From: blamb@hri.com (Bill Lambert)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: What is culture? (was: Brainwashied
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:57:14 GMT
Organization: Horizon Research, Inc.


=> >In article <1993Jan05.233609.21953@gibdo.engr.washington.edu>, 
=> >tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Tad Perry) writes:
=> >=> Seeing as you've made the claim that it's not valid to judge one
=> >=> culture as being "better" than another, and that attributes which
=> >=> imply "better-ness" are probably due to technology and society, not
=> >=> culture, wouldn't you have to admit that a culture that greets others
=> >=> by bowing or shaking hands is inherently "better" (in that it promotes
=> >=> a universally justifiable good known as Peace) than one that shakes a
=> >=> spear?

I wrote:
=> >No... I certainly wouldn't have to admit that bowing or handshaking
=> >is preferable to shaking a spear, and it just such a cultural bias
=> >that I was talking about as an arifact. In the culture of spear
=> >shakers, shaking one's spear has the same meaning as a handshake, 
=> >Shakespeare (sorry... stop me before I pun again). Moreover,
=> >offering your right hand to shake maybe the supreme insult in that
=> >culture as that hand was probably just used to wipe your ass with.

=> So, you admit that bowing is better than both spear-shaking and
=> hand-offering in that it is neither threatening nor offensive (nor
=> likely to spread germs)? This was in fact something I was considering.
=> Bowing may be the "best" method humans have developed to greet each
=> other.

I'll admit no such thing. Bowing in the Spear-shaker society is
a clear and immediate request to be beheaded :-)

=> >The signal for the "universally justifiable good" known to you
=> >as Peace is different in each culture. The one that you understand 
=> >is acceptable for you, while you didn't understand the corresponding
=> >symbol presented by Mr. Willyou Shake-spear.

=> >=> ............................. I'm of the opinion that one culture
=> >=> can be judged as better than another based on that culture's promotion
=> >=> of certain universal truths. And that there are such universal truths.
=> >=> And that they can be discovered and applied by anyone...............

=> >Whose universe? Is it possible that different cultures may derive
=> >different 'universal truths' that may not match yours?

=> Sure it's possible.  It may in fact be just such a thing that makes
=> their culture better than mine.  But in being universal, it would only
=> take contact with the culture to recognize the validity of a universal
=> truth. They may have done me a favor by discovering it first.  You've
=> obviously assumed somewhere along the line that I think my culture is
=> better (de facto) and therefore you don't even want the discussion to
=> proceed any further. You may clear this up, if I've read your
=> arguments incorrectly.

Somewhat incorrectly. I didn't assume that you thought your culture
was better, only that you had a universal truth that may or may not
be culturally based. I don't know where your universal truth came
from or how you recognize it as such. And I certainly don't want to
end this discussion at all.

=> >In such a case, who will arbitrate whether one person's truth is
=> >better than another person's truth?

=> Well, you're standing on carefully on ground where I can't even
=> discuss the issue with you. I think the idea that there is one
=> person's truth and another person's truth is invalid. There are
=> truths. Once discovered they are shared by everybody. If one culture
=> hasn't discovered the truth of Peace as Virtue, and is very warlike,
=> it would not invalidate that truth for those that believe in it.

I am standing in no such place. How do you decide that "Peace is Virtue"
is a truth? There have certainly been times when keeping the peace
was not virtuous.

=> In fact your very arguments could be turned to support inhumane
=> regimes such as the Nazi's. "Who will decice that our truth is better
=> than Nazi truth?" Oh, come on. Sometimes it's obvious. If you want to
=> argue that in most cases it's *not* obvious which values are better
=> than others, I can accept that easily. If you want to argue that it's
=> absolutely not possible and that the concept of "better" is always
=> inapplicable, then I disagree with you.

On the contrary. I would not allow the Nazis to decide that their
truth is better than any other truth. And in doing so have just as
much right to enforcing my lack of universal truth to overcome 
their lack of universal truth.
 
=> >=> freedom is one of them.  A culture with traditions limiting freedom
=> >=> (and I'm making no specific claims at this time) is not as good as a
=> >=> culture that doesn't promote freedom. Balancing out all the possible
=> >=> universal truths (I.e. whther to promote safety vs. freedom--a common
=> >=> one in the Japan vs. America debate) is the hard part. But for each
=> >=> component separately, I think you can determine which culture is
=> >=> better than another in terms of that one component only. And, if you
=> >=> could rank the relative merit of each of these truths, it would be
=> >=> possible to objectively state which cultures were better than others.

=> >But if freedom is a universal truth that overrides safety, isn't it just
=> >as valid that safety for some is a universal truth that overrides freedom.

=> There you go assuming where I stand again. This was in fact the point
=> I was trying to make. It would be nice to be able to discuss whether
=> some social control for the sake of safety is *better* than less
=> safety for the sake of freedom. Under your arguments there is no
=> concept of "better" and the discussion cannot proceed. I believe more
=> social control fo the sake of safety is better. There. I said it.  But
=> to you that's impossible. It's all relative. No culture can be better
=> than another.

Sorry to mistake some assumption on my part. You did say that freedom
was a universal truth, and that a culture that limits freedoms is not
as good as was that does not. I didn't say the discussion cannot
proceed. I guess it proceeded, as you said that more social control
for the sake of safety is more important than the universal truth of
freedom, so you established some relativity, I guess.

=> >Is safety not another concept for "freedom from harm" and as such another
=> >form of freedom. Nor will freedom as a universal truth buy you a cup of
=> >coffee anywhere in this galaxy until you can define it as more than a word.
=> >Absolute freedom for anyone to do as they damn well please is called
=> >anarchy, and few will opt for that as a form for society.

=> But I note that when the concept of "better" supports the type of society
=> you obviously prefer, you have no qualms whatsoever in invoking it.
=> "Who is to arbitrate that our truths are better than an anarchy's truths?"
=> Your own rhetorical question rings pretty hollow when filled in with
=> the proper specifics in light of what you say just above.

I was responding to lack of definition for freedom, and the assertion
that cultures that allow more freedom are better than those that don't.
Anarchy is maximization of freedom at the extreme, in some form, and
I was questioning if that was your preference, not stating mine.

=> >Your concept of freedom is surely definable by your terms and your
=> >assumptions, but will fail to carry those who may live under different
=> >assumptions or other priorities.

=> My assumptions and priorities concerning freedom may not be as good as
=> someone elses. There's may not be as good as mine. Through exchange of
=> ideas we might be able to move in a direction that indicated which was
=> better.

I think that's establishing relativity. Here you are agreeing with me,
and are willing to negotiate your concept of freedom. Is that out
of line with what I've been saying? Are you forced to negotiate
this relativity based on a lack of common understanding or
common absolutes? You bet.

=> >Actually, I realize what you're getting at by the presentation
=> >of judgement by universal truths. That it could be so! And
=> >yes, I wish that some set of them were easily recognizable by
=> >all. But alas... we seem to be stuck with relativity of
=> >assumptive half-truths while working our way toward the whole
=> >truth. God willing, we may find it, but that's an assumption
=> >of a universal truth on my part that not everyone may agree
=> >with :-) I understand *this* universal truth well.

=> Well, if you could just allow that pondering which of these assumptive
=> half-truths were better than the others we'd be a little bit further
=> along in the discussion, now wouldn't we? 

Well don't let me stop you. Please go ahead.

=> I'd love to see a discussion
=> like I mentioned above where one side takes the stance: "Japanese
=> society is better in terms of safety v. freedom" and the other says:
=> "US society is better than Japanese society in terms of safety v.
=> freedom." Maybe it's difficult to come to a clear consensus as the
=> number of variable grow, but I think, it could be said that one
=> culture is better than another. 

Not without some common understanding of what "better" is, and in
my experience that particular debate will produce litte common
understanding of what "better" is. That's my point. But I would
enjoy that discussion too, and I will join it in a slashing and
perhaps vain attempt to establish that common ground wherever
possible.

=> In the case of cultures such as
=> Japan's and the US's it may be difficult to sort out all the variables
=> and come to a conclusion that everyone can accept, but in extreme
=> cases such as whether Nazi culture is better than current North
=> American culture I'd have to say that some of the more important
=> variables are so far out of whack in the case of the Nazi's that few
=> would argue current North American culture isn't better.

You keep saying so, but why? Howya gonna argue with the Nazi? If
you can't do it, who will? Howse Mr. Wither gonna argue his
dislike of female circumcision... how's Dwight Joe gonna argue
his distaste for infanticide, and the other guy who dislikes
Mayan human sacrifice by manual heart removal? Huh huh huh?
If you can't argue those things, how can you argue something as 
subtle as racism? 

Be the first on your block to say it!

=> >Interesting discussion. Sometimes I think it's a good idea to
=> >discuss culture in a newsgroup named as such. Thanks for
=> >following up to all who have, and thanks to Tad for more
=> >fuel.

=> That's part of what I'm here for. Extreme and absolute stands can
=> often lend the fuel that helps get to the truth. In debate classes
=> you're often required to take the side you *don't* believe in for just
=> this reason.

Whose truth....? just kidding!

- Bill Lambert
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan