on 3/4/04 8:10 AM, Cordelia Chu at raccoon@xxxxxxx wrote:
I know this debate is at the tail end but I would like to make one last
response to Cordelia's inquiry:
I wonder if Foucault mentioned anything about who gets to decide what
> constitutes an abuse, especially since we don't have one global culture that
> shares one [flattened]
> set of beliefs and values.
There is a section in the interview 'Questions of Method' where he makes
references to how changes/ reforms come about pp. 235-236 of Power
'what is to be done ought not to be determined from above by reformers, be
they prophetic or legislative, but by a long work of comings and goings,
exchanges, reflections, trials, different analyses'.
So, I don¹t' think Foucault's work suggests a 'top down' imposition of
values eg a sanctimonious West pronouncing on the 'non-West'.
> For example, in Chambri, Papua New Guinea, ritual initiation of adolescent
> male into adulthood is
> still performed through cutting, blood letting, and hazing (pushing, burning,
> forced to eat
> garbage, verbal insults). Is Foucault suggesting that we have
> "responsibility" as "global citizen" to
> force them to abolish their traditional practices?
The imposition of a 'fixed' tradition that never changes is problematic for
many people. I cannot comment on the people in Chambri as I have no idea
what their views are on this ritual. Traditions may be defined by
governing elites and my own experience is that it is very rare to have a
singular definition/understanding of what constitutes a particular
ritual/tradition. There are usually people at the margins who tend to
question traditions, their usefulness etc.
We see these debates around issues of domestic violence and the rights of
women, female circumcision etc etc
I agree entirely that the hypocrisy surrounding the foreign policies of
many so called democratic nations in the first world are breathtaking.
There are so many examples - the situation of 'enemy combatant' in the
extra-territorial space Guantanamo Bay or the incaceration of asylum seekers
by the Australian government, a signatory to every human rights convention
etc
However, there has also been a lot of political mileage made out of the
'Asian values' discourse where governing elites can dismiss the rights of
their people using the argument that this or that value is 'western'. The
issue of people's rights to live out their lives in safety and dignity is
not a 'western' construct. It has resonance in many many
religous-philosophical codes.
Ravinder
I know this debate is at the tail end but I would like to make one last
response to Cordelia's inquiry:
I wonder if Foucault mentioned anything about who gets to decide what
> constitutes an abuse, especially since we don't have one global culture that
> shares one [flattened]
> set of beliefs and values.
There is a section in the interview 'Questions of Method' where he makes
references to how changes/ reforms come about pp. 235-236 of Power
'what is to be done ought not to be determined from above by reformers, be
they prophetic or legislative, but by a long work of comings and goings,
exchanges, reflections, trials, different analyses'.
So, I don¹t' think Foucault's work suggests a 'top down' imposition of
values eg a sanctimonious West pronouncing on the 'non-West'.
> For example, in Chambri, Papua New Guinea, ritual initiation of adolescent
> male into adulthood is
> still performed through cutting, blood letting, and hazing (pushing, burning,
> forced to eat
> garbage, verbal insults). Is Foucault suggesting that we have
> "responsibility" as "global citizen" to
> force them to abolish their traditional practices?
The imposition of a 'fixed' tradition that never changes is problematic for
many people. I cannot comment on the people in Chambri as I have no idea
what their views are on this ritual. Traditions may be defined by
governing elites and my own experience is that it is very rare to have a
singular definition/understanding of what constitutes a particular
ritual/tradition. There are usually people at the margins who tend to
question traditions, their usefulness etc.
We see these debates around issues of domestic violence and the rights of
women, female circumcision etc etc
I agree entirely that the hypocrisy surrounding the foreign policies of
many so called democratic nations in the first world are breathtaking.
There are so many examples - the situation of 'enemy combatant' in the
extra-territorial space Guantanamo Bay or the incaceration of asylum seekers
by the Australian government, a signatory to every human rights convention
etc
However, there has also been a lot of political mileage made out of the
'Asian values' discourse where governing elites can dismiss the rights of
their people using the argument that this or that value is 'western'. The
issue of people's rights to live out their lives in safety and dignity is
not a 'western' construct. It has resonance in many many
religous-philosophical codes.
Ravinder