“Because they were hypocrites,” Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, “the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves-they took no moral stances and lived by none.”
“So they were morally superior to the Victorians-” Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under. “-even though-in fact, because-they had no morals at all.” There was a moment of silent, bewildered head-shaking around the copper table.
“We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy,” Finkle-McGraw continued. “In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception-he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it’s a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing.”
“That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code,” Major Napier said, working it through, “does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code.”
“Of course not,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It’s perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved-the missteps we make along the way are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power.”
I’m uncomfortable with Stephenson’s take here* on hypocrisy because I think it neglects context. His implied analysis holds in the context of a homogeneous culture, but fails badly in a relatively heterogeneous one, and here’s why:
In a heterogeneous/multicultural society, the moral stances you publically advocate signal a frame for others, who hold different values, to engage with you. They tell others about what topics to avoid in discussion, how to predict your behavior, and so on—generally, how to behave politely and get along with you.
In the heterogeneous society, the hypocrite is wasting other people’s time, in forcing unnecessary behavioral accomodations on them.
*: It’s possible that Stephenson was entirely aware of what I’m saying here, since he’s describing only the semi-closed neo-Victorians, but those who quote him take the description at face value.
The word “multicultural” deserves a better analysis. What exactly is a “culture” (besides that for many people it is an applause light), which parts of culture should we preserve and which are free for optimization, whether we can measure a utility function of a culture and whether that function itself is culture-specific, whether cultures can be extrapolated, how much can human cultures be different, et cetera.
The important part is that we are speaking about human cultures, which puts some limit on how different they can be. We should not discuss them as if there is no such limit, as if an arbitrary set of values can be a culture, and each such set is automatically an applause light.
To the extent that humans from different cultures can share values, there can be common values even in the multicultural society. And there can be cross-cultural hypocrisy with regards to these common values.
In other words, we should not model humans from different cultures as incomprehensible aliens. Funny thing is that there two opposite political reasons to do so. The obvious one: racists/nationalists/etc. try to describe the other people as completely alien, to make it easier to explain why we should avoid them. The more subtle one: politically correct people sometimes also describe humans from other culture as aliens, just to signal how tolerant they are; because tolerance to an alien is more difficult, and therefore more noble, than tolerance to a mere human.
In yet other words, the “multicultural” society—as its greatest proponents and opponents imagine it—does not really exist. There is just an interaction between different human cultures, which includes a lot of differences, but also a lot of shared values.
As far as I can see, “multiculturalism” is the belief that we should celebrate and encourage diversity because we are all really the same.
If one looks at the competing Christological doctrines of early Christianity—Arianism, monophysitism, monothelitism, Marcionism, Patripassianism, Nestorianism, Chalcedonianism, and so on, from a modern atheistic perspective it all looks insane. Even leaving aside one’s presumption of the non-existence of the relevant supernatural entities, it still looks like a mass of confabulation accreted like a pearl in an oyster, around a seed of irritation resulting from thinking about how Jesus could have been both a man and God.
So, after perusing that section of the Wikipedia page I just linked, look at the first paragraph of Wikipedia on multiculturalism.
Doesn’t it look just as insane? Is “a society at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit” any more meaningful a string of words than “the human nature and pre-incarnate divine nature of Christ were united as one divine human nature from the point of the Incarnation onwards”? What would the bishops who argued about the latter at Chalcedon have made of the former? Never mind agreeing or disagreeing with it, what would it even mean?
What exactly is “a society at ease with the rich tapestry of human life”?
Am I “at ease” with cultures that have a hobby of cutting small girls’ genitalia? Hell no! Does that make me an intolerant racist, or whatever is the most appropriate boo light today? So sue me, or at least make sure I will never get a job at academia!
Multiculturalism is an applause light, until you look at specific details. Then it sometimes gets ugly. Of course, to remain “politically correct” you have to stay in the far mode, and ignore all the details. It’s easier that way.
Just like “desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit”. Again, if your desire includes a desire to cut small girls’ genitalia, then I think those girls deserve to have their opinion heard too. If that is against your sick religion, again, you have the choice to sue me, criticize me in media, assassinate me, or all three things combined. (In a sufficiently “politically correct” society you literally could do all three suggested things, and then have some educated people excuse your actions.)
This all is a completely different thing from when people from village X decide to wear robes with red flowers, and people from village Y decide to wear robes with blue flowers. Or if Americans pour ketchup over all their foods, while Asians use the soy sauce. With that kind of culture I have no problems. I also have no problems with folk songs, operas, paintings, or books (assuming those books don’t preach something I find repulsive).
It is bad that these two things are often mixed together under a wide umbrella of “culture”. Then it makes people objecting to genital mutilation seem like brain-damaged bigots obsessing about the right color of flowers on everyone’s robes. And that is pretty dishonest. And evil.
To all those claiming that multiculturalism has no downsides, I would like to point out that “equal time for creationism” sprung from and used multiculturalism; the notion that you can justify anything using religious freedom can and does lead to Bad Things being justified thus. AFAIK no real society is perfectly multicultural, but that’s poor implementation; a bug, not a feature.
EDIT: I am in favour of all the Good Things that spring to mind when we hear “multiculturalism”, and do not advocate the Bad Things associated with opposing it (ie a single monolithic and enforced culture.)
That’s false. It happened in 1980 in Queensland, and 1985 in Turkey (the latter continuing to the present). Just a few years ago in Switzerland, many schools had science books that gave equal time for creationism, but it was controversial and ultimately rejected.
While a separate issue, many Islamic countries ban the teaching of evolution or teach an “intelligent design” friendly version.
Am I “at ease” with cultures that have a hobby of cutting small girls’ genitalia?
Exactly which multiculturalist do you think are “at ease” with that behavior?
In a sufficiently “politically correct” society you literally could do [criticize me in media, assassinate me], and then have some educated people excuse your actions.
Assassination is not really an accepted political move in Western Europe or the US, which are the domains of political correctness. I challenge you to find a recent murder in either region that was not prosecuted by the government authorities for “political correctness” (as opposed to established legal doctrines like insanity).
Exactly which multiculturalist do you think are “at ease” with that behavior?
About as many as there are environmentalists who are “at ease” with the mercury content of compact fluorescent bulbs, while campaigning to abolish incandescents. Female genital mutilation is a cultural practice, but instead of saying that this cultural practice is wrong and should be stopped, which a multiculturalist cannot do, some of them say that “there are cultural and political aspects to the practice’s continuation that make opposition to it a complex issue”, or that “the ritual of FGM has been the primary context in some communities in which the women come together”, or that colonial attempts at eradication constitute “interference with women’s decisions about their own rituals”, or that “its apparent victims were in fact its central actors”. Quotes from Wikipedia.
A multiculturalist could take a different tack and argue that FGM is not a cultural practice, making it permissible to oppose. However, since it is a cultural practice, and is clearly understood and explicitly stated by those who practice it to be a cultural practice, that isn’t so easy to maintain. But I doubt impossible; the insanity is not peculiar to philosophers and theologians, but is bred whenever one is obliged to cling to both sides of a contradiction.
Exactly which multiculturalist do you think are “at ease” with that behavior?
About as many as there are environmentalists who are “at ease” with the mercury content of compact fluorescent bulbs, while campaigning to abolish incandescents.
On both points: what the flaming Hell are you talking about? Snopes says,
the amount housed in each bulb is very small, about 4 or 5 milligrams, which in volume is about the size of the period at the end of a sentence. (By comparison, old-style mercury thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury, an amount equal to the mercury found in 125 CFL bulbs.)
(Wiki-link added.) See also the information—in particular, the graph of lifetime mercury emissions for incandescent vs flourescent—at Energystar.gov.
So the comparison with FGM seems truly bizarre. I also don’t think you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about when it comes to FGM and multiculturalism—in particular, I doubt you bothered to follow the link to the Lynn Thomas source. It seems straightforwardly descriptive. Feminists sometimes criticize attempts to impose a ban in African nations because bans tend not to work and may turn this horrific practice into a symbol of resistance to imperialism. I gather people have had more success by talking to mothers about the health risks. So this seems like a fine example of how:
*understanding other cultures can help you talk to people and find common values
*conservatives talking about feminism or “multiculturalism” often look really stupid.
We are seeing political memes here, standard stories or arguments. First, the mercury in CFLs compared to the impact of incandescents. That one is just plain silly, and hairyfigment cited some good sources. Sure, mercury in CFLs is a matter of concern, but in the real world, we must compare choices until we have better ones.
As to Female Genital Mutilation, I have a perspective on it, as I have a daughter from Ethiopia, a place where female circumcision is practiced, and there was some suspicion that she had been circumcised. (Believe it or not, it’s not always easy to tell. The ultimate professional opinion was, No.)
Is it “mutilation” or is it a “cultural practice” or does it have some other purpose?
There are all kinds of variation in the process. But to start, what about “Male Genital Mutilation,” i.e., circumcision, which is practically universal in Islam and Judaism? Female circumcision is controversial in Islam, and, apparently, was a pre-Islamic practice that was allowed, the Prophet is reported as saying, “If you cut your women, cut only a little.” It was never considered an obligation by sane Muslim scholars.
The horror stories that are told about FGM are far, far from a “little.” Probably the soundest approach to alleviating suffering here would be education, and that is exactly what is going on in Ethiopia.
Someone who imagines that there is some moral absolute here is dreaming. It looks like a cultural absolutism is being suggested. This culture is good and that culture is bad. Personally, I’m horrified by the extreme stories. However, I was also circumcised as a boy, it was routine, and my parents were Christian. And that has gone in and out of fashion over the years. Because my older boys were born at home, they were not immediately circumcised. There were problems, later, and eventually they went through the procedure. And it was a real problem, the doctor botched it. It would have been trivial at birth. Does that mean that boys should be circumcized?
No. It may indicate that if it’s going to be done, doing it earlier is probably less traumatic, for technical reasons. And doing it is largely a matter of cultural preference, and people do get crazy over Male Genital Mutilation.
It is bad that these two things are often mixed together under a wide umbrella of “culture”. Then it makes people objecting to genital mutilation seem like brain-damaged bigots obsessing about the right color of flowers on everyone’s robes. And that is pretty dishonest. And evil.
Would you mind describing the Schelling fence between those two things.
What exactly is “a society at ease with the rich tapestry of human life”?
Am I “at ease” with cultures that have a hobby of cutting small girls’ genitalia?
Policy debates should not appear one-sided. There are pluses and minuses to multiculturalism. Other cultures have good and bad aspects, and the default for humans is to reject anything out-group, good or bad. So a shove in the direction of the ridiculous caricature of multiculturalism above would generally be a good thing, on the whole.
Multiculturalism is an applause light, until you look at specific details. Then it sometimes gets ugly.
Compared to what? If you have a sitation, where de facto, severla cultures are under a single politcal
authority with a predominant culture, there are only so many things that can happen:
1) The minority culture(s) are physcially expelled—pogroms.
2) Wall are built within the state—apartheid, ghettos
3) The minority cultures are foricibly homogenised or converted
4) The minority cultures are tolerated.
I think it is pretty clear that 4 is the least ugly. Even if it needs a little bit of (3) to work. Which is where
most of the controversy comes from.
In point 4 you misuse the word pogrom, while deportation may include pogroms those aren’t a necessary feature. And even when violent they often in the long term solve many difficult problems and resolve sources of conflict, see the population exchange between Greece and Turkey.
5) The multi-ethnic state is broken up along ethnic lines
This can occur violently or relatively peacefully as in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia or the independence of Slovenia. Other times they are accompanied by violence see the independence of Ireland or Greece or some anti-colonial movements. This was the ideal in large part was behind the self-determination. See also self-determination.
6) The state is already practically mono-cultural, simply don’t allow immigration where the immigrants are unlikely to assimilate
Now depending on the features of the society option 6 might mean practically no immigration (Japan) or relatively high levels (19th century France or America for white immigrants) depending on various factors.
I could have included extermination, and I could have been accused of baising the issue even more
Extermination was indeed historically used by states (especially in newly conquered territories) but to me it seems to be a separate solution from deportation or expulsion. Sometimes however deportation was used as a cover for extermination.
That is the extreme of (2). Aparthied-era SA included “independent homelands”.
By formulating it as you did originally you imported negative connotations. By picking this particular example you again import negative connotations. Many of these are pretty reasonable. Independence imports positive connotations, many of these are pretty reasonable. But you seem to refuse to accept the latter. Why?
In any case I think there is a big difference between setting up say a Millet system or some other kind of separation in the same state and dissolving the state entirely and have each cultural community be sovereign.
I was assuming that it isnt. You cant’ solve the problem of de facto multi-ethnicity by wishing it had never happened.
Isn’t this a narrow perspective? Just because this isn’t a solution to existing multicultural societies like say the US it doesn’t mean it isn’t a viable solution for many other societies (such as say Japan or Finland).
I guess you are right but it is a solution to the “what to do about cultural diversity” question. And you should add a disclaimer that not all states are multicultural.
If you don’t have any asteroids crashing on your planet, there is nothing to do about it.
Sure, in effect, we’re not randomly throwing asteroid-cracking missiles out in empty, asteroid-less space.
We’re certainly preparing for it and putting in place pre-emptive countermeasures, though, AFAIK.
Japan and Finland have effective strategies for dealing with cultural diversity, namely: Pre-emptively apply social measures to prevent any cultural diversity from reaching critical mass where it starts having social weight.
Gosh. There’s a lot of people who know that DIversity is Bad (and not just that some specifics things that some ethinicities do that aren’t neecessarily opposed by some form of MC are bad).
Wow. I’d really love to see the chain of reasoning that went from “For dealing with cultural diversity, preventing it altogether is an effective strategy.” all the way to “Cultural diversity is morally wrong and should be prevented at all costs!”
Or were you just assuming that such were my beliefs because I was giving a counterargument to one of your soldiers?
Note: When I get strawmanned, ad-hominem’d or targeted with sarcasm and satire, I do get confrontational. The above tone is intentional, for once.
It’s the most effective strategy because it incurs the least cost for the most effect. It deals with it quite nicely, and there is very little social disturbance.
Whether I think it’s a bad thing, or need a strategy, is irrelevant. Japan has implemented such a strategy. I can’t speak for Finland’s current state because I’m very misinformed on that country, I’ve learned recently.
Indeed, you won’t come up with and implement such a strategy if you think the costs of cultural diversity will be greater than the opportunity costs of not having any + costs of preventing it. This doesn’t prevent anyone from noticing, naming, and perhaps even analyzing this strategy once it has already been used and shown to the world, even if we disagree with the reasons behind its implementation (or disagree on the specific meaning of “dealing with”—for them, not having any is just as much “dealt with” as for us a long-term, self-sustaining/reinforcing, mutually-beneficial ecosystem would be “dealing with” multiple cultures).
It’s the most effective strategy because it incurs the least cost for the most effect. It deals with it quite nicely, and there is very little social disturbance.
If “disturbance” (not “change” or “revitalsiation”) is a cost, and if homegeneity is a benefit...yes. If homegeneity
is bad, and revitalisation is needed, the opposite follows. You don’t have a neutral c/b analysis there, it is loaded.
You could do a polictically neutral analysis in terms of how man dollars or yen immigration brings in, but it is by no means guaranteed to come up with zero as the optimum figure.
I think it is pretty clear that 4 is the least ugly.
Only because you’ve chosen the alternatives in order to favour it. “The melting pot”, as a description of America’s former waves of immigration, does not fit any of them.
“(4), oh, and with a little bit of (3)” is glossing over the problem, trying to save an unsalvageable idea by changing the words used to express it. Besides, a multiculturalist would give you stick for using the word “tolerated”, which is insufficiently accepting these days. Try “celebrated”, which suggests happy friendly things like colourful street parties and festivals, framing cultural differences as dressing-up games.
An alternative not on your list: immigrants aspiring towards assimilation into a single culture to which they give their allegiance, superseding their original one, of which nothing remains but the dressing-up aspects.
“(4), oh, and with a little bit of (3)” is glossing over the problem, trying to save an unsalvageable idea by changing the words used to express it.
Are you sure it is not a differnt idea? Are you saying anythign with the label “mutlicuralism” is unsalvageable, irrespective of what it is*?
I am saying that the concept described by the Wikipedia article I linked, which seems to me an accurate statement of what “multiculturalism” is generally used as a name for, is incoherent. Privately using the word differently doesn’t change that. “(4) with a side order of (3)” looks more like a rationalisation of the incoherence of the original concept than a decision to use the word to name something else.
ETA: On further thought, I might be being too inflexible. One might certainly present a model of how people of multiple cultures should coexist as “multiculturalism”, even if the model deviates substantially from the current one that goes by that name. One would, in effect, be presenting the model as a new interpretation of a deeper, unchanging fundamental concept, superior to the previous interpretation.
Certainly, that describes the history of Euler’s Theorem: mathematicians coming to a better understanding of the underlying concepts and finding better expressions of mathematical truths. But then, there is an unchanging objective reality in mathematics. In sociology, not so much. Instead, one has to adopt the methods of religion, presenting a new concept as merely a better understanding of the old.
An alternative not on your list: immigrants aspiring towards assimilation into a single culture to which they give their allegiance, superseding their original one, of which nothing remains but the dressing-up aspects.
In a different subthread*, the line of reasoning went that this does not positively “deal with” multiculturalism, but rather eliminates or prevents it. This seems to be part of what is happening in Japan; IIRC they deliberately filter immigrants for willingness to blend in, though they do so in more politically-correct terms.
* This one, though most of the replies that are most relevant will probably be hidden, since it appears Peterdjones is being heavily downvoted on this topic for some reason.
An alternative not on your list: immigrants aspiring towards assimilation into a single culture to which they give their allegiance, superseding their original one, of which nothing remains but the dressing-up aspects.
“let the problem solve itself”..
How do you have a policy of people just voluntarily doing what is most convenient? Can you eliminate crime that way?
ETA:
incoherent
All I can see is you stating that MC construed in a particular way has consequences you don’t like. That isn’t incoherence
I’m not familiar with the history of the migrations to the USA of the 19th and early 20th centuries beyond a quick look at Wikipedia, but from that, it looks like it pretty much did solve itself. There was friction. It passed.
I’m not familiar with the history of the migrations to the USA of the 19th and early 20th centuries beyond a quick look at Wikipedia, but from that, it looks like it pretty much did solve itself.
Weren’t severe restrictions on immigration, practically closed borders, instituted during the early 1900s?
It depends a bit on ethnicity. Quotas were in place that favored Northern and Western Europeans over Eastern and Southern (Mediterranean) Europeans. And anyone from Europe was favored over Japanese or Chinese—thus things like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1880.
Those favored ethnicities were also those closest to the existing elites’ desired American culture, which kinda makes the point: they felt the more dissimilar ethnicities couldn’t be absorbed at their existing immigration rate.
it looks like it pretty much did solve itself. There was friction. It passed.
Bussing, voter registration drives and reservations are all quite artificial and politicaly driven. Even pledging allegiance is a mildish form of (3).
ETA: Incidentally, you have throughout been associating multiculturalism with immigration, but minority aborginal populations can be relevant as well. Among other things.
Can you eliminate crime that way?
What has that to do with this discussion?
It is a way of making the point that hoping that problems solve themselves is hardly ever a workable solution to anything.
All I can see is you stating that MC construed in a particular way has consequences you don’t like.
I don’t see where you see that. Rather, RichardKennaway seems to be saying that MC construed in the usual way is incoherent. I’m not seeing any mention of consequences.
Perhaps I should have made more explicit references back. The incoherence that I see is what I was talking about when I originally said this:
As far as I can see, “multiculturalism” is the belief that we should celebrate and encourage diversity because we are all really the same.
It’s that basic contradiction:
We are all different! Diversity! CLAP NOW!
We are all the same! Equality! CLAP NOW!
that this thread has been about: how do you support “the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit” without prohibiting yourself from criticising abhorrent cultural customs like FGM? It’s that contradiction that gives rise to the contortions around the subject of FGM that I earlier quoted from the Wikipedia page.
how do you support “the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit” without prohibiting yourself from criticising abhorrent cultural customs like FGM?
One common approach is called “liberalism”. It ascribes certain notional boundaries — called “rights” — to each individual; and asserts that each individual may do as they choose to express their identity, so long as they do not transgress the notional boundaries of another person. This places certain limits on the ways each person can “express their own identity in the manner they see fit” in order to define a space in which all others can do so too.
It’s that basic contradiction: We are all different! Diversity! CLAP NOW! We are all the same! Equality! CLAP NOW!
The conflict between individuality and cultural consistency is practically as old as civilization itself. Most ideologies throughout history included ad hoc, unprincipled, case-by-case solutions to those problems.
Why do you think that multi-culturalism is more inconsistent and unprincipled than any other historical solution to the individuality / group identity problem?
The conflict between individuality and cultural consistency is practically as old as civilization itself. Most ideologies throughout history included ad hoc, unprincipled, case-by-case solutions to those problems.
Why do you think that multi-culturalism is more inconsistent and unprincipled than any other historical solution to the individuality / group identity problem?
The problem is not that it is inconsistent and unprincipled, but that it is inconsistent and principled.
Prizing equal rights obviously isn’t in tension with prizing diverse human exercise of those rights. You haven’t cited a contradiction. However, we could use your argument to spin off a real tension:
Similarity (e.g., our common humanity, our common interests and heritage and concerns) is valuable. But dissimilarity (e.g., cultural and individual diversity) is also valuable. So ‘value’ seems to be trivial.
Response: What we really value is not ‘being the same’ or ‘being different’ in a vacuum. What we value is (a) being similar or different in particular respects, and (b) having a certain ratio of similarity to difference. The English language just isn’t sophisticated enough to allow for easy slogans of either of those forms. We can’t easily signal that we value diversity, but in specific areas and not in all areas; likewise for valuing some similarities, but not all. And we can’t easily signal that we value a certain mixture of sameness and differentness, because too much of one or the other would make life less worth living. They seem like platitudes, but they aren’t false, and they’re worth taking seriously if only because they stand in for so many specific attributes that we need to take very seriously. It’s just important to see past the surface structure of some virtues.
“Equality” never means identicality in the political context. It instead means equal value or equal worth.
That’s what we’re talking about. Requiring a religious day of rest every Friday, or every Saturday, or every Sunday, are indeed practices of equal worth. FGM is not of equal worth with those.
It means people are of equal worth. In liberal democracies you don’t have to show that any kind of behaviour is of worth before you do it, you have to show that is does no harm and has consent.
Sayign he doesn’t like FGM doens’t demosntrate incoherence.
I don’t know who would think that would demonstrate incoherence. And I don’t notice RichardKennaway pointing out that he doesn’t like FGM, so that seems totally irrelevant.
He did say he doens’t like FGM and the only reason for linking that to the charge of incoherence is that it is the only criciticsm he offered. Of course, the charge of incoherence might have unstated motivations, or be his way of saying “I just don;t like it”, etc, etc.
Ah, different thread, thanks. Yes, there doesn’t seem to be anything in that comment where RichardKennaway connects FGM with incoherence. You seem to be jumping to conclusions.
The more subtle one: politically correct people sometimes also describe humans from other culture as aliens, just to signal how tolerant they are; because tolerance to an alien is more difficult, and therefore more noble, than tolerance to a mere human.
The red car effect/availability heuristic at work—I instantly thought of a Zizek quote. Or were you quoting this bit too?
“Liberal attitudes towards the other are characterized both by respect for otherness, openness to it, and an obsessive fear of harassment. In short, the other is welcomed insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as it is not really the other. Tolerance thus coincides with its opposite. My duty to be tolerant towards the other effectively means that I should not get too close to him or her, not intrude into his space—in short, that I should respect his intolerance towards my over-proximity. This is increasingly emerging as the central human right of advanced capitalist society: the right not to be ‘harassed’, that is, to be kept at a safe distance from others.”
I’m more on the “good fences make good neighbors” side, which I guess is the opposite from Zizek (judging by this quote; I don’t know more about his opinions). He criticizes the fear of harassment (and labels it “obsessive”, just to remind the reader that it is a boo light); I would like to talk also about those specific situations where the threat is real.
To me it seems that the “politically correct” description of people from other cultures is that they are a) completely different, but also b) completely harmless.
On the other hand, my opinion is that people from other cultures are often very similar, but even the small differences can be dangerous.
A “political correct” picture of a different people is something like this: They have green skin and worship ants… but if we will tolerate their green skins and ant worship, they will certainly be pleasant neighbors and our lives will be made more rich by their presence.
My picture of a different people is something like this: They are mostly like me: they value truth, and they want to punish people who harm others. Unfortunately, their idea of truth is whatever their holy prophet said; their idea of harm is opposing the prophet’s words; and their idea of proper punishment is to murder everyone who disagrees with their prophet. This is why they wouldn’t make pleasant neighbors.
Yep, that picture is a lot like mine, but Zizek would add pages upon pages about religion to it, to show how the words of the prophet—if the prophet said anything interesting at all—can be twisted and turned until the resulting ideology is refined enough, and more viable in a civilized world. That’s the massively oversimplifying cynical take on it, anyway.
It’s also worth noting that human “cultures” behave remarkably like empirical clusters of loosely-correlated social norms, behaviors, signals, status rules, hierarchical systems, beliefs, and moral systems. This seems to strongly support most of what you’ve said here, and obviously there is some drift and some shared space between “cultures” depending on how you carve them.
It’s also worth noting that human “cultures” behave remarkably like...
What you’re describing is the definition of “culture” (more precisely, a definition of “culture”, and a good one). I’m not sure why you’re giving the weaker qualification of “behave remarkably like” rather than “are”.
This particular wording was meant to convey the sense that “Whatever people generally define as ‘culture’ or as separate ‘cultures’, even if they use rigid aristotelian categories, it still behaves pretty much like this.”
Of course it’s easy to say one has no morals at all when the morals in question are so much more complicated—they’ll seem permissive by your ability to manipulate them in contrived edge cases. This complication, though, is for adaptation to the real world—they have something useful to say about very real cases that Victorian morality completely chokes and dies on.
But that’s not really in conflict with the point of the quote, is it?
— Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age
I’m uncomfortable with Stephenson’s take here* on hypocrisy because I think it neglects context. His implied analysis holds in the context of a homogeneous culture, but fails badly in a relatively heterogeneous one, and here’s why:
In a heterogeneous/multicultural society, the moral stances you publically advocate signal a frame for others, who hold different values, to engage with you. They tell others about what topics to avoid in discussion, how to predict your behavior, and so on—generally, how to behave politely and get along with you.
In the heterogeneous society, the hypocrite is wasting other people’s time, in forcing unnecessary behavioral accomodations on them.
*: It’s possible that Stephenson was entirely aware of what I’m saying here, since he’s describing only the semi-closed neo-Victorians, but those who quote him take the description at face value.
I read that as a point against multicultural society.
The word “multicultural” deserves a better analysis. What exactly is a “culture” (besides that for many people it is an applause light), which parts of culture should we preserve and which are free for optimization, whether we can measure a utility function of a culture and whether that function itself is culture-specific, whether cultures can be extrapolated, how much can human cultures be different, et cetera.
The important part is that we are speaking about human cultures, which puts some limit on how different they can be. We should not discuss them as if there is no such limit, as if an arbitrary set of values can be a culture, and each such set is automatically an applause light.
To the extent that humans from different cultures can share values, there can be common values even in the multicultural society. And there can be cross-cultural hypocrisy with regards to these common values.
In other words, we should not model humans from different cultures as incomprehensible aliens. Funny thing is that there two opposite political reasons to do so. The obvious one: racists/nationalists/etc. try to describe the other people as completely alien, to make it easier to explain why we should avoid them. The more subtle one: politically correct people sometimes also describe humans from other culture as aliens, just to signal how tolerant they are; because tolerance to an alien is more difficult, and therefore more noble, than tolerance to a mere human.
In yet other words, the “multicultural” society—as its greatest proponents and opponents imagine it—does not really exist. There is just an interaction between different human cultures, which includes a lot of differences, but also a lot of shared values.
As far as I can see, “multiculturalism” is the belief that we should celebrate and encourage diversity because we are all really the same.
If one looks at the competing Christological doctrines of early Christianity—Arianism, monophysitism, monothelitism, Marcionism, Patripassianism, Nestorianism, Chalcedonianism, and so on, from a modern atheistic perspective it all looks insane. Even leaving aside one’s presumption of the non-existence of the relevant supernatural entities, it still looks like a mass of confabulation accreted like a pearl in an oyster, around a seed of irritation resulting from thinking about how Jesus could have been both a man and God.
So, after perusing that section of the Wikipedia page I just linked, look at the first paragraph of Wikipedia on multiculturalism.
Doesn’t it look just as insane? Is “a society at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit” any more meaningful a string of words than “the human nature and pre-incarnate divine nature of Christ were united as one divine human nature from the point of the Incarnation onwards”? What would the bishops who argued about the latter at Chalcedon have made of the former? Never mind agreeing or disagreeing with it, what would it even mean?
What exactly is “a society at ease with the rich tapestry of human life”?
Am I “at ease” with cultures that have a hobby of cutting small girls’ genitalia? Hell no! Does that make me an intolerant racist, or whatever is the most appropriate boo light today? So sue me, or at least make sure I will never get a job at academia!
Multiculturalism is an applause light, until you look at specific details. Then it sometimes gets ugly. Of course, to remain “politically correct” you have to stay in the far mode, and ignore all the details. It’s easier that way.
Just like “desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit”. Again, if your desire includes a desire to cut small girls’ genitalia, then I think those girls deserve to have their opinion heard too. If that is against your sick religion, again, you have the choice to sue me, criticize me in media, assassinate me, or all three things combined. (In a sufficiently “politically correct” society you literally could do all three suggested things, and then have some educated people excuse your actions.)
This all is a completely different thing from when people from village X decide to wear robes with red flowers, and people from village Y decide to wear robes with blue flowers. Or if Americans pour ketchup over all their foods, while Asians use the soy sauce. With that kind of culture I have no problems. I also have no problems with folk songs, operas, paintings, or books (assuming those books don’t preach something I find repulsive).
It is bad that these two things are often mixed together under a wide umbrella of “culture”. Then it makes people objecting to genital mutilation seem like brain-damaged bigots obsessing about the right color of flowers on everyone’s robes. And that is pretty dishonest. And evil.
To all those claiming that multiculturalism has no downsides, I would like to point out that “equal time for creationism” sprung from and used multiculturalism; the notion that you can justify anything using religious freedom can and does lead to Bad Things being justified thus. AFAIK no real society is perfectly multicultural, but that’s poor implementation; a bug, not a feature.
EDIT: I am in favour of all the Good Things that spring to mind when we hear “multiculturalism”, and do not advocate the Bad Things associated with opposing it (ie a single monolithic and enforced culture.)
Not outside the US it didn’t
Are you saying it didn’t happen outside the US or when it did it had some other origin?
The former.
That’s false. It happened in 1980 in Queensland, and 1985 in Turkey (the latter continuing to the present). Just a few years ago in Switzerland, many schools had science books that gave equal time for creationism, but it was controversial and ultimately rejected.
While a separate issue, many Islamic countries ban the teaching of evolution or teach an “intelligent design” friendly version.
Exactly which multiculturalist do you think are “at ease” with that behavior?
Assassination is not really an accepted political move in Western Europe or the US, which are the domains of political correctness. I challenge you to find a recent murder in either region that was not prosecuted by the government authorities for “political correctness” (as opposed to established legal doctrines like insanity).
About as many as there are environmentalists who are “at ease” with the mercury content of compact fluorescent bulbs, while campaigning to abolish incandescents. Female genital mutilation is a cultural practice, but instead of saying that this cultural practice is wrong and should be stopped, which a multiculturalist cannot do, some of them say that “there are cultural and political aspects to the practice’s continuation that make opposition to it a complex issue”, or that “the ritual of FGM has been the primary context in some communities in which the women come together”, or that colonial attempts at eradication constitute “interference with women’s decisions about their own rituals”, or that “its apparent victims were in fact its central actors”. Quotes from Wikipedia.
A multiculturalist could take a different tack and argue that FGM is not a cultural practice, making it permissible to oppose. However, since it is a cultural practice, and is clearly understood and explicitly stated by those who practice it to be a cultural practice, that isn’t so easy to maintain. But I doubt impossible; the insanity is not peculiar to philosophers and theologians, but is bred whenever one is obliged to cling to both sides of a contradiction.
On both points: what the flaming Hell are you talking about? Snopes says,
(Wiki-link added.) See also the information—in particular, the graph of lifetime mercury emissions for incandescent vs flourescent—at Energystar.gov.
So the comparison with FGM seems truly bizarre. I also don’t think you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about when it comes to FGM and multiculturalism—in particular, I doubt you bothered to follow the link to the Lynn Thomas source. It seems straightforwardly descriptive. Feminists sometimes criticize attempts to impose a ban in African nations because bans tend not to work and may turn this horrific practice into a symbol of resistance to imperialism. I gather people have had more success by talking to mothers about the health risks. So this seems like a fine example of how:
*understanding other cultures can help you talk to people and find common values
*conservatives talking about feminism or “multiculturalism” often look really stupid.
And yet they have a problem with adding the trace lead amounts of lead to electronics necessary to prevent tin whiskers.
We are seeing political memes here, standard stories or arguments. First, the mercury in CFLs compared to the impact of incandescents. That one is just plain silly, and hairyfigment cited some good sources. Sure, mercury in CFLs is a matter of concern, but in the real world, we must compare choices until we have better ones.
As to Female Genital Mutilation, I have a perspective on it, as I have a daughter from Ethiopia, a place where female circumcision is practiced, and there was some suspicion that she had been circumcised. (Believe it or not, it’s not always easy to tell. The ultimate professional opinion was, No.)
Is it “mutilation” or is it a “cultural practice” or does it have some other purpose?
There are all kinds of variation in the process. But to start, what about “Male Genital Mutilation,” i.e., circumcision, which is practically universal in Islam and Judaism? Female circumcision is controversial in Islam, and, apparently, was a pre-Islamic practice that was allowed, the Prophet is reported as saying, “If you cut your women, cut only a little.” It was never considered an obligation by sane Muslim scholars.
The horror stories that are told about FGM are far, far from a “little.” Probably the soundest approach to alleviating suffering here would be education, and that is exactly what is going on in Ethiopia.
Someone who imagines that there is some moral absolute here is dreaming. It looks like a cultural absolutism is being suggested. This culture is good and that culture is bad. Personally, I’m horrified by the extreme stories. However, I was also circumcised as a boy, it was routine, and my parents were Christian. And that has gone in and out of fashion over the years. Because my older boys were born at home, they were not immediately circumcised. There were problems, later, and eventually they went through the procedure. And it was a real problem, the doctor botched it. It would have been trivial at birth. Does that mean that boys should be circumcized?
No. It may indicate that if it’s going to be done, doing it earlier is probably less traumatic, for technical reasons. And doing it is largely a matter of cultural preference, and people do get crazy over Male Genital Mutilation.
Would you mind describing the Schelling fence between those two things.
Policy debates should not appear one-sided. There are pluses and minuses to multiculturalism. Other cultures have good and bad aspects, and the default for humans is to reject anything out-group, good or bad. So a shove in the direction of the ridiculous caricature of multiculturalism above would generally be a good thing, on the whole.
Compared to what? If you have a sitation, where de facto, severla cultures are under a single politcal authority with a predominant culture, there are only so many things that can happen:
1) The minority culture(s) are physcially expelled—pogroms.
2) Wall are built within the state—apartheid, ghettos
3) The minority cultures are foricibly homogenised or converted
4) The minority cultures are tolerated.
I think it is pretty clear that 4 is the least ugly. Even if it needs a little bit of (3) to work. Which is where most of the controversy comes from.
In point 4 you misuse the word pogrom, while deportation may include pogroms those aren’t a necessary feature. And even when violent they often in the long term solve many difficult problems and resolve sources of conflict, see the population exchange between Greece and Turkey.
5) The multi-ethnic state is broken up along ethnic lines
This can occur violently or relatively peacefully as in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia or the independence of Slovenia. Other times they are accompanied by violence see the independence of Ireland or Greece or some anti-colonial movements. This was the ideal in large part was behind the self-determination. See also self-determination.
6) The state is already practically mono-cultural, simply don’t allow immigration where the immigrants are unlikely to assimilate
Now depending on the features of the society option 6 might mean practically no immigration (Japan) or relatively high levels (19th century France or America for white immigrants) depending on various factors.
I could have included extermination, and I could have been accused of baising the issue even more
That is the extreme of (2). Aparthied-era SA included “independent homelands”.
I was assuming that it isnt. You cant’ solve the problem of de facto multi-ethnicity by wishing it had never happened.
Extermination was indeed historically used by states (especially in newly conquered territories) but to me it seems to be a separate solution from deportation or expulsion. Sometimes however deportation was used as a cover for extermination.
By formulating it as you did originally you imported negative connotations. By picking this particular example you again import negative connotations. Many of these are pretty reasonable. Independence imports positive connotations, many of these are pretty reasonable. But you seem to refuse to accept the latter. Why?
In any case I think there is a big difference between setting up say a Millet system or some other kind of separation in the same state and dissolving the state entirely and have each cultural community be sovereign.
Isn’t this a narrow perspective? Just because this isn’t a solution to existing multicultural societies like say the US it doesn’t mean it isn’t a viable solution for many other societies (such as say Japan or Finland).
It isn’t a solution for the multi-ethnic societies of Finland and Japan because they are not particualrly multi-ethnic.
I guess you are right but it is a solution to the “what to do about cultural diversity” question. And you should add a disclaimer that not all states are multicultural.
If you don’t have cultural diversirsity, there is nothing to do about it. Do you tell insomniacs to “sleep on it, it always works for me”?
If you don’t have any asteroids crashing on your planet, there is nothing to do about it.
Sure, in effect, we’re not randomly throwing asteroid-cracking missiles out in empty, asteroid-less space.
We’re certainly preparing for it and putting in place pre-emptive countermeasures, though, AFAIK.
Japan and Finland have effective strategies for dealing with cultural diversity, namely: Pre-emptively apply social measures to prevent any cultural diversity from reaching critical mass where it starts having social weight.
Against something that is universally assumed to be a Bad Thing.
..and what kind of thing is that?
Gosh. There’s a lot of people who know that DIversity is Bad (and not just that some specifics things that some ethinicities do that aren’t neecessarily opposed by some form of MC are bad).
Wow. I’d really love to see the chain of reasoning that went from “For dealing with cultural diversity, preventing it altogether is an effective strategy.” all the way to “Cultural diversity is morally wrong and should be prevented at all costs!”
Or were you just assuming that such were my beliefs because I was giving a counterargument to one of your soldiers?
Note: When I get strawmanned, ad-hominem’d or targeted with sarcasm and satire, I do get confrontational. The above tone is intentional, for once.
If you don’t think it is a bad thing, why do you need a strategy to prevent it?
It’s the most effective strategy because it incurs the least cost for the most effect. It deals with it quite nicely, and there is very little social disturbance.
Whether I think it’s a bad thing, or need a strategy, is irrelevant. Japan has implemented such a strategy. I can’t speak for Finland’s current state because I’m very misinformed on that country, I’ve learned recently.
Indeed, you won’t come up with and implement such a strategy if you think the costs of cultural diversity will be greater than the opportunity costs of not having any + costs of preventing it. This doesn’t prevent anyone from noticing, naming, and perhaps even analyzing this strategy once it has already been used and shown to the world, even if we disagree with the reasons behind its implementation (or disagree on the specific meaning of “dealing with”—for them, not having any is just as much “dealt with” as for us a long-term, self-sustaining/reinforcing, mutually-beneficial ecosystem would be “dealing with” multiple cultures).
If “disturbance” (not “change” or “revitalsiation”) is a cost, and if homegeneity is a benefit...yes. If homegeneity is bad, and revitalisation is needed, the opposite follows. You don’t have a neutral c/b analysis there, it is loaded.
You could do a polictically neutral analysis in terms of how man dollars or yen immigration brings in, but it is by no means guaranteed to come up with zero as the optimum figure.
If you don’t have the flu, being told to stay indoors to avoid it is useful.
Only because you’ve chosen the alternatives in order to favour it. “The melting pot”, as a description of America’s former waves of immigration, does not fit any of them.
“(4), oh, and with a little bit of (3)” is glossing over the problem, trying to save an unsalvageable idea by changing the words used to express it. Besides, a multiculturalist would give you stick for using the word “tolerated”, which is insufficiently accepting these days. Try “celebrated”, which suggests happy friendly things like colourful street parties and festivals, framing cultural differences as dressing-up games.
So what does it fit? (2) was tried at one time—Jim Crow. The US has not has a sngle consistent approach.
Are you sure it is not a differnt idea? Are you saying anythign with the label “mutlicuralism” is unsalvageable, irrespective of what it is*?
Some subtypes of MC-ist might. But werent you just saying that 1-4 are not exhaustive?
An alternative not on your list: immigrants aspiring towards assimilation into a single culture to which they give their allegiance, superseding their original one, of which nothing remains but the dressing-up aspects.
I am saying that the concept described by the Wikipedia article I linked, which seems to me an accurate statement of what “multiculturalism” is generally used as a name for, is incoherent. Privately using the word differently doesn’t change that. “(4) with a side order of (3)” looks more like a rationalisation of the incoherence of the original concept than a decision to use the word to name something else.
ETA: On further thought, I might be being too inflexible. One might certainly present a model of how people of multiple cultures should coexist as “multiculturalism”, even if the model deviates substantially from the current one that goes by that name. One would, in effect, be presenting the model as a new interpretation of a deeper, unchanging fundamental concept, superior to the previous interpretation.
Certainly, that describes the history of Euler’s Theorem: mathematicians coming to a better understanding of the underlying concepts and finding better expressions of mathematical truths. But then, there is an unchanging objective reality in mathematics. In sociology, not so much. Instead, one has to adopt the methods of religion, presenting a new concept as merely a better understanding of the old.
In a different subthread*, the line of reasoning went that this does not positively “deal with” multiculturalism, but rather eliminates or prevents it. This seems to be part of what is happening in Japan; IIRC they deliberately filter immigrants for willingness to blend in, though they do so in more politically-correct terms.
* This one, though most of the replies that are most relevant will probably be hidden, since it appears Peterdjones is being heavily downvoted on this topic for some reason.
“let the problem solve itself”..
How do you have a policy of people just voluntarily doing what is most convenient? Can you eliminate crime that way?
ETA:
All I can see is you stating that MC construed in a particular way has consequences you don’t like. That isn’t incoherence
I’m not familiar with the history of the migrations to the USA of the 19th and early 20th centuries beyond a quick look at Wikipedia, but from that, it looks like it pretty much did solve itself. There was friction. It passed.
What has that to do with this discussion?
Weren’t severe restrictions on immigration, practically closed borders, instituted during the early 1900s?
It depends a bit on ethnicity. Quotas were in place that favored Northern and Western Europeans over Eastern and Southern (Mediterranean) Europeans. And anyone from Europe was favored over Japanese or Chinese—thus things like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1880.
Those favored ethnicities were also those closest to the existing elites’ desired American culture, which kinda makes the point: they felt the more dissimilar ethnicities couldn’t be absorbed at their existing immigration rate.
Bussing, voter registration drives and reservations are all quite artificial and politicaly driven. Even pledging allegiance is a mildish form of (3).
ETA: Incidentally, you have throughout been associating multiculturalism with immigration, but minority aborginal populations can be relevant as well. Among other things.
It is a way of making the point that hoping that problems solve themselves is hardly ever a workable solution to anything.
You don’t actually need one—people tend to do what’s most convenient on their own. An attempt at policy tends to just get in the way.
Sadly, no; crime is often what is most convenient.
People tend to do wha’t convenient for them, left on their own. Hence crime.
Yes, and assimilation is frequently most convenient.
Given sufficient opportunity, yes.
I don’t see where you see that. Rather, RichardKennaway seems to be saying that MC construed in the usual way is incoherent. I’m not seeing any mention of consequences.
Yes, he’s said that it is incoherent. He hasn’t said why. Sayign he doesn’t like FGM doens’t demosntrate incoherence.
Perhaps I should have made more explicit references back. The incoherence that I see is what I was talking about when I originally said this:
It’s that basic contradiction:
We are all different! Diversity! CLAP NOW!
We are all the same! Equality! CLAP NOW!
that this thread has been about: how do you support “the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit” without prohibiting yourself from criticising abhorrent cultural customs like FGM? It’s that contradiction that gives rise to the contortions around the subject of FGM that I earlier quoted from the Wikipedia page.
One common approach is called “liberalism”. It ascribes certain notional boundaries — called “rights” — to each individual; and asserts that each individual may do as they choose to express their identity, so long as they do not transgress the notional boundaries of another person. This places certain limits on the ways each person can “express their own identity in the manner they see fit” in order to define a space in which all others can do so too.
The conflict between individuality and cultural consistency is practically as old as civilization itself. Most ideologies throughout history included ad hoc, unprincipled, case-by-case solutions to those problems.
Why do you think that multi-culturalism is more inconsistent and unprincipled than any other historical solution to the individuality / group identity problem?
The problem is not that it is inconsistent and unprincipled, but that it is inconsistent and principled.
But it isn’t inconsistent.
Prizing equal rights obviously isn’t in tension with prizing diverse human exercise of those rights. You haven’t cited a contradiction. However, we could use your argument to spin off a real tension:
Similarity (e.g., our common humanity, our common interests and heritage and concerns) is valuable. But dissimilarity (e.g., cultural and individual diversity) is also valuable. So ‘value’ seems to be trivial.
Response: What we really value is not ‘being the same’ or ‘being different’ in a vacuum. What we value is (a) being similar or different in particular respects, and (b) having a certain ratio of similarity to difference. The English language just isn’t sophisticated enough to allow for easy slogans of either of those forms. We can’t easily signal that we value diversity, but in specific areas and not in all areas; likewise for valuing some similarities, but not all. And we can’t easily signal that we value a certain mixture of sameness and differentness, because too much of one or the other would make life less worth living. They seem like platitudes, but they aren’t false, and they’re worth taking seriously if only because they stand in for so many specific attributes that we need to take very seriously. It’s just important to see past the surface structure of some virtues.
Thank you for clarifying. That really was unclear.
“Equality” never means identicality in the political context. It instead means equal value or equal worth.
That’s what we’re talking about. Requiring a religious day of rest every Friday, or every Saturday, or every Sunday, are indeed practices of equal worth. FGM is not of equal worth with those.
It means people are of equal worth. In liberal democracies you don’t have to show that any kind of behaviour is of worth before you do it, you have to show that is does no harm and has consent.
That works until you start getting into details of exactly what constitutes “harm” and “consent”.
In the overwhelming majority of the cases the distinction is clear-cut; it’s just that the ones where it isn’t tend to be much more salient.
And those are precisely the type of cases that gradually cause attitudes to change.
I don’t know who would think that would demonstrate incoherence. And I don’t notice RichardKennaway pointing out that he doesn’t like FGM, so that seems totally irrelevant.
Ah, different thread, thanks. Yes, there doesn’t seem to be anything in that comment where RichardKennaway connects FGM with incoherence. You seem to be jumping to conclusions.
I think that’s a wrong question. I’m pretty sure the above was mostly just a reminder that policy debates should not appear one-sided.
EDIT: Never mind, that comment is the opposite of that.
The red car effect/availability heuristic at work—I instantly thought of a Zizek quote. Or were you quoting this bit too?
Zizek on the “decaffeinated Other”
I’m more on the “good fences make good neighbors” side, which I guess is the opposite from Zizek (judging by this quote; I don’t know more about his opinions). He criticizes the fear of harassment (and labels it “obsessive”, just to remind the reader that it is a boo light); I would like to talk also about those specific situations where the threat is real.
To me it seems that the “politically correct” description of people from other cultures is that they are a) completely different, but also b) completely harmless.
On the other hand, my opinion is that people from other cultures are often very similar, but even the small differences can be dangerous.
A “political correct” picture of a different people is something like this: They have green skin and worship ants… but if we will tolerate their green skins and ant worship, they will certainly be pleasant neighbors and our lives will be made more rich by their presence.
My picture of a different people is something like this: They are mostly like me: they value truth, and they want to punish people who harm others. Unfortunately, their idea of truth is whatever their holy prophet said; their idea of harm is opposing the prophet’s words; and their idea of proper punishment is to murder everyone who disagrees with their prophet. This is why they wouldn’t make pleasant neighbors.
Yep, that picture is a lot like mine, but Zizek would add pages upon pages about religion to it, to show how the words of the prophet—if the prophet said anything interesting at all—can be twisted and turned until the resulting ideology is refined enough, and more viable in a civilized world. That’s the massively oversimplifying cynical take on it, anyway.
It’s also worth noting that human “cultures” behave remarkably like empirical clusters of loosely-correlated social norms, behaviors, signals, status rules, hierarchical systems, beliefs, and moral systems. This seems to strongly support most of what you’ve said here, and obviously there is some drift and some shared space between “cultures” depending on how you carve them.
What you’re describing is the definition of “culture” (more precisely, a definition of “culture”, and a good one). I’m not sure why you’re giving the weaker qualification of “behave remarkably like” rather than “are”.
This particular wording was meant to convey the sense that “Whatever people generally define as ‘culture’ or as separate ‘cultures’, even if they use rigid aristotelian categories, it still behaves pretty much like this.”
see also
Of course it’s easy to say one has no morals at all when the morals in question are so much more complicated—they’ll seem permissive by your ability to manipulate them in contrived edge cases. This complication, though, is for adaptation to the real world—they have something useful to say about very real cases that Victorian morality completely chokes and dies on.
But that’s not really in conflict with the point of the quote, is it?