There is an intersting discussion going on on the left-unity list. It
started from somebody asking the question: what attitude, in the opinion
of various list-members, will their envisioned socialist society take
towards a certain specific practices -- the list included drug abuse,
workoholism, pornography, homosexuality, female circumcision, and a number
of others. I am enclosing a biased excerpt from the discussion that ensued.
I wonder if there are any specifically Foucauldian lines of thinking about
these issues -- or just what you-all's reactions are.
-m
----------------------------------------------
From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: LU: "Autonomous culture"
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 09:39:26 +0200
At 23:22 12/3/1997 -0500, you wrote:
>In general I think - even on the issue of female circumcision - that no one
>has the right to enforce outside mores on an autonomous culture (though this
>is always a tricky question).
What kind of logic places the rights of the "autonomous culture" over and
above the rights of an individual to make choices for a healthy and happy
life? What kind of freedom do we allow women, who have no say while the
"autonomous culture" of brutality maims them for life?
I suppose you'd also allow for the killing of young women who have sex out
of wedlock -in defiance of the "autonomous culture"-. Their fathers or
brothers who murder them get a reduction in their sentences. The "autonomous
culture" is recognised by the Turkish state.
Does anyone have an inkling of how much women are oppressed in these
"autonomous cultures", which are defended to my absolute amazement, and what
looks like the choice of the whole society actually allows no choice to the
majority of its members, especially the women.
Zeynep
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:35:04 -0500
From: Paul Kneisel <tallpaul@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LU: "Autonomous culture"
1) I don't know of any "autonomous cultures" in today's interconnected world.
2) The notion of "autonomous cultures" ignores class differences within
different cultures and sub-cultures. The notion of cultural disruption is
almost always presented by the ruling powers (class/caste/etc.) within a
culture who generally have no problem when the disruption benefits them
directly but who use the notion of disruption when they are hurt by the
social changes. I have yet to hear of any leading representative of a
culture denounce, for example, Swiss bank accounts.
3) At the risk of sounding like a member of the NRA, "autonomous cultures"
do not physically mutilate people; people mutilate people.
4) The market that developed during industrialization is by far the largest
disruptive force on non-industrialized cultures. This includes the original
industrializing cultures themselves. Capitalism may have started in Venice
and the Tokyo-Osaka axis, but neither Italy or Japan was independent of the
disruptive effect that industrialization had on their own original
pre-industrial culture.
There is also the question of how far one would go in preventing any
disruption of the culture's autonomy. The printing press disrupts cultures.
So do cheap cotton cloth, the global telecommunications network,
antibiotics, and an incredible number of other commodities.
5) The original notion of "natural rights" was (and is) one that refers to
the rights of individuals, largely against the State. If we give up the
notion of fundamental rights in favor of cultural autonomy, where does the
theory of the autonomy come from?
The dominate force within a culture or sub-culture cannot meaningfully
state: "Our culture does not support 'natural rights' so respect our
cultural 'natural right' to be autonomous."
6) There is also the problem of "culture eat culture" or the domination by
one aggressive "autonomous culture" of a less aggressive or weaker culture.
Aggression is itself -- among other things -- a cultural value. It is
internally contradictory to argue that we must support the "autonomous
right" of an aggressive culture to dominate a weaker sub-culture in the
name of "autonomy."
-- tallpaul@xxxxxxxx (Paul "tallpaul" Kneisel)
From: DavidMcR@xxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 02:20:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: LU: "Autonomous culture"
In a message dated 97-03-13 10:36:00 EST, you write:
<<
6) There is also the problem of "culture eat culture" or the domination by
one aggressive "autonomous culture" of a less aggressive or weaker culture.
Aggression is itself -- among other things -- a cultural value. It is
internally contradictory to argue that we must support the "autonomous
right" of an aggressive culture to dominate a weaker sub-culture in the
name of "autonomy."
>>
I appreciate Paul's comments without fully agreeing with them. The women in
Afghanistan are not and were not a "weaker sub-culture" - they were and are
part of a reactionary (my view) Islamic, patriarchal, religious society. And
I would leave it alone. I'd say much the same thing about Tibet. I don't
favor the Chinese "saving" the Tibetans from themselves. There is virtually
unanimous evidence that few Tibetans welcome being saved from their own
reactionary culture.
Annette's question, of course, is what we favor as socialists in a post
capitalist society, and there I feel easier to say that a socialist society
assumes an end of the patriarchal system as we have known it, and this would
rule out things such as clitoral mutilation, but it would not rule out
various other "immoral behaviors" including prostitution. Essentially, let's
wait and see what happens while we cooperate and work together in creating a
sense of socialist community as we move toward that goal.
Fraternally,
David McReynolds
started from somebody asking the question: what attitude, in the opinion
of various list-members, will their envisioned socialist society take
towards a certain specific practices -- the list included drug abuse,
workoholism, pornography, homosexuality, female circumcision, and a number
of others. I am enclosing a biased excerpt from the discussion that ensued.
I wonder if there are any specifically Foucauldian lines of thinking about
these issues -- or just what you-all's reactions are.
-m
----------------------------------------------
From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: LU: "Autonomous culture"
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 09:39:26 +0200
At 23:22 12/3/1997 -0500, you wrote:
>In general I think - even on the issue of female circumcision - that no one
>has the right to enforce outside mores on an autonomous culture (though this
>is always a tricky question).
What kind of logic places the rights of the "autonomous culture" over and
above the rights of an individual to make choices for a healthy and happy
life? What kind of freedom do we allow women, who have no say while the
"autonomous culture" of brutality maims them for life?
I suppose you'd also allow for the killing of young women who have sex out
of wedlock -in defiance of the "autonomous culture"-. Their fathers or
brothers who murder them get a reduction in their sentences. The "autonomous
culture" is recognised by the Turkish state.
Does anyone have an inkling of how much women are oppressed in these
"autonomous cultures", which are defended to my absolute amazement, and what
looks like the choice of the whole society actually allows no choice to the
majority of its members, especially the women.
Zeynep
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:35:04 -0500
From: Paul Kneisel <tallpaul@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LU: "Autonomous culture"
1) I don't know of any "autonomous cultures" in today's interconnected world.
2) The notion of "autonomous cultures" ignores class differences within
different cultures and sub-cultures. The notion of cultural disruption is
almost always presented by the ruling powers (class/caste/etc.) within a
culture who generally have no problem when the disruption benefits them
directly but who use the notion of disruption when they are hurt by the
social changes. I have yet to hear of any leading representative of a
culture denounce, for example, Swiss bank accounts.
3) At the risk of sounding like a member of the NRA, "autonomous cultures"
do not physically mutilate people; people mutilate people.
4) The market that developed during industrialization is by far the largest
disruptive force on non-industrialized cultures. This includes the original
industrializing cultures themselves. Capitalism may have started in Venice
and the Tokyo-Osaka axis, but neither Italy or Japan was independent of the
disruptive effect that industrialization had on their own original
pre-industrial culture.
There is also the question of how far one would go in preventing any
disruption of the culture's autonomy. The printing press disrupts cultures.
So do cheap cotton cloth, the global telecommunications network,
antibiotics, and an incredible number of other commodities.
5) The original notion of "natural rights" was (and is) one that refers to
the rights of individuals, largely against the State. If we give up the
notion of fundamental rights in favor of cultural autonomy, where does the
theory of the autonomy come from?
The dominate force within a culture or sub-culture cannot meaningfully
state: "Our culture does not support 'natural rights' so respect our
cultural 'natural right' to be autonomous."
6) There is also the problem of "culture eat culture" or the domination by
one aggressive "autonomous culture" of a less aggressive or weaker culture.
Aggression is itself -- among other things -- a cultural value. It is
internally contradictory to argue that we must support the "autonomous
right" of an aggressive culture to dominate a weaker sub-culture in the
name of "autonomy."
-- tallpaul@xxxxxxxx (Paul "tallpaul" Kneisel)
From: DavidMcR@xxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 02:20:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: LU: "Autonomous culture"
In a message dated 97-03-13 10:36:00 EST, you write:
<<
6) There is also the problem of "culture eat culture" or the domination by
one aggressive "autonomous culture" of a less aggressive or weaker culture.
Aggression is itself -- among other things -- a cultural value. It is
internally contradictory to argue that we must support the "autonomous
right" of an aggressive culture to dominate a weaker sub-culture in the
name of "autonomy."
>>
I appreciate Paul's comments without fully agreeing with them. The women in
Afghanistan are not and were not a "weaker sub-culture" - they were and are
part of a reactionary (my view) Islamic, patriarchal, religious society. And
I would leave it alone. I'd say much the same thing about Tibet. I don't
favor the Chinese "saving" the Tibetans from themselves. There is virtually
unanimous evidence that few Tibetans welcome being saved from their own
reactionary culture.
Annette's question, of course, is what we favor as socialists in a post
capitalist society, and there I feel easier to say that a socialist society
assumes an end of the patriarchal system as we have known it, and this would
rule out things such as clitoral mutilation, but it would not rule out
various other "immoral behaviors" including prostitution. Essentially, let's
wait and see what happens while we cooperate and work together in creating a
sense of socialist community as we move toward that goal.
Fraternally,
David McReynolds