpreted them as animals, as non-human - in short, as aliens.
Why would the (fictional) Jesuits treat aliens as people, and Columbus and the Spaniards treat humans as alien? Moral relativism! (What, is there a theme in this week's blogging or something?) Emilio and the other members of the expedition to Rakhat are meeting the aliens with the intent of meeting and understanding people radically different from themselves. They recognize that their ways will be different and are ready to accept the difference. Columbus and the other explorers, however, don't really have a concept of an other that is also moral. Thus, when they encounter the Native Americans, they see the difference as not just immoral, but unhuman.
In The Sparrow, the Jesuit expedition went to Rakhat with a total respect for whatever alien culture they might find. When they arrived, they asked questions, learned the language, and tried to integrate themselves as best they could into the society they found. In short, the expedition treated the Rana and Jana'ata as, if not humans, at least as people.
As a contrast, the American "discoverers" - especially Columbus (who was HILARIOUS, in that I can't believe he actually acted like that kinda way) - went to the Americas ignorant and uncaring of the culture, motivations and desires of the Native Americans. Though Columbus took cultural notes, he imposed his own desires upon his interpretation of the indigenous people. When he didn't understand the natives he met (or, when he admitted he didn't understand them) or when they acted contrary to his expectations, he interpreted them as animals, as non-human - in short, as aliens.
Why would the (fictional) Jesuits treat aliens as people, and Columbus and the Spaniards treat humans as alien? Moral relativism! (What, is there a theme in this week's blogging or something?) Emilio and the other members of the expedition to Rakhat are meeting the aliens with the intent of meeting and understanding people radically different from themselves. They recognize that their ways will be different and are ready to accept the difference. Columbus and the other explorers, however, don't really have a concept of an other that is also moral. Thus, when they encounter the Native Americans, they see the difference as not just immoral, but unhuman.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Relativism dragged into America
In the Conquest of America, if we look at the details of what happened in the history of Spanish conquests there, there is a total lack of relativism. Since we are comparing the two books, this weeks and The Sparrow, I think it is interesting how ideas about allowing others religious and social freedoms have changed. When the Spanish were exploring / plundering the Americas, they could bearly even concieve of the local populance having a different social structure or language base. Columbus and the subsiquent leaders depicted in the book think it is their right and duty to give these people "culture". However, in The Sparrow the Jesuit mission was very careful not to try and impose anything on the societies they met and have as little impact on their way of life as possible. They didnt want to kill or take anything from them. Perhaps then we should look at the difference in the nature of the missions between the Jesuits and the Spanish.
The Jesuits went to a new planet knowing that there would be differences, perhaps ones that would be fatal to themselves or perhaps the locals. On the other hand the Spanish went to American is search of wealth and an area to populate and use for its on social and economic goals. In light of the face that these two cases were very different in their inherant nature and purpose, does it show anything consistant within the practices of caring for cultural relativism or does it instead show that cultural relativism did not always exist? When the Spanish went to the Americas they did not have any regard for the practices of the people. They took advantage of them and used them till many of them died or became disfunctional. They attempted to convert many of the cultures to Catholicism and did not believe any of the local practices could be justifid simply because they were different from what the Spanish had known. Personally, I dont think cultural relativism came into play in the international community in dealing with forein nations until colonization and the movement for independant nation states was completed after WWI. After that time, we started attempting to explain the practices of other people, not attempting to change them, because they were inherantly different and therefore had to be judged under their own moral codes. But now, looking toward the future, who are we going to allow to be the judge for alien species? How can we say what is a greater good for a group on another planet when we cannot even decide this as a unified who on our own home planet? It seems to me that cultural relativism might have saved the indigenous peoples of America from the Spanish torment, but that was during a time when people were greedy for resources and could justify eliminating another race. Now that the international community poo poos genocide, does that mean that relativism has only come onto the scene recently? If one were to say that we all belong under the same moral jurisdiction, then it would be easy enough for a race to claim supriority over another. Just some musings... what do yall think?
The Jesuits went to a new planet knowing that there would be differences, perhaps ones that would be fatal to themselves or perhaps the locals. On the other hand the Spanish went to American is search of wealth and an area to populate and use for its on social and economic goals. In light of the face that these two cases were very different in their inherant nature and purpose, does it show anything consistant within the practices of caring for cultural relativism or does it instead show that cultural relativism did not always exist? When the Spanish went to the Americas they did not have any regard for the practices of the people. They took advantage of them and used them till many of them died or became disfunctional. They attempted to convert many of the cultures to Catholicism and did not believe any of the local practices could be justifid simply because they were different from what the Spanish had known. Personally, I dont think cultural relativism came into play in the international community in dealing with forein nations until colonization and the movement for independant nation states was completed after WWI. After that time, we started attempting to explain the practices of other people, not attempting to change them, because they were inherantly different and therefore had to be judged under their own moral codes. But now, looking toward the future, who are we going to allow to be the judge for alien species? How can we say what is a greater good for a group on another planet when we cannot even decide this as a unified who on our own home planet? It seems to me that cultural relativism might have saved the indigenous peoples of America from the Spanish torment, but that was during a time when people were greedy for resources and could justify eliminating another race. Now that the international community poo poos genocide, does that mean that relativism has only come onto the scene recently? If one were to say that we all belong under the same moral jurisdiction, then it would be easy enough for a race to claim supriority over another. Just some musings... what do yall think?
Yet more cultural relativism
To jump back on the bandwagon which I kinda started myself...
My point of view is that there exist basically two choices in dealing with the moral relativism question: either accept M.R. absolutely, or reject it absolutely. That is to say, you can't make an exception for one act, which you judge in your value/moral system to be unacceptable, as being acceptable for another society because "it's relative", and then proceed to condemn a social practice because it doesn't fit into your own conceptualization of morality. The idea of relativism is an either-or scenario. Either you can accept the idea that it's all a matter of perspective, or you can reject it. You can't just say "well, these cases are a matter of perspective, but these cases aren't. They're only a matter of MY perspective." The supposition in the latter statement being that "MY perspective" is irrefutably dervied from a univeral moral code. The problem of course is that, if you grant a deviation from the Universal Moral Code that you're in touch with in a certain instance, it's not longer universal. If it doesn't hold in at least once case, the idea that it's concrete, fundamental and holds in all cases falls apart.
So we just have to make a choice between accepting MR or rejecting it. Accepting it means refusing to judge other cultures based on our own values (almost everyone finds it at the very least very, very difficult to do this), or buy that our values are THE values and those who do not adhere to them are inherently immoral / not in touch with the grand design of good vs. evil (and this, naturally seems just the slightest bit ethnocentric).
It's a sticky situation. And I have no easy answers.
My point of view is that there exist basically two choices in dealing with the moral relativism question: either accept M.R. absolutely, or reject it absolutely. That is to say, you can't make an exception for one act, which you judge in your value/moral system to be unacceptable, as being acceptable for another society because "it's relative", and then proceed to condemn a social practice because it doesn't fit into your own conceptualization of morality. The idea of relativism is an either-or scenario. Either you can accept the idea that it's all a matter of perspective, or you can reject it. You can't just say "well, these cases are a matter of perspective, but these cases aren't. They're only a matter of MY perspective." The supposition in the latter statement being that "MY perspective" is irrefutably dervied from a univeral moral code. The problem of course is that, if you grant a deviation from the Universal Moral Code that you're in touch with in a certain instance, it's not longer universal. If it doesn't hold in at least once case, the idea that it's concrete, fundamental and holds in all cases falls apart.
So we just have to make a choice between accepting MR or rejecting it. Accepting it means refusing to judge other cultures based on our own values (almost everyone finds it at the very least very, very difficult to do this), or buy that our values are THE values and those who do not adhere to them are inherently immoral / not in touch with the grand design of good vs. evil (and this, naturally seems just the slightest bit ethnocentric).
It's a sticky situation. And I have no easy answers.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Jumpoing on the relativism boat
The problem with imposing one set of morals on a set of people with another set of morals is, of course, that morality is relevant. Even on planet Earth, between a single species, we can barely agree on a single instance of good and evil. We agree killing is evil... but disagree about killing in wars, or blood feuds, or if he stole my cow. We agree rape is bad... but disagree about whether you can be raped if you're married, or if rape is a punishment. We agree love is good... but disagree about whether children can love romantically, or whether it's okay for two members of the same sex to love each other, or if two people from different religions can love each other.
Can there be a universal standard of morality? Clearly we can't crusade on specifics - for example, the U.S. culture finds burkas barbaric, but some Muslim women choose to wear them in order to free themselves from male scrutiny. However, the majority of people would agree that the choice to wear a burka should be just that - a choice.
So can we agree that something is moral if it is a choice? If everyone who follows that moral code agrees with it, and makes the choice to follow that code of their own free will - is it moral?
Even if we put aside the problems of identifying choice vs. coercion (do the Runa choose to live as they do, or do the Jana'ata coerce them?) and assume that children must be coerced by their parents before they attain an age or maturity to make their won decisions, this system of judging morality wouldn't work. Most participants in the U.S. culture agree that murder is bad and rape is bad, but we still must have laws and a police force to legislate against and punish those who choose not to follow this moral code. Thus, many are coerced into following the "no murder no rape" morality.
But that's a good thing, right? Rape and murder both hurt other people. So what if we judge all moral systems based on how much they protect its participants?
Unfortunately, this is also problematic. Besides the fact that in some circumstances, rape ("she deserved it") or murder (the death penalty, anyone?) can be justified as protecting others, almost ANYTHING can be justified as being "for someone's own good." Radical Islamic men who force women to wear burkas, leave the house only in the company of male relatives, and leave their professional lives claim they are protecting the women from dangerous males and the scary outside world. The Jana'ata would claim that their breeding program (and stringent hierarchical system) prevents poverty, crime, genetic diseases, overpopulation, and overuse of the planet's resources. Columbus claimed his work went to cilivilize, tame, and "save" (convert) the Native Americans.
Logic fails to find a common ground for judging morality. Thus, the only way to judge morals is from a moral standpoint, which basically means that there must be agreement among those following the same moral code, and either noninvolvement or conflict between those with different moral cades.
Can there be a universal standard of morality? Clearly we can't crusade on specifics - for example, the U.S. culture finds burkas barbaric, but some Muslim women choose to wear them in order to free themselves from male scrutiny. However, the majority of people would agree that the choice to wear a burka should be just that - a choice.
So can we agree that something is moral if it is a choice? If everyone who follows that moral code agrees with it, and makes the choice to follow that code of their own free will - is it moral?
Even if we put aside the problems of identifying choice vs. coercion (do the Runa choose to live as they do, or do the Jana'ata coerce them?) and assume that children must be coerced by their parents before they attain an age or maturity to make their won decisions, this system of judging morality wouldn't work. Most participants in the U.S. culture agree that murder is bad and rape is bad, but we still must have laws and a police force to legislate against and punish those who choose not to follow this moral code. Thus, many are coerced into following the "no murder no rape" morality.
But that's a good thing, right? Rape and murder both hurt other people. So what if we judge all moral systems based on how much they protect its participants?
Unfortunately, this is also problematic. Besides the fact that in some circumstances, rape ("she deserved it") or murder (the death penalty, anyone?) can be justified as protecting others, almost ANYTHING can be justified as being "for someone's own good." Radical Islamic men who force women to wear burkas, leave the house only in the company of male relatives, and leave their professional lives claim they are protecting the women from dangerous males and the scary outside world. The Jana'ata would claim that their breeding program (and stringent hierarchical system) prevents poverty, crime, genetic diseases, overpopulation, and overuse of the planet's resources. Columbus claimed his work went to cilivilize, tame, and "save" (convert) the Native Americans.
Logic fails to find a common ground for judging morality. Thus, the only way to judge morals is from a moral standpoint, which basically means that there must be agreement among those following the same moral code, and either noninvolvement or conflict between those with different moral cades.
Relitivism idea cont...
Sorry this post is late... I was working on something else and then i looked at the time and it had passed midnight... not that it is a good excuse but here is the post...
I personally do not think we should leave room for cultural relativisim. It is an easy way out, a way not to think about what other people are doing simply beacuse it is eaier to say that we cannot judge their morals because we do not understand their societies. When discussing scentient beings and attempting to discern which ones are or are not, should not change our moral code. Regardless of which being has a greater capacity for thinking, it is also a living breathing being. Those beings on the alien world presented in The Sparow are obviously scentient, obviously within a moral code of some sort. That between the two races one dominates the other is not ok under what humans have defined as morally just. Instead of attempting to qwell murders while they are happening, what Sophia should have done was gathered together and organized the Runa to work against their agressors. Granted, they were not expecting a slaughter and she felt compelled to step forward and speak out against the killings, but that did not help her on moral grounds. If you are attampting to eliminate a source of moral injustice, then the best rout is to shed light on the matter from one intelligent being to another.
Im not quite sure what one should do if the other does not comply. Are we morally justified in forcing someone to comply with what we concider to be moral behavior? If human brought guns, and threatened the Jana'ata with death or pain in order to save the Runa, would that really be the moral way to stop the killings of the Runa people? Is it better to have population control or homelessness and hunger? Is there no way to find an equilibrium or does there need to be an imposition of one cultures morals upon another? And then, why is it that we do not all conclude the same moral strucutre? The very existance of cultural relativism suggests that different beings suppose different ways of being to be the correct way of conduct. The way to eliminate relativism would then be to collectively bring people to believe in one standard... but if people are from a galixy far far away, how is that possible?
I personally do not think we should leave room for cultural relativisim. It is an easy way out, a way not to think about what other people are doing simply beacuse it is eaier to say that we cannot judge their morals because we do not understand their societies. When discussing scentient beings and attempting to discern which ones are or are not, should not change our moral code. Regardless of which being has a greater capacity for thinking, it is also a living breathing being. Those beings on the alien world presented in The Sparow are obviously scentient, obviously within a moral code of some sort. That between the two races one dominates the other is not ok under what humans have defined as morally just. Instead of attempting to qwell murders while they are happening, what Sophia should have done was gathered together and organized the Runa to work against their agressors. Granted, they were not expecting a slaughter and she felt compelled to step forward and speak out against the killings, but that did not help her on moral grounds. If you are attampting to eliminate a source of moral injustice, then the best rout is to shed light on the matter from one intelligent being to another.
Im not quite sure what one should do if the other does not comply. Are we morally justified in forcing someone to comply with what we concider to be moral behavior? If human brought guns, and threatened the Jana'ata with death or pain in order to save the Runa, would that really be the moral way to stop the killings of the Runa people? Is it better to have population control or homelessness and hunger? Is there no way to find an equilibrium or does there need to be an imposition of one cultures morals upon another? And then, why is it that we do not all conclude the same moral strucutre? The very existance of cultural relativism suggests that different beings suppose different ways of being to be the correct way of conduct. The way to eliminate relativism would then be to collectively bring people to believe in one standard... but if people are from a galixy far far away, how is that possible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
