politicophile

I read Multicultural Citizenship by Will Kymlicka the other day and thought I'd probe the TFP waters for opinions about Kymlicka's project.

The question is this: what, if anything, should liberal cultures do to encourage illiberal cultures to change their ways?

The question puts the value of cultural autonomy at odds with the value of individual autonomy, which makes it very difficult to answer the question. Should liberal cultures allow, say, Saudi Arabia to visciously oppress its female citizens? Don't those women have the same right as any other human beings to basic freedoms?

Conversely, are we really in a position to take the moral highground? Do we have a right to say that Saudi Arabia's practice is wrong and ours is right? Granted, we don't like the way they live their lives, but how does that give us the right to interfere with their long-standing way of life?

After considering the normative implications of the question, one can try to explain how the policy should look in practice. We can coerce illiberal regimes to change in many ways: negociation, condemnation, embargos, economic incentives, regime change, invasion, occupation, etc.

So,
1. Is it right for liberal cultures to disapprove of the illiberal practices of other cultures, or should we keep in mind that all cultures are relative and one is not better than another?
2. What are appropriate real-world steps to liberalize these illiberal cultures, assuming that there are appropriate steps?

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

slimshaydee

I think they so called liberal cultures should keep their noses out of illiberal cultures and stop trying to bestow their values on them.
However, I do believe if there are absolutely EXTREME human rights violations such as mass ethinic cleansing, then liberal cultures should not turn a blind eye.

Mantus

I do not believe that that such changes should come on a geopolitical level. Politicians cannot change cultures with a few words and/or actions. Values take decades to erode. Attempting to force change though political action often backfires by creating a resistance and thus solidifying the existing values. An axample of this is how our attempts to bring democracy to the midle east is synonymous with war and conquest.

The only way these changes seem to come is though example and the cultivation of existing movements within the culture.

I think that cultural changes should come by choice. While the (our) western view method of administering change is to force it upon a population in hope that they may recognize it's benefits. The obvious downside of forcing the process is resistance but even if we do get results I wonder if a population which is subjugated culturally can actually assimilate the new values or if it will revert to its past once preasure is lifted.

pandafaye

Though I am loath to accept cultural relativism at face value, I tend to agree that for the most part "liberal" countries should not interfere.

There are very few situations in which I believe interference would make any sort of important or long-lasting change, one of which, as already mentioned, is genocide or ethnic cleansing. We can also make huge changes if we help the economies of struggling countries that can't develop further because of their lack of both resources and education.

The scary thing about trying to enact any sort of change, however, is how we decide who makes these decisions. I observe that most "liberations" tend to be fueled not by a sense of moral responsibility but rather by economic and strategic motives. I say it is impossible to responsibly create change in "illiberal" countries without first setting our motives straight.

Supposing we set that right, I still believe that "conquest", as another tfp poster put it, is the absolute last resort way of dealing with such issues. It is also the most irresponsible, as it destroys the infrastructure of that country, making it harder in the long run to get the new more "liberal" country up and running.

I would much rather see "liberal" countries try to change "immoral" practices over time through education and improving limiting factors like the economy. Diplomatic improvements that come under the banner of help rather than that of imposed values will both stand longer and be more efficient.

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to set a good example every once in a while.

jorgelito

This is a great question and should be discussed and revisted more often.

I would like to add: If we (liberal cultures) should leave others (illiberals) alone, does that imply we should not have gone to Iraq? Does that mean we should not interfere with Darfur in Sudan? Who decides that?

If a geoploiticla solution is not the answer, than it is quite apparent that we cannot "export" democracy.

To directly address Politicophile's question: I don't believe we are quite there yet. The question imlplies a moral stance for which we do not have a global standard readliy adhered to. It also implies judgement and enforcement for which we also do not have the institutions, structure, or political will for. Until we can mover form the subjective aspect of the question, I believe it is a deadlock. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to interfere.

But, we could also exercise selcetion in self-interest. Africa does not matter to us so we have no interest in interfering regardless of wrong or right. The Middle East IS of concern so we've involved ourselves deeply.
If we had cause for liberalizeing other regimes, then we would be pretty busy ourselves and need to dedicate a whole lot of resources to it.

irateplatypus

this is an interesting question, and one that i've been thinking about a lot in the past few months...

though i haven't come to a general conclusion, i think it's important to first realize that in our globally connected society there are few international issues that do not effect the rest of the world in some way. so even though there are certainly moral considerations to make, there is almost always a practical and objective measure to each situation... elements of both starry-eyed ideology and cynical realpolitik.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

politicophile

The primary issue, in my mind, is that human rights should not be constrained by national boundries. If it is immoral to force American women to wear the chadoor, then it is equally immoral to force Iranian women to wear it. Yet, we seem not to care that Iranian women are having their rights violated in a manner we would find totally unacceptable within the United States.

The two plausible replies are the relativistic and the realpolitik answers.

The relativist would doubtless point out that we, as westerners, are hardly a source of absolute moral principles. Sure, we think that forcing women to cover themselves is wrong, but they think that exploiting women's sexuality in advertising is wrong. Who is to say which of us is right? Any answer you give is subjective, so why would one force any particular set of morals on another people?

The realist, on the other hand, would avoid the moral consideration entirely. It is not in the interest of the United States to go out of its way to end the mandatory veiling practice in Iran. Our nation is not being harmed in any way from the continuation of the practice and efforts to stop it might turn out to be very costly indeed... The safe decision, the decision in keeping with our self interest, is to avoid getting ourselves involved. "We don't have a dog in this fight"

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

pandafaye

The problem with relativism is that if we adhere entirely to its basic assumptions, we will never interfere no matter how bad a situation is. Evil doesn't exist, therefore there is no problem and nothing to fix.

Equally problematic is the realist viewpoint. Are we expected, then, to be completely selfish and never invest our time or effort in any conflict that doesn't directly involve us? Sectioning ourselves off from the rest of the world may save us money, but not only will we lose our allies and our reputation as a "leading nation", but we can't be expected to have help when we ourselves need it.

I don't believe that we need to constrain ourselves to either of these ideas. We need leadership we can trust to make these decisions on a case by case basis and not based on a single ideology. This matter is not a "go in or not" simplicity. In short, we need to pick our battles, and make the difference where it can be made, rather than where is politically advantageous.

I'm not saying that those women do not deserve the same rights that are given to every female citizen. However, if it takes destroying the country to "moralize" their culture, I believe there are better ways of influencing the world. Why don't we invest this much effort in other countries that practice genital mutilation? I would argue this is much worse than being covered from head to toe. It is important to put this all in a spectrum and help wherever it will make the most difference, not wherever will do the most for our country.

irateplatypus

the flaw i see in this line of thinking is that each woman in the western world can choose whether to dress as modestly or as revealingly as she likes. even today in less liberal cultures the woman would be slaughtered in the streets for such an act. the "exploited" woman chooses her dress, the burkha clad woman does not.

only one side of the issue is forcing morals upon the individual.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

pandafaye

"Exploited" women don't necessarily choose the way they dress in the same way that one would choose what kind of toothpaste to use. There is no total freedom. No matter what anyone says, culture and society are very powerful and pervasive. It is a mistake to brush off the problems of socially created problems like dress expectation and anorexia because those women are "choosing". Whether or not they are actually being forced to try to achieve the beauty standard put forward to them by our society in legal ways matters not; they feel the pressure and respond. It's coersion, not free choice.

irateplatypus

i don't want to threadjack, so this'll be my last comment along this line of discussion... but the fact that many people cede their personal choice to align with a group's preference doesn't mean it wasn't theirs to begin with. there are segments of Western society who choose not to conform to society's norms in female dress: pentecostals, radical feminists, muslims, amish, goths. those groups are afforded a choice that is not given to all peoples on earth, especially not in illilberal societies. that Western society doesn't allow total freedom is not grounds to dismiss the fundamental differences between it and illiberal culture.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

flstf

I suspect that most people from illiberal regimes would not only choose to live that way if given the choice but would be in favor of forcing everyone else to as well. I'm not sure when we should interfere but cases of forced slavery or genocide would probably apply.

Elphaba

Certainly, how our women dress could not possibly represent our moral standing in the world. Parents are allowing their little girls to dress like Brittany Spears slut-wanna-be's, so I am inclined to ask if the head scarf isn't the moral high ground? It was once required of Catholic women while attending church in this country.

I remember those bad 'ol days when rape was an acceptable excuse based upon what the girl or woman was wearing... "She asked for it" was all that needed to be said. If a sovereign country has a cultural requirement that insists on women covering their body/sexuality in public, how is it that they are oppressed, as opposed to our young girls being sexually exploited by friggin "fashion?"

Our involvement in any nation should be limited to protecting the life of it's citizens, as in the case of genocide or ethnic cleansing, and more importantly in providing food and health resources in times of need. I further believe that the United Nations is the best forum to achieve positive results in afflicted nations.

I readily admit that my opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with the current administration's foreign policy. Frankly, I can't give you a single example of any altruistic intervention by our government in it's entire history that wasn't motivated by at least a quid pro quo.

The United States of America lost it's right to claim moral leadership long ago, but it has been cemented with this administration.

politicophile

One can certainly argue whether or not allowing one's daughters to dress like whores is immoral. However, the truth or falsehood or that claim has no bearing on whether forcing women to wear the veil is wrong. Also, the Catholic church example is a poor one because those women could always choose not to go to church: Saudi Arabian women can't very well choose to never leave their homes...

Again, you may well be right that our cultural practices are immoral. However, claiming that American women are being oppressed does not affect the truth of the claim that Saudi Arabian women are being oppressed.

What good comes from limiting our involvement to the lives of the citizens? Why not life, liberty, and property? Should we involve ourselves if the regime is torturing people? Raping people? Taking away private property?

The lack of an ideal example of cosmopolitan interventionist foreign policy does not speak to the normative policy we should strive towards. If anything, dissatisfaction with past and present policy makes it more important to study the ideal.

From one U.S. resident to another, I would dispute this claim. First off, there is no nation I would rather live in than the United States, primarily because the government affords its citizens with very generous liberties and protections. Moreover, our foreign policy, riddled though it may be with self-interested decisions, has had some extremely positive effects on the world as a whole. We did, after all, defeat slavery, facism, nazism, communism, and a host of evil dictators while we were at it. Does this excuse us supporting other dictators, killing democratically elected leaders, etc? Definitely not in all cases. It remains a serious stretch, however, to claim that the United States has lost the high ground.

Why shouldn't we help the citizens of other nations to enjoy the rights that we take for granted as U.S. citizens?

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Elphaba

Why weren't flowers thrown at the feet of our soldiers in Iraq?

politicophile

Linky

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Willravel

That assumes a few things.

Let's break this down.
So when we refer to a liberal country, we are talking about a country that is open-minded. A country that is tolerant. A country that is not bogged down by political or social dogma.

This suggests that the illiberal countries are closed minded, intolerant, and is willing to follow dogma for it's own sake?

I've got to be honest. You're describing the two antagonistic parts of every society. America has parts that show the greatest of liberalism, and the greatest of illiberalism, just like very other country in the world. There are no countries that are free of liberalism or illiberalism, and few if any that exist with either to the extreme.

I think that self proclaimed liberal contries are diluting themselves. I think that if there were contries referring to themselves as iliberal, they ewould also be mistaken. It is a sweeping generalization that misrepresents the truth of society; there exists a dichotemy in all countries and all societies.

Because, IMO, there are no liberal countries, and no illiberal countries, only shades of gray, there should be no holier than thou attitude. The idea that we'll bring freedom to the savages is sypmtomatic of an even larger self dillusion.

powerclown

This is THE major issue of the early 21st century, isn't it. How completely different societies, brought together via Globalization, should deal with eachother.

I think you may be confusing the 2 concepts. Removing the 'holier than thou' attitude (as you see it), doesn't preclude a society from being historically more or less 'liberal'. There are (and have always been) nations closed off from the rest of the world (purposely so), and there are nations less closed off. I think the major nations of the world have a certain responsibility to help bring the minor nations UP to their level, instead of the minor nations bringing other nations DOWN to their level.

To quote Thomas Friedman:

"Does your society have more memories than dreams or more dreams than memories?”

This is the key to measuring how your country is dealing with Globalization. Do closed, struggling nations want to live in their glorious (real or imagined) pasts, or do they want to modernize by working with (not against) the rest of the world?

braindamage351

Defeated slavery? We were the only people who still allowed slavery. If anything we kept it alive past it's time. As for nazism, fascism, etc. that was ONE WAR. And we fought it because if we didn't the country would have been destroyed. It wasn't morality but common sense which led us to fight in WWII. Both of the wars we fought trying to prevent communism were unsuccessful and only fought so we could hold on to our status as the superpower. Communism eventually just fizzled out on its own because in the end it was a crappy system that left it's people with a complete and utter lack of motivation to do anything.

The success of America has nothing to do with morality. It's just a matter of the right system at the right place, at the right time.

nezmot

Exactly. What works, works. Libertarianism has worked very well in the face of totalitarianism, causing repressed folk around the world to grumble ever louder until they eventually rise up against their governments in outrage, bringing them down in popular expressions of freedom. But it's not winning the hearts and minds argument against the much more pious ideology of the (for example) Islamic fundamentalist.

A new ideology is required - liberal relativism, as attractive as it has been in the face of big totalitarian governments is past its day. Maybe that ideology is Islam, maybe it's Christian Conservatism, and maybe it's just down and dirty pragmatism - can you turn pragmatism into an ideology? If it were possible, that's the one I'd get behind.

zeitgeist1

Nothing. Liberal societies got there on their own, and any non-liberaly society should have to do the same. Basically, it comes down to social enlightenment. I happen to beleive that this comes from education. Education sparks curiosity, which promotes understanding. I think there may be a threshold here, too. A level of education will necessitate a liberal society since the ideology imbued in education is expansive thought, its not something that can be indefinitely detained in a non-liberal society. Just a thought though.