When can something legitimately be blamed on culture?
So there are various factors one can attribute the behavior of a subgroup of people within a population. This can be any subgroup- geographic, ethnic, political, religious, etc. These factors can be numerous, but one major one people provide for why groups tend to behave a certain way is socio-economic. Another is political oppression. At what point (if any) can we distill cultural factors for why groups act a certain way versus socio-economic or political factors?
An easy example of this would be terrorists. There is a certain school of thought that might say terrorism is a product of the "oppressors". The opposite side would say that terrorism is a result of culture. Some might provide a mix of the two.
At what point can we distill with more certainty cultural factors from others (geographic, socio-economic, individual psychological, etc.)?
Can one be a "culturist", meaning can one morally be "against" certain cultures, or should people be tolerant of all cultural aspects, whether you agree with them or not? If one should be tolerant of otherwise odious cultural beliefs, how far should this tolerance go?
I guess the major question then is, at what point can you NOT blame socio-economic or oppressive conditions on cultural traits some might deem as "negative" of a subgroup? Is one allowed to be a "culturist"?
To add to this, one can have this mentality on the left as well as the right. Think of for example, some practices by fundamentalist Christian groups and attitudes towards this lifestyle maybe. There is also "redneck" culture "hillbilly" culture, etc. etc. So I just want to leave it wide open so this doesn't get pigeon-holed and can be seen from more of a universal perspective, lest this become a predictable political debate between left and right. I rather have it an investigation on when one can reasonably blame a "cultural" trait, if at all for a negative aspect of social living.
An easy example of this would be terrorists. There is a certain school of thought that might say terrorism is a product of the "oppressors". The opposite side would say that terrorism is a result of culture. Some might provide a mix of the two.
At what point can we distill with more certainty cultural factors from others (geographic, socio-economic, individual psychological, etc.)?
Can one be a "culturist", meaning can one morally be "against" certain cultures, or should people be tolerant of all cultural aspects, whether you agree with them or not? If one should be tolerant of otherwise odious cultural beliefs, how far should this tolerance go?
I guess the major question then is, at what point can you NOT blame socio-economic or oppressive conditions on cultural traits some might deem as "negative" of a subgroup? Is one allowed to be a "culturist"?
To add to this, one can have this mentality on the left as well as the right. Think of for example, some practices by fundamentalist Christian groups and attitudes towards this lifestyle maybe. There is also "redneck" culture "hillbilly" culture, etc. etc. So I just want to leave it wide open so this doesn't get pigeon-holed and can be seen from more of a universal perspective, lest this become a predictable political debate between left and right. I rather have it an investigation on when one can reasonably blame a "cultural" trait, if at all for a negative aspect of social living.
Comments (93)
What do you mean by culture? On my view economics and politics are downstream of culture, and so it is difficult to separate such things from culture.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think one of our most entrenched difficulties is our inability to say that other people are (objectively) wrong, and this is most obvious when it comes to cultural considerations. If you can't objectively oppose a culture then in the end you probably can't objectively oppose anything.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I want to say that culture is something like societal habit, or some subset of societal habit.
I don't think any specific behaviour can be excused by/ blamed on culture.
I mean a classic example here is gang culture in the US. This is tied with so many things- racial oppression, socio-economic oppression, and cultural aspects. One side of the debate regarding gang culture is that it is a cultural problems. A prominent conservative historian, Thomas Sowell, traces it back to Southern white redneck culture, that ultimately gets traced back to England. Nonetheless, he seems to see it as more of a cultural circumstance more than socio-economic. Others would say that it derives from socio-economic circumstances of simply being poor. If you are poor, and discriminated, these are the activities that a subgroup might tend towards..
There are dozens of other examples where things get entangled. Let's say you have a subgroup that allows their kids to essentially run amok in a neighborhood.. They let 3 year olds run in the street, but that is part of their culture.. But let's say in the major culture it would be frowned upon to let a three year old run back and forth on a street. This is just a micro-example.. Or how about how animals should be raised. In some cultures dogs run around the village getting fed by anyone who has food and water. They might get injured or hurt, but this is less a consideration as having a dog kept locked in a certain area for safety reasons would be odd to them. However pet lovers in many countries might be appalled or at least not happy with this free-for-all arrangement. But then others would chime in and say that "Such and such economic reason means this is why the dogs roam free in those societies". But this doesn't answer if it is moral, or it at least tacitly says it is relative.. as when it is brought to another society that has other values regarding dog safety it becomes a problem and a clash of cultures. But recognizing the clash and then making a moral judgement are two different things. Many might be afraid to condemn the latter.
Okay, good. Gangs might be a consequence of culture going back to "Southern white Redneck culture," or they could be a consequence of the the disenfranchisement, resentment, and desperation resulting from poverty and discrimination. Or both. But the first is "cultural" and the second is "socio-economic."
Maybe part of the question is to ask whether it represents an insuperable obstacle or defense to say, "It's cultural." For example, if gangs are cultural then they cannot be criticized, at least on the premise that cultural realities cannot be criticized. For such a personand they are commonI would ask why we must accept the premise that cultural realities cannot be criticized.
This is essentially my question :D. But it's also, WHEN can we distill that it is cultural vs. other factors? The first is more of an axiological question, the second is more of a technical question akin to a sociological analysis of some sort.
One way of looking at this is that "culture" is simply what remains of a statistical difference between two groups once you have eliminated anything more specific than that.
The other approach is to conclude based on the behaviour of some sample. If you can distill a cultural practice from the sample, and that practice provides an explanation for the difference you're seeing, then that's evidence that culture is causing the difference.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That really is a separate question though, isn't it? One would be whether there's causal connection between some cultural practice and a statistically significant deviation in outcomes.
The other is whether you can then clearly trace back the origins of the culture. The latter will often be immensely difficult, but is not necessary required to solve a problem.
True yes, can you cite any specific cases of this being done accurately?
Quoting Echarmion
True enough. And they intertwine to some extent. But what would be factors you would compare to tell its culture versus say, socio-economic? What can be used a sort of constant?
If I am right in saying that culture is a kind of societal habit, then I would say that a non-cultural cause is anything which does not flow from that kind of societal habit. For example, if gangs are a result of poverty, and if poverty is not a societal habit, then the poverty that produces gangs is not a cultural cause.
The trick is that poverty can become cultural even when it is not at first. Probably everything is like this, which is what makes the question difficult. My guess is that an important distinction must be made between high culture and just culture. The Chinese have a tea culture and an opium culture. The first is "high culture" or intentional culture, whereas the second is just culture, or else undesirable culture.
Ok, so how do you know which is attributed to which? Should it be condemned if it is cultural, or is culture sacrosanct? To what extent?
Quoting Leontiskos
Let's say that culture was not at all in the picture, and you disapproved of someone's individual habit.. But then you realized that that habit was actually part of their culture. Does the disapproval change? If so, why?
Good points. I guess I should amend this that religion is PART of the culture. In fact, I think that it is indeed part of the definition of what would be cultural:
From Google AI:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I tend to blame Rawls for this sort of cultural relativism. When you can't figure out how to ground morality objectively, then you just stop at the level of culture, and that's what Rawls did.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I tend to see culture and habit as parallel. So the first question is, "Suppose you see someone doing something that you disapprove of, but then you realize that they are habituated to this act. Does the disapproval change?" Yes, it changes qua culpability and capability. For example, there is a moral difference between someone who freely engages in a bad act and someone who is addicted to it.
Culture is the same, but at a deeper level. It can perhaps even be conceived as the amalgamation of a people or a people's history, which is then confronted by the amalgamation of a different people. There is a parallel between the moral confrontation between two persons and the moral confrontation between two cultures. And we must remember to distinguish between morality and custom in order to avoid condemning what is contrary to our own customs but not to morality.
Want to elaborate? Provide a quote or example from Rawls, and what you see as problematic with it?
Quoting Leontiskos
So is culture akin to addiction in that it is a mechanism whereby free will is limited to an extent? This gets into some interesting stuff though because then can any individual habits not be cultural to some extent? Free will vs. determinism starts entering the debate. I rather not go there, but hopefully you will veer it away from that inevitability with a response as to how culture can be distilled out.. It also seems a bit odd because we like to think OTHER subgroups are determined (by culture), where OURS (usually the dominant culture) is one whereby free will and rational analysis of one's behavior reigns. Is that the case though?
Quoting Leontiskos
But can't certain cultural customs be immoral? Why would you make such a sharp distinction?
Quoting schopenhauer1
For Aristotle habit is the basis of both vice and virtue.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure, and that's why the caution I spoke of is required. If we condemn based solely on our own customs then at best we are imposing a non-moral norm, and at worst we are imposing an immoral norm.
This bypasses my question, and doubles down even. It is assumed "virtue building" such as a program that one might enter into as an Aristotlean or Stoic or whatnot, would seem to be a freely chosen philosophy that one is intending to follow. A culture seems to be something one generally falls into, though one can take it on too. What if one is about virtue-building but isn't following any particular program, just their own.. Is that culture? Is the practitioner of a philosophy and an individual acting under the enculturation of a subgroup's culture the same thing? Is there a substantive difference or is it all culture all the way down?
This is the exact issue which is going to, likely, prevent any real multi-culturalism every working. We would need to be blaming hte other culture to support those positions. THe 'home' culture wins, on principle alone. But this doesn't have anything to say morally, if you want a reasoned position, as opposed to 'this makes sense to me culture'. And back we are to the first issue.. It just wont work.
No, that's you reading and interpreting ideas. Culture is very real and it can really impact a person whether they "agree" to it or not. Culture to a large extent is impressed upon an individual not so with philosophy.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You can be against certain cultures, but there's certainly a logic to that culture that you need to be aware of. So usually just saying "I'm against X culture" sounds kind of stupid -- it's like the accuser isn't not engaging with the logic behind the cultural practice.
I think you can take any behavior and analyze it out for influences from the most poignantly personal all the way out to the nature of life.
One thing I remember from time to time is the comment from a friend who was listening to me explaining race relations. He said "You know you're just trying to understand yourself.". I was stunned, but I knew it was true.
I'm not quite sure though.. Can we distill that 3 year olds running in the street, just like the roaming dogs example, be considered unsafe for the kids/animals? Why would safety not be considered valuable for the sake of child/animal? Can we perhaps track other factors and say the society that doesn't allow these practices has X outcome and the one's that do have Y outcome, and THUS, we see correlation, or would this just be trying to square something that cannot be reconciled- that cultures do what they do without any real resolution to who is correct?
The way this plays out is generally, if the subgroup has domination over a geographic area, most likely it will continue.. so the dogs and children roaming, would continue as long as there is not sufficient population of the dominant culture in that particular geographic zone. So in a way, the multiculturalism does persist, it is reconciled by geographic separation.. This starts getting muddled when things like "gentrification" happen and the old-subgroups and the new subgroups may clash a bit.. The new ones might respect the old one, even if THEY wouldn't practice it, or they might be called out, or whatnot.. You can see the possibilities. These play out daily across the world I suppose in various countries with multicultural populations.
I mean where is the dividing line. In some ways, religions can be seen as a philosophy, no? One can even enter a religious community rather than being born into one.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sure, okay, a culture that say, perceives its land being stolen believes it has a right to get it back by any means necessary (terrorism).. There is a logic. I understand it. So?
I like that.. To add to this.. I notice that with minority subgroups people like to use contingent forces that make people act a certain way. For the dominant group, it is more seemingly free willed. To explain X subgroup you need to analyze culture. To explain Y dominant group you need to analyze the individual.
Because (and this really is the rub, to me) that culture either doesn't possess the concept, or rejects that account. There's no real argument if that's the case..
Quoting schopenhauer1
These seem to run up against each other?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think this precedes the geographical demarcation above. I think it works by initial acceptance, until this (the clash) occurs, and hten over time, either there's violent confrontation, or geographical separation. This, to me, is not multi-culturalism and it seems, to me, that its a bit of a red herring. We want cultural acceptance so we're not invading each other. I can't see much more than this being achievable cross-culturally.
Religions contain philosophy. I wouldn't describe them as philosophy.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree that cultures can be wicked. But there is a logic behind it that can be explored.
Is it? Are they better at taking responsibility for their actions?
That's an interesting point. Is it the job to educate, or let them be? This is a classic case of cultural relativism, or better/worse cultural practices? Why is the latter shunned, or is it?
Quoting AmadeusD
I mean, multicultural in a broad geographic region because of the relative isolation of subgroups from each other/ the dominant group. If there's enough isolation the dominant group can go on condemning X practice amongst its own, whilst the subgroup persists in it, because there is no one there to witness it or not enough at least to really do much about it except shake their heads or tacitly accept this is their way...
Quoting AmadeusD
Not sure what you mean.. Yeah at some point either acceptance or confrontation will happen.
Right, well you made it seem by knowing the logic, the intolerance will go away. But what if knowing the logic makes no difference or even makes it worse?
It seems to be the case this is what happens in multicultural societies or when dealing cross-culturally. If let's say a subgroup individual does X "bad" action, we say, "Oh he is a product of that culture". If the dominant culture individual does X "bad" action, we say "He made a bad decision" or at the least make it much more atomized (it's his family at the most, or his own personal background or life story, not necessarily cultural).
I agree with much of what you have said.
How easy is this in practice? For instance, how women in some cultures are treated might seem a moral issue or just a custom, depending upon one's values.
Quoting Leontiskos
This may be true. But how do we ground morality objectively? There is certainly no agreement on whether this can be done.
'Foundations' such as well-being, human flourishing, rational consistency, divine command, etc - are choices which seem to reflect subjective and cultural assumptions and preferences. Can there be a purely neutral way to choose one grounding over another, without invoking some form of value judgment or preference?
The intolerance won't go away, but it will help us understand it. I do find learning the logic behind it interesting -- it helps us understand things like the depth of the wickedness and where its roots lie. And this leads us to ask: Were the roots themselves wicked or were they twisted by the culture?
Ok so what if there was no logic, it's literally mimetic in that everyone's ancestors did it from way back when?
Edit: That is to say, functionally speaking, it wouldn't make a difference if the practice was just blind tradition or out of a logic that that tradition holds.
I don't think I believe in this. Can you cite an example? Even very strange religious practices have a logic to them.
I wasnt necessarily thinking religious practice though there could be just no reason for it (except post facto). I was thinking more like three year olds playing in the street or letting dogs roam neighborhood without being confined to owners property thats how it was done in the old country isnt really a logic. Just a practice thats accepted.
If you're allowing the children to be out late that's a sign of a high-trust society and the practice reflects that.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I can't think of one.
It would be cool if everyone could be looked at as individuals. But it's also true that some people have challenges where others have privilege, you know?
Three year olds in a busy urban street? Trust who? Do you just argue to argue?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Im sure a lot of religious practices had no discernible origin and later ideas and stories made it have a backstory but none of that matters to my point.
Can that contribute to self-fulfilling prophecy? Is that itself treating others as having less agency? Should there be two tiers of morality- one fir cultural subgroups one for dominant?
No I just see a logic to certain practices where you don't. Or the parents could just be idiots. Or drug addicts. Not always so easy to pin down the roots of a practice.
EDIT: Seeing children playing in the street or dogs roaming may very well not be culture. A good example of a culture would be the US military. It is also non-theological.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then those ideas and stories are the logic.
It's possible. One source of counter message is in forms of Christianity that teach having faith in yourself. They focus on how to avoid the pitfall of pity. Someone may think they're helping you with their pity when it's actually destructive.
I think it would be an ironic if a social justice warrior ended up being a soft bigot in regards for peoples capacity for agency based on subculture, no? In a multicultural society how much is it incumbent to teach the subgroup the dominant customs? What if theyre resistant? When does it matter? Views on Safety? Violence?
I live in a capitalist society, so that's something that money settles. Some rappers are billionaires, right?
(if i'm reading right) I think the latter is shunned in practice as considered 'bigoted' (top tip: It's not) and the former is shunned in theory because we couldn't possibly land on "everything is permissible by it's own group". No one seems to think that moral theory works (otherwise, Rotherham rape gangs are acceptable, if you see where i'm taking this...)
I do think there's an 'essential' tension there. Cultures should be able to protect themselves. But people should be able to move through cultures without demand.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think I've addressed with this in mind. For instance, we don't, generally, look to the mid-East and want to do anything the stark cultural differences. But, if it were a group within our borders, we would want to. So, if there's geographical separation, I think it needs to be of a kind that crosses jurisdiction for my point to make sense. That said, I think the version of yours that I think actually happens is simply 'hiding'. Once found, we don't shake out heads - we prosecute.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What I mean (I thought his was clear above, so apologies) is that this confrontation necessarily precedes any geographical separation giving the appearance of multi-culturalism. It's a literal rejection of multi-culturalism.
I'd say terrorism is simply a method of warfare usually done by a non-state actor, sometimes just by a single individual (example of Anders Breivik comes to mind). It's intention is usually to get media coverage and is different from an insurgency. And naturally "terrorism" is used in narrative to describe any non-state actor (or even state actor) that isn't viewed as a legal combatant or doesn't apply to the laws of war. Or then simply is a term used in propaganda for describing the enemy.
Something happening because of culture has to be specifically related to that culture. Only then can we really blame the culture. Especially when the issue is something that the underlying culture promotes. If our present culture promotes individuality and thinking of oneself, consumerism and having wealth, then us not being great in collective efforts or in thinking of others could be blamed on our culture itself.
Religion is normally thought to be part of culture.
@schopenhauer1 (and in deference to @T Clark): It might be useful to define our terms. Culture is that which...
[quote=SEP: Culture;https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/culture/#DefiCult]provides its members with meaningful ways of life across the full range of human activities, including social, educational, religious, recreational and economic life, encompassing both public and private spheres. [/quote]
Or...
[quote=The Royal Anthropological Institute;https://www.discoveranthropology.org.uk/about-anthropology/glossaryofterms.html]the sum total of a given people's beliefs, customs, knowledge and technology. These are learned and constitute a dynamic system. This system exists outside the body and is not inherited through biology.[/quote]
But @schopenhauer1 is using it more specifically to mean the cultures of minority groups:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Anyway, @Tom Storm, to say that female circumcision is not a part of Islam, but a cultural phenomenon, is probably to say that its status with regard to the religion as such (rather than to actually existing religion as practiced in that local culture) is contested, and varies between cultures that share the same majority religion. The local culture where it is practised is such that Islam in that culture allows or encourages it --- but there is no necessary connection. Which seems obviously true.
When I was a 3-year-old, in a middle-class English suburb, I played out in the street till late-ish. That culture was more trusting than modern middle--class culture. To my mind the biggest danger to such a child is the growth of car ownership; cars and 3-year-olds don't mix unless the car drivers are super careful. To me this sort of issue is the crux of debates about 'culture'. Increased car use and diminished public transport use are associated with greater individualism and distrust of others, fear of the stranger. But much cultural argument wants to blame / scapegoat 'others': gangs of youths, dangerous individuals. Car-lovers don't want to blame cars. Car-loving gets invisibly embedded in 'culture', so even now, we find it easier to imagine, to deal with the climate crisis, electric cars, instead of *less* cars.
One can be morally against something, while still being tolerant of it. (In fact, tolerance of something seems to already imply some moral distaste for it?)
I'm not one to tell other people how to live their lives, but I'll pass moral judgements if prompted or given good reason to, in the sense that I won't shy away from calling a spade a spade just to appear 'tolerant'.
In that context, it seems obvious to me that dysfunctional or degenerate cultures can undermine a society's capacity for prosperity.
Culture very strongly correlates to the moral values people are brought up with, whether they're taught implicitly or explicitly.
It will translate firstly into how children are raised, subsequently how they unfold as adult individuals, and lastly what they pass on to the following generations.
One reason why these cultural moral teachings are so important, is because they become so deeply ingrained into people and the society they live in, that many will not be able to question these teachings at any point in their life. They become so normalized that the majority of people will be unaware they even exist and affect their lives on a daily basis.
To make a long story short: some moral values are simply worse than others, and by their fruits you will know them.
Indeed, but this doesn't seem the same as some Muslim activists saying that it is not a part of Islamic culture. It ends up a bit like a no true Scotsman fallacy.
But then it is hard to identify consistent facts in any religion that are consistent across that religion. Biblical literalism is not found across all Christianity, nor are Trump supporters, nor is belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Just about everything held within a single religion is contested by others within that religion. I struggle to see exactly where the demarcation is between culture and religion, whether it matters and how any distinction can clearly be understood. Who do we blame for what? :wink:
Virtue is a kind of habit [s]of[/s] or a use of a kind of habit; it is not habit per se. I drew the parallel between culture and habit, not culture and virtue.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I've said that a culture is a kind of societal habit. On that view nothing an individual does in themselves has any necessary connection with culture (because the action or habit of an individual is not necessarily the action or habit of a culture).
Quoting schopenhauer1
One is intentional and the other is not necessarily intentional, no?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Suppose we have a norm, "Do not treat others as you would not like to be treated." Suppose a culture instantiates this norm. Suppose there are two people in the culture that are baptized into the cultural norm, Bob and Joe. Bob is under the influence of the cultural norm, and it influences his actions. Joe, on the other hand, while being under the influence of the cultural norm, also perceives that it is a moral norm, which he then freely assents to in a rational manner. Bob and Joe are different. Bob holds the norm in a merely cultural manner, whereas Joe also holds it in a moral manner. Joe is therefore rationally and intentionally invested in the norm in a way that Bob is not. We could argue whether Bob is virtuous for following the cultural norm, but it is certainly true that Joe is more virtuous than Bob.
(We could go on to consider a third person who intentionally rejects the cultural norm.)
I don't think I was confusing the two. Virtue-building is a part of a culture of a philosophical school of thought.
Quoting Leontiskos
Ok so in your view "societal habit" is the key.
Quoting Leontiskos
I'd agree yes.
Quoting Leontiskos
I'd agree with this mainly.
I see what you're saying, but there is also common sense. Three year olds are still pretty young. Not realizing that if the dominant culture has many fast cars, or not including the risk if their child might get hit is problematic on a cultural level, one might think. Either the old culture doesn't put much emphasis on risk, and also has busy streets, or the old culture didn't have busy streets so never calculated the risk. That habit must start conforming if the security is valued, one might think.
An example of the old culture being the same, but the values being different (same amount of traffic/different value of risk), is how some countries view trash/litter. Some countries had anti-litter campaigns in the 60s. Litter is now seen culturally by the dominant groups of these countries as frowned upon. One doesn't generally chuck their garbage out the window, as one might have wont to do previously. Other countries don't value this perhaps. You might see beautiful landscapes littered with trash. The emphasis on litter isn't in that culture's framework, perhaps.
Edit: Let me provide the requisite scathing remarks about these "first-world" countries also being the biggest polluters, makers of plastics, and petroleum products, and making of all-around junk. I'm not excusing nor overlooking this. I guess my point is more on micro-scales of communities rather than large geo-political economic policies.
Yeah, this is true. It could be subtle things. It's generally when cultures clash that these become prominent. And then what is cultural, and what is just individual, is also a question. One tends to excuse something if it is a cultural tendency, rather than just someone being X, Y, Z (inconsiderate, etc.).
So a question I might ask is why for example, and this is controversial, is terrorism, that is to say, purposeful targeting of civilians to strike terror/fear/provoke response, and using one's population for fodder, a cultural trait of some countries, or is that simply situational.. ANY culture would act EXACTLY like this under X circumstance? Are there cultures that are more insulated from these violent tendences towards perceived oppression? I'm thinking of the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s-60s in the US. This seemed to be largely peaceful, and to a large extent won the day, legislatively (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, school integration, etc.).
Edit: One can say, MLK, Jr. and others created the culture for this to take place- even using religious rhetoric in doing so.. which is in stark contrast with other religious rhetoric that might use fire-and-brimstone, JUSTICE (but the violent kind of comeuppance).
Edit 2: To continue the line of thought that , if let's say a culture simply had built-in (extremely) violent responses to injustices, and then someone was not from that culture but promoted (extremely) violent responses to injustices, but advocated it out of philosophical regard, if we determined the extreme violence was "bad", would the philosophical regard agent be worse than the cultural agent?
Yes, but we must extricate the kind of violence (what it's aimed at, who is allowed to be harmed), and also answer the questions at hand.. to distill them from above:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
You can even find contemporary examples in Europe that followed those patterns, like the Irish Troubles and the Basque conflict in Spain.
I think it's a human tendency to prefer peaceful solutions over costly violent conflicts, but when there are no peaceful paths available its equally human to resist violently.
One cannot be against a culture or blame it for blameworthy acts because only individuals can perform blameworthy acts. One has to avoid holistic methods for determining blame or guilt or innocence and use individualistic methods, or else one will always be wrong and therefor unjust.
When can you condemn a cultural practice?
Is all violent resistance justified because someone perceives it to be justified? If Pieter was a Netherlander who believed that eminent domain was a made up government fantasy and property was eternally one's own property in perpetuity, and that if that property were to be ceased by the Netherlands government under eminent domain, and Pieter violently attacked Netherlanders, is he justified? Let's say he invoked "international law"? But this digresses.. because it becomes more relevant if it is a philosophical stance versus a cultural stance, to this debate.
But surely culture influences individuals, no? Conservatives love this point. So do liberals, but in their own way (exaggerated "Wokeness" and "religious fundamentalism").
A lot of people do blame culture, certainly.
Don't know enough to say. Australian Aboriginal groups, for instance, have been remarkable peaceful in the past century, despite continued oppression, loss of their land, not getting voting rights until 1965, the taking of their children, etc. If we hold that cultures are diverse (which seems obvious enough) then surely it follows that they won't all respond in the same way to injustice.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Hard to imagine how people's values, beliefs, expectations and actions are not shaped by culture. It looks to me like some Asian cultures and some closed religious cultures are going to have more impact on 'shared values and behaviours' than other cultures which emphasise individualism. But where individualism is emphasised and acted upon, is this not also culture at work?
Anti-Nazi partisan groups largely focused on weaking German military infrastructure, not going on rape & murder sprees of uninvolved German civilians. I am not familiar with anything comparable to 10/7 among groups persecuted by the Nazis. Being oppressed shouldn't automatically turn one into a complete animal free from all moral considerations.
Good points.. I've been thinking about this a bit.. I noticed that there are probably degrees of response to oppression depending on the intensity and nature of the oppression...
1) You are stripped down to nothing, malnourished/starved, put to intense slave labor, tortured, and then put on an inevitable train to a gas chamber.. I would imagine people in this circumstance, are under such intense suffering that if given the chance to revenge the direct torturers that might be at the least, understood.. even if it went beyond that, to rampaging the countryside for a day or so.. That is because under the extent that that person was under temporary psychosis from being exposed to the deprivation, that might affect one's ability to even reason.
This scenario might be the most understandable in terms of violent reaction to oppression.
2) You are enslaved because of the color of your skin. You are lashed repeatedly for "non-compliance", or even perceived wrongs from your "masters". Your family can be sold to another slave-owner. You cannot get out of your living/work arrangements, have freedom of movement, etc. One slave starts a violent rebellion..
This scenario is not as extreme as the first scenario but still very dire. This would call for certain forms of violence. I am not sure it meets the level of "psychosis", but for certain individuals who have been broken by the system, this would definitely apply.
3) You live in a community that is bitter because they see their grandparent's homes were taken over by an enemy ethnicity/religion. You don't accept the circumstances of the current living situation, you either won't settle in another country, or they simply won't take you in. You are encouraged by other communities that you have been wronged. Your conditions are not enslavement or put into labor and death camps, but you lack some freedom of movement, and the ability to have a say in a government that represents your ethnic/religious background. You have a sense your land was stolen and you could be living a better life if you only had that land back..
This scenario doesn't seem to fall at all under the first two which would cause a form of psychosis in the intensity and kind of harm taking place.. It's not enslavement/death camp levels of suffering.
Here is where culture might come into play. As stated earlier, there are cultures, perhaps even situational ones, as created by the non-violence Civil Rights movement in the US, whereby one can try to affect change through sympathy. Or, you can use terrorist methods to invoke fear. Are some cultures more honor-based/justice-based/violence-preference based whereby the Civil Rights option would not even be an option? Of course, it's especially worrisome if it is the fact that the very terrorist reaction to the political non-determination, has created even worse conditions. It seems that it is culturally entrenched, if one doubles down on a (violent) strategy that has actually helped make the situation worse, not better.
Compare the accounts of individuals who remember that when they were children, they were allowed (or ordered, even) to be outside the home unsupervised for part of the day, and accounts of individuals who were closely supervised at all times.
I grew up in a very small town culture where unsupervised time was normal; and accountability was minimal. Nobody asked, "What did you do all day?" I've read accounts of big city culture where unsupervised time was also normal. Trust, yes, but risk too. Children tend to be risk-tolerant or risk-oblivious. Parents of unsupervised children had to be risk-tolerant as well. Bad things do happen: drownings, injuries, fights, mischief, petty theft, etc--without it changing parental regimes.
My sense is that the culture in many places--small town or city--has become more risk averse, and children tend to be supervised much more closely, though not necessarily the "helicopter" level of risk aversion. High expectations are a part of this: upward mobile -aspiring parents subject their children to a lot of organized activities from an early age -- dance, music, soccer, etc. which are (presumably) intended to help them launch into a rising class. Preschool is the first organized performance step to higher education, even before kindergarten.
Upward class mobility effort is a hallmark of middle class culture (defining middle class here as 'well and securely employed parents').
So, to some extent, "high trust level" has been replaced by "high expectation level". Children in this regime are expected to perform well; early; consistently; and over the long haul. Parents whose children are on their own much of the time likely don't have "high expectation levels", in terms of higher education and income, which is not to say they don't care about their children.
High expectations are nurture more than nature.
Back in the late 1980s I had a late night job in Minneapolis. One night I saw a very young child -- 3 or 4 years old, 5 max -- on a sidewalk riding a tricycle by herself at 2:30 am. Shocking anywhere, but this was in a somewhat rough area. That wasn't trust -- that was neglect. Did I do anything about it? No. I kept on moving. So much for the caring culture.
Culture and experience comes into play here. Why didn't the Jews revolt? Strike back? Kill Nazis whenever possible? One reason is that they had been subjected to a severe regime of generalized hatred and repression, wherein they could expect zero sympathy from Germans (or Poles, Ukrainians, etc.) Another is that they were usually unarmed. They were further weakened by hunger, thirst, cold, or heat.
Effective resistance requires a program, planning, instruction, preparation, and then (after a considerable period of time) performance.
Why did the Palestinians in Gaza attack Israel? They too were oppressed. Two reasons: First, they weren't subjected to the conditions of the Warsaw ghetto (at least not until October 8, 2023). Gazans actively traded. Food, water, civil services, medical care, etc. was available. Secondly, their culture included resistance -- a la Hamas. They were armed not only with guns and bullets but by rocketsl. Significantly, Hamas was dug in really well. Hamas seems to be / has been more integrated with Gazans than Hesbollah is/has been with the Lebanese people. Hamas seems to be an integral part of Gaza's culture.
The October 7, 2023 massacre wasn't a spontaneous outburst, but had been planned, prepared for, practiced, and then performed. I don't have any insight into Hamas' reasoning. Did they think Israel would not conduct severe reprisal? Was Israel's retaliation worse than they expected? Do Hamas' managers think they are winning the war?
The message to Gazans (Palestinians in general) is "Resistance is futile! You will not be assimilated, you will be crushed. We will destroy everything you have. You should immigrate--anywhere, really, we don't care. Just get out of our sight!" However, there doesn't seem to be any means by which Gazans CAN leave, and no Arab state is offering them haven.
Apples and oranges, as usual.
Are partisans not a violent resistance group?
The fact that you would try to make the comparison while simultaneously ignoring much more obvious examples like the Irish IRA and the Basque ETA (which undoubtedly would be much less suited to support your arguments) tells me all I need to know.
And no, partisans taking part in a wider military effort are not the same as civil resistance against long-standing oppression.
What even are these arguments?
Is it a classic example of flinging shit at a wall hoping something might stick? Or are you really that far gone that you genuinely believe in these nonsensical comparisons?
Americans always ignored the regional and political conflicts of Europe. IRA was suffered by the Irish and fortunately solved by their own way. Basque ETA was only suffered by us. Nobody cared in the world how a terrorist organisation still targeted and killed people because of political issues, even under democracy. Basque ETA members were called heroes under Franco's regime, but it was more painful, violent, and toxic later on, in the 1980s and 1990s. This issue still has consequences today. I wish we did the things right as the Irish and moved on, but no, the scars are not healed yet.
I don't know whether it is comparable or not. Belfast or Bilbao were not oppressed. Some tell the story of resisting a dictatorship. Well, I can accept this point using my country as an example, but Ireland and the UK? They are full democracies. These conflicts started because of nationalism and religion, like Israel-Palestine, yes. But it would be crazy to say that Basque country was oppressed under a democracy because THEY KEPT KILLING EVEN IN MODERN SPAIN, we should forget this.
But people's sense of identity and the desire for self-determination which flows from that - basically nationalism - is a very powerful force.
Self-determination is also a human right cemented in international law, the denial of which historically has led to all sorts of bloody conflicts.
In other words, it appears the denial of self-determination is in itself perceived as such a grave violation of human dignity that it alone is enough to spur people towards violent resistance.
I think the spectrum/standard for extreme violence still stands by comparing the three scenarios here, that is to say in all cases (Basque, Troubles, Palestine), none of them would meet the standard of targeting/torturing/raping civilians, whether to strike fear, as leverage, or to provoke a response, or whatever else. See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/937937
Of course, each one of those cases/regions is different, and culture plays a factor in this. At the end of the day, whether uneasy peace or not, the Irish resistance compromised with the British. The ability to compromise or take less than what one would originally want, again plays into cultural differences. If a culture values "justice" (heavily scare quoted here) or honor above all else, including the peace and prosperity of living in a self-determined state with "less than the original intended goal", then you will never get a peace, and violence becomes its own ends.
You can't save everything. If you see abandoned dogs running around, sometimes you can try to see if you can catch them and send to shelter, sometimes you can't, not convenient. The street example might have been too broad. What if the parents are right there and the kid is mindlessly riding his tricycle in the street? Makes sense in a sleepy little cul-de-sac, not so much a street connecting two main roads. Again, this is getting too in the weeds.
Quoting BC
This is true. Just unregulated "outdoor play" isn't encouraged as much anymore. You do need a community in the right location for that though.. Unregulated outdoor play could be making forts or it could be learning to make drug deals and stealing catalytic converters. If you are in a forts-like community, that should be encouraged more.
Quoting BC
In scenario 1, I was thinking on some stories where Jews did have a chance to fight back after Allies freed camps or even the rare escapees. I'd imagine someone under that much physical torture, the immediate response to people when fleeing/encountering the people that tortured you might not be so positive. I would totally think this different than the kind of situation of Gaza. I think people want to equate the two, as if Gazan violence is akin to psychosis induced labor/death camp conditions of violence.
Quoting BC
Yeah, so you seem to agree with what I said above.
Quoting BC
And this is perhaps where culture comes into play.. Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Houthis, etc. Does a generalized view of "oppression" play out differently in different cultures. I mentioned the difference between the Irish Good Friday Agreement, let's say. They too were aggrieved, but compromised. Is that a cultural difference? Does compromise translate in some cultures more easily than others? One problem might be when one takes a cultural habit of "intransigence' and makes it into a universal principle of justice to rationalize it. Someone not actually from the culture, might mistake the two. Or it might be a mix of both.. But I'm not sure how much is political philosophy "JUSTICE" or cultural habit "JUSTICE". The first claims to be a sort of political rationale, the other is sort of an underlying worldview that comes from simply being in that society that is handed down from long-held beliefs of that culture.
It took them eight centuries of resistance.
Israel is not going to last eight centuries. It will be lucky if it lasts another eight years by the way things are going.
Eh, I'm not going down a rabbit hole, but I'm just going to separate the "Troubles" from other parts of the history, as the part that started around the 60s and ended in the 90s is where that modern agreement really came about. I'm not saying that the factors for the Troubles didn't start much earlier.. Obviously there had to be the factors that started it...
The suggestion that the Palestinians are somehow uniquely violent or unable to compromise simply has no basis in reality.
The 80s year war between Spanish Empire and Dutch was indeed a long and bloody one, no doubt. In some ways, the modern ideas of smaller nation states freeing themselves from larger imperial entities, came from this and the Thirty Years Wars.
But this is exactly my point- what makes something a political versus a cultural feature? Look at a another example from the Dutch- how they handled Belgium's plea for independence in 1830. So, can there be a difference between how war was carried out in the Early Modern Era, versus the later modern era? So even the Irish centuries of war, by the time it came to violence in the 20th century, was more-or-less resolved within 30-40 years. Belgium was granted independence in 1830 with an initial violent suppression that then let up a year later. As time moved forward, conflicts get resolved more quickly.. Due to various factors like technology, "Enlightened" thinking, and such, cultural values can change. Obviously that can go for better or worse.. Germany obviously is an example going the other way. I can even say that the militarism of the 1870s contributed to WWI and certainly WW2 in Germany, and so that yes, culture played a factor there.. But at the same time, other cultural forces, like Enlightenment values (prior to WW2), allowed Germany to move forward rather quickly after their defeat. Just like the 80s year war and the Belgium independence possibly played a factor in the rather passive role of the Dutch in the 20th century.
But certainly, the idea of glorification of "martyrdom", and educational role of violent resistance, and how how death is viewed in this resistance plays a role in how one carries out violence. And so, whilst not inherent in a "people", it can be harder for a certain culture to move forward because of this.
If the IRA and Palestinians were comparable, that would mean the IRA seeks to conquer England and install rigid Catholic rule. It would state in their Constitution their absolute commitment to conquering London.
Next on the agenda .. Race! Is 'race' cultural? Can we blame a 'race' because race=culture in some respects.
I honestly do not think this discussion will get far because people here are too emotional about such topics. Culture is a many-headed hydra! It is an umbrella term that covers pretty much every aspect of human life.
At the end of the day I do not really think you can blame a whole body of people. People are stupid, so it is hardly their fault for coming up with ideas that are mistaken nor it is the fault of the stupid who know no better following them blindly into the fray.
The simple truth is most of us would have been the prison guard at the concentration camp rather than the one standing up against genocide. The best hope we have is to realise the monster we see in others is only possible because we recognise it in ourselves. The more repulsive something is to us the more likely we are to refuse we are capable of such a crime ... unfortunately this is usually a sign that we would be that repulsive monster.
:100:
Quoting schopenhauer1
There's no comparing Gaza to slavery or a Nazi concentration camp. The question of the slave is interesting: There was the case of Nat Turner, an escaped slave who went on a rampage killing white people in the South. I think most would say this is wrong but there remains sympathy for it in some circles. It is understandable on some level how the oppressed class could harbor such hatred for not only their direct oppressors, but everyone of that group. Still wrong, but understandable. The Gaza situation is obviously far removed from that as you mention. I know of no cases where concentration camp survivors went house to house murdering Germans.
They are not. The IRA were a terrorist organisation and the Palestinians are a population of people. Maybe you meant IRA and Hamas? In which case I would not agree. The IRA were not genocidal.
Quoting I like sushi
:up:
Quoting I like sushi
:100:
About 2 million Germans were murdered in reprisal genocides across Eastern Europe towards the end of and immediately following WWII. Perhaps 3 million. Over 10 million were expropriated and displaced. Mass killings and rapes are extremely well documented here.
Previously Germans were settled throughout the eastern half of Europe; they virtually don't exist there anymore.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)
Obviously the Red Army is the key culprit in terms of allowing its soldiers to loot and rape on foreign lands with almost absolute impunity, particularly in Germany and the Balkans, but partisans and civilians took part in this too.
West Germany put the figure at 14.6 million of which only 6.8% were new arrivals moved east during the war into the Third Reich's conquests.
Glorification of martyrdom (achieved in cultural indoctrination) seems like it has to tap into the motivational power of the limbic system--which is provided by nature. Nothing too odd about that -- soldiers are prepared to fight (and die, perhaps) through indoctrination and "feeling the burn" of hitting the beach, going over the top of the ridge, moving forward under fire. Adrenalin plays a role here.
I don't know what, exactly, suicide bomber martyrs feel just before they blow themselves up in a crowded cafe. Maybe not much of an adrenalin kick, maybe not much of a highly motivated limbic burn. After all, they don't want to give themselves away too soon, by looking like an hysterical crazy person, for instance. Maybe they feel a beatific calm.
In any case, their emotions must be in service to, and subservient to, the thinking part of the brain.
Of course, our limbic systems are behind a lot of ordinary behavior, not just the extremes of battle and martyring one's self. Guilt, for instance, is "a gift that keeps on giving". It a powerful motivator and suppressor of behavior. It's shaped by culture (nurturing parents and their value system) early on. Other institutions step in to nail down particular cultural values. Then we're kind of stuck with it, unless we work very hard at reprogramming ourselves, to whatever extent reprogramming is possible.
Aside from good luck or outside intervention, the small percentage of people who survived the Nazi concentration camps, the Soviet gulags, or Gaza...) had to have strong minds and strong emotional (limbic system) machinery.
Culture is important, but it isn't enough.
Here is a joke about Islam's martyrs:
Question: How many virgins will I have in heaven after I am martyred?
Answer: 72 beautiful women to do with as you please.
Question: What will women get in heaven after they are martyred?
Answer: One faithful man.
Quoting BC
What about holding hostages of another country which in turn holds your own people hostage? Your version is 20 years old. Though I know trends make a come back :death:
Yes, because there is a greater level of intentionality involved in the badness of the second person. They are doing the bad thing more purposefully and intentionally.
I basically agree. Now, the more complex question though, is when does it become incumbent upon people of a certain culture to evaluate a possible negative cultural trait/feature to see if it needs to change?
If in a previous culture, dogs were allowed to roam around a village, sometimes getting injured, sometimes getting lost, mostly doing "ok", getting fed by all the people of the village, and then in the new culture, dogs are supposed to be solely the responsibility of a certain person/family at a certain boundary of property for the safety/well-being of others who might be affected as well as the animal's welfare, at what point should the previous culture adopt/adapt to the new culture, if at all? At what point might one take the new cultural feature (FOR ETHICAL/PHILOSOHPICAL/REASONED considerations) and change the previous culture, if at all? [Please note, I don't mean change to "fit in", but because one has reasoned it's in some way axiologically perceived as a better/improved cultural habit.]
This of course, is a very mild example. There are more extreme ones revolving around education, "rights", martyrdom, and a whole host of things. It also gets tricky because "culture" can easily be misconstrued with "political philosophy" (think the individualism of Anglo-American culture vs. the social democracy of Scandinavian countries perhaps).
I don't think there is an easy answer to this, but I would say that a bad habit should change when it is self-consciously recognized to be a bad habit and the necessary resources to make a change are available. This applies to individuals and cultures.
The flip side of this has to do with external judgment and external influence. We can ask about the self-reflective question of self-change, or we can ask about the question of changing another. For example, the interventions into World War II on the part of the Allied powers were in part motivated by a judgment of German actions which was external to Germany itself. That is, when speaking of the war, Germany did not seek to change itself. Instead, an external set of agents sought to change Germany.
Sure, but there was something in German society at that time whereby when the leadership was defeated, and the country basically conquered militarily, there was no further uprisings/insurrections. That is to say, the country had traditions, or a sense of "unification" (in its government/leadership) whereby formal treaties of war are respected and followed (even if they had the most despicable forms of rule of all humanity prior to that formal surrender). One can imagine a different cultural milieu, in which insurrections of ex-military or rogue groups, kept the fight going continuously, even using terrorist methods of asymmetrical warfare. Places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East, would be a different story in terms of how a military defeats a region. Of course, this might have less to do with culture than political arrangements (fractured leadership, ethnic divides, non-unified sense of national identity).
Yes, I think it is widely recognized that it flowed from political arrangements, namely because the aftermath of WWII was different from the aftermath of WWI in precisely the respect you identify. In fact the political arrangements that followed WWII were a recalibration of the failed political arrangements that followed WWI. It therefore seems more likely that the difference was due to postwar political arrangements rather than the nature of German culture.
At what point though is it incumbent upon the person with the "bad (cultural) habit" to change them, ethically? When it leads to harm? When should a cultural habit that leads to possible harm be excused?
You seem to be conflating the questions of self-correction and other-correction, which I want to keep distinct. I already answered your first question: "when it is self-consciously recognized to be a bad habit and the necessary resources to make a change are available." What is bad and what is harmful are not identical notionally, but if someone thinks that only harm is bad then they will only self-consciously recognize something to be a bad habit if it is harmful.
(We can only self-excuse when we lack the available resources to change, for the very fact that we are considering excusing shows that we already see the habit or action to be bad.)
Self-recognizing as bad habit seems to be vague then. You are stating a truism rather than a normative course of action.
UM is trying very hard to change its culture, for better or worse? -- I have my suspicions, but I've never been there--I don't know.
What happens to a person when they are, or believe they have been discriminated against is both cultural (how our thinking is shaped by the experiences of our culture), emotional (directly and indirectly), and a combination of thinking and gut response.
UM has engaged in an extensive program of cultural engineering, trying to achieve "a life of seamless belonging" for everyone, but specifically for the 13 specific minority categories. (Everybody else apparently already 'belongs'.) To achieve this lofty goal, "The initial planning ultimately yielded nearly 2,000 action items across campus a tribute to Michigans belief in the power of bureaucratic process to promote change. Its important to focus on our standard operating procedures and worry less about attitudes, said Sellers, who was appointed Michigans first chief diversity officer. Attitudes will follow.
To make a long story short, after 8 years, black enrollment stands at 4%--the same place it was in 1970. That's a major failure, because the whole DEI program was in response to SCOTUS invalidating affirmative action in admissions in several decisions. Another failure is that there is more conflict on campus involving more and more subtle discriminations.
What bureaucracy doesn't seem to be able to change is the emotional consequences of events that are perceived by individuals to be discriminatory. So, a student is accidentally 'misgendered', one minority student is confused with another, or a 'triggering word' is read from a text in a literature class. Rage follows. Complaints are filed. Hearings are held. Notes are put in files. Around and around this goes.
All of this can be properly charged to the larger "Culture". But can a "culture" change itself?
Administrators can change the rules for tax accounting. Accountants will read the rules and apply them. Or not, in which case, the change will be litigated, and the accounting rule will be clarified. A drug can be defined as the standard treatment for cancer. Physicians will use the drug, and because it leads to cures, the standard will hold. If it doesn't, the standard won't hold. Agronomists can specify how much nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus to apply to fields for given soil types and given crops. Farmers read the recommendations and follow them, and get good yields. If they don't, they'll try other combinations.
All that is culture, too, but not much emotion is involved in accounting rules, medical guidelines, or fertilization routines. No one feels insulted if their doctor recommends a monoclonal antibody for their cancer instead of a platinum-derived drug.
Achieving harmony, belonging, equality, opportunity, happiness, fulfillment, peace, etc. are just not easily achieved by bureaucratic direction, These good things have been achieved by billions of people in various settings, but they did it by struggle, conflict, and persistence--not through bureaucratic direction.
Individuals who are struggling to climb social ladders have to strive against opposition, which will predictably be provided by both competitors and the people who occupy the rungs above them. They may succeed, they may not. But struggle is how cultures achieve equilibrium, and people tend to achieve goals. And strivers have a big emotional element in their efforts. They will have intense emotional experiences as a result of their efforts. Some of these will be pleasant, some painful. That's life.
Another point: I used to have more confidence in social engineering. The older I get, the more I learn, the less certain I am that we can engineer our culture for specific ends. Creating economic opportunity is one thing; making people use the opportunity is something else. Wanting people to play well together is one thing, making them play well is something else.
UM should just admit more blacks, queers, hispanics, etc, and then let the chips fall where they may.