Groups and "Others"...

I find it disturbingly paradoxical to talk about  "the other"," the Other" or "Othering". Why?


Groups form their identities by various distinctives. These are cultural differences, which define values. The problem comes when values conflict with another "group", which they inevitably will. Focusing on these differences and using them as forms of "entitlement" does not help those of a minority race to "overcome". But, it enables an entitlement mentality. Ethnic identities are a biological fact, but we don't have to promote the idea that their social status deserves special treatment! This is a nonesstialist position.

I read recently where the Academy has gone from "the other" to "the Other" to "Othering". It seems to me that "the other" is a particular individual that is different from you. "The Other" is another group, whether  defined by differences of interest or values, or a "people group", while "othering" is an action taken toward "the other", and/or "The Other". Discrimination is about distinguishing, while "othering" is looking at commonalities. Both are useful, but must be understood within the proper "frame.

Groups are dangerous to individuation, as they do pressure individuals to conform to certain standards, or values. While this is good for children, it can be deadly for adults. Deindividuation has illustrated how group behavior all too easily becomes "herd mentality" and "mob behavior". Mobs create unrest and undermine the ability to think critically for oneself. It is peer pressure, plain and simple. Such "group think" is the group's "protection", security or defense against "foreign bodies" and is useful to maintain their survival. But, "group think" can also provide a cover for oppressive government or abusive dictators to defend their "territory". In these cases, propaganda can be used to manipulate and marginalize those that ask questions, or think "outside the box". Social conformity, in these cases, create a society where oppression rules over creativity, and individuation.

An identity is formed by  one's values, which must be underwritten by liberty, not paternalistic government, that "tells you what those values MUST be", in areas that really do not make a difference in societal flourishing. Otherwise, the individual is left without the ability to choose his vocation, or compete for a particular job. Americans have valued this form of individual liberty. While it is true that not everyone has the same capacity to perform every job, it is also true that there is a wide variety of jobs or interests that should be open to the individual in a free society.

In America, the States determine many social norms or values, such as abortion, gay marriage, legal ages for marriage, and other such "standards". These "standards" are the "cultural norm" for a particular local culture. But, at the national level, diplomacy is always negotiation of differences between or among different interests, cultural values, or standards of behavior. And these are determined by international law. It does become problematic when certain cultures do not allow liberty of conscience to the individual, as to religious conviction/claims. These cultures have been given "special priviledge" or exception, to the Universal Human Rights Declaration, which is disturbing to the nonessentialist. The West has paid a high costs in tolerating "intolerance".

Both postmodernity and multiculturalism are anti-thetical to rationality. Rationality is the only way or means of finding a place for "law and order". Otherwise, laws will be conflicting and confusing, because they will defend a particular culture, while discriminating against other cultures....or individual values.. An exclusivist culture defends a particular Tradition, while an individualist defends biological propensity/genetic identity. It is probably that both social conditioning AND genetic identity make for the uniqueness of individuals across the globe. And reason, not tradition, is the only way to understand those differences.

I am only beginning to think through these issues, so I can form my own opinion, and not be led by a paternalistic "authority", that limits my ability to come to my own conclusions.

Westpoint's Honor Code

Westpoint's honor code says, "We don't lie, cheat, or steal. And we don't tolerate those who do"!!! I respect this standard, as it maintains an order in society that values each equally.

Whenever we lie, cheat or steal, we do dishonor others by taking away another's expectation of rightful "life" and "liberty". These are values that protect our free society and protect justice, and we must not naively trust those who do not hold these standards. Those that do not adhere to these values are those that are not 'Westernized". We believe in the "rule of law".

Some cultures believe that lying, cheating and stealing is justified because of "honor" of "God", or one's family! These cultures speak a particular ethical language which ignores a universal standard of inclusion of diversity or individual rights. You must speak their particular cultural language to be valued and "in" the "honor" crowd... These are often religious cultures and these are based on "group think". Conformity is the "standard" that defines one's life, not liberty. It is the culture of children, whose parents determine what their child will and will not do or be. It is the "Nanny State" in political terms. Adults, who are free,  should outgrow such confining and conforming "traditions" and come to understand their own personal preferences and values.

I respect our "men in uniform" because they value and respect our "social order" which values liberty and justice above all other values. Individuals matter in American understanding and culture. I value that as all Americans should!

Limited Government and a Balance of Power

"Power corrupts", we have often heard. And those that have experienced power over thier lives will agree that power corrupts and abuses those under its authority. Humans cannot control unintended consequences, this is one of the achievments of our Founding Fathers. They understood that without limited government and a balance of power, individual would live their lives under "abuses of power".

The way the Founders formed our government was by law, which protected liberty. Justice was understood as an inalienable right. This right cannot be taken or given, as it is granted by nature. It is an innate equality of human beings, in their "personhood" because of being "made in God's image".

Our country has provided for and believed in "equal opportunity". The Statue of Liberty stands for the American value of incorporation "the many'. So, our cultural value is diversity. Individual have a right to express their voice, find their place, and to be a free moral agent. These values have led many to come to our shores to find refuge.

We, as a people, must still adhere to the values of limited government and a balance of power. This means that we stand with the individual, and we defend against abuse of law and governmental co-erciveness.

"We" are the people, or the indivdual who make up our nation and protect, defend and provide for continual greatness by not maintaining a stance of silence or indifference to corruption in the areas of limitation of government and a balance of power.

The differeneces lie in how we go about understanding what our country needs at present, in today's climate that is far from our Founders. But, we must defend their basic values and not give up our Constitution!

Presumption

This morning I was thinking about presumption. Presumption causes many problems in relationships, whether they be between two individuals or nations. Presumptions holds one's own views as the "only view" and acts without thought or understanding. This is what offends many about Americans. Traditions are individually oriented by the individual families that make up our nation's "tradition of diversity".

Everyone has heard and seen pictures of the stereotypical "American in Paris". This is funny, but not so funny. People have pride in their cultural traditions and some do not seem to respect these in today's inter-related world.

Our inter-related world has brought about more understanding, but there are still certain courtesies that those not privy to the "inside of culture" might not be aware. Such is the nature of unexposure to another culture.

Many years ago, when we travelled with our children to Paris and were seated at a corner table, as group of American students came in and were seated within our hearing. As they looked over the menu, one loudly asked if the "water was pure enough to drink"! IN PARIS! I was embarassed for her/them/me/Americans. What would make this teen so insensitive? Paris is not a 'third world country"!

I think sometimes insensitivity can happen because of a lack of exposure, or a lack of openness to life itself. The lack of openness can hinder even the experiences we have by being transcribed into our way of understanding or thinking about life especially if the cultural value is not based on rational discourse. This is what causes presumptuous behavior.

This has led me to question the value of culture, and which cultural value is most important. Cultural values have meaning to those that still partake of them. My husband's family has an "unspoken rule" about tea and cookies. There is a "proper way" to make and partake of "tea time". Americans have a casual attitude about such matters, because of our inability to understand why people don't value differences of opinion about ways of doing things. Our differences have made us tolerant, except where it concerns intolerance.

Today's problems "turn" around the intolerant cultures, which demand a strict obedience to certain standardized behaviors. These cultures are dangerous because they cannot tolerate the vast differences in the world. And those that adhere to "a one way of being" in the world are prone to subvert another's liberty in the name of "right", "the sacred", or some other type of presumptuous thinking.

Today, it is probably more important to remember the reasons for certain cultural traditions. These help to bind together a culture/nation and give it an identity. But, it also intensifies one's ethnic identification. This can be damning in today's world, where the world is attempting to "bind" all together, at least in understanding. But, understanding has to be premised upon rationality. And sometimes there is no way to agree or come to a compromise, because the values of certain cultures are so different and so obstinant.

Identity in America is understood, not just within ethnicity, but one's individuality. What does one want to do and how does one want to be in the world. The "world is the limit", because we attempt to protect the minority's right to opportunity and not limit or inhibit "difference".

Art, Form, and Expression

Art in the free world is a personal, as well as a cultural "expression". One's view of life and value is represented by these forms of expression, whether these expressions are in the printed press about politics, or whether these expressions are "artistic" ways of expressing other "forms" of "life". The West values the freedom of expression and so, we do not confine or undermine free expression. But, there are other countries that do.

Just this morning while going throught the massive piles of last week's newpapers, I read where China is now limiting Facebook and Twitter. There is much regulation is such countries because of their need to control the population's information that might undermine "elite power".

Such is also the case in Islamic countries where women are covered from head to toe. The free expression of "fashion" is not to be desired, affirmed, valued or allowed. "Allah" is a "black and white" God. Color, whether literal or metaphorical, is not appreciated in such cultures.

Even though conservative Islamic woman have no choice in their public image, I found many Islamic women going throught the history of fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum in London. I wondered why they were interested. Was art and its value a human universal, even when it is suppressed? The "universal" categories of "black and white" were more in line with "conservatism", than a particular religious tradition.

As I was looking and pondering over these thoughts, I came across two English women, who were viewing the case before them. One made a rather disintergrating and distainful remark about the "American designer sweatsuit" in the case. As she and her friend were obviously interested in "designer clothes", there was no value judgment made against expensive items. So, I wondered why the value judgment was made against this particular item of clothing.

The statement seemed to be dismissing as extravagant an expensive sweatsuit, while making allowance for much more expensive items of clothing. Was this value judgment based on a "traditional" understanding of aristocratic dressing, for an occassion? The value of aristocracy and its "image" is important to European identity, while Americans are practical and value using thier money where it is most useful, which is an individually determined definition. Sweatsuits are probably worn more than an evening gown, for instance. So, some Americans might find value in spending their money on an expensive sweatsuit, than an expensive gown.

America is known for individualism, informality, practicality, pragmatism, and liberty. I wonder if other countries look at our "success" as innovators, and our economic liberties as something that is envied and resented. America has represented many things to many people, because of our freedoms. Our freedoms are unique in this world. And I think rulers in other countries envy our "power" over the "ideals" of thier people.

I think being equal under law in a representative government is the best "ideal" there is in this world. Americans should value, defend and maintain this "form" rather than bickering about other "forms" of expression and being in this world.

"A Few Good Men", a Movie on Justice

Last night I went to babysit my grandchildren, while my daughter and son-in-law worked. After putting the kids to bed, I watched the movie, "A Few Good Men". It was a great movie about justice.

Justice has been defined in many ways. But, this was a movie that held those in leadership accountable in the "chain of command".

The movie was about two Marines in Guantanamo Bay, who were charged with murder of a fellow Marine. These Marines followed the orders of their superior, a colonel, under "code red". Code red was a term meaning that one must under all circumstances carry out obediently orders. Code red is a way to maintain "order" or "control", but it is not a way to carry out justice.

Hierarchal governmental structures are good at maintaining order or control, but do not necessarily bring about justice or are just in the means to attain justice. The ends justify the means, unless there is a balance of power and a way to address "blind spots", in "goal accomplishment". One must never be a blind slave or servant of injustice or unjust "governments", even in the name and for the sake of justice.

In the end of the movie, this is what the lawyer did, to bring about justice. He held the one in authority accountable to his command. The two Marines were honorably discharged. Justice does require accountability to "the rule of law" and to right norms of human behavior.

Today's world is being challenged in the area and sense of justice by multiculturalism. Multiculturalism values all cultures alike and considers their view when making value judgments. This is the road to tolerance for those who do not value human rights, such as the Taliban.

But, while the moral absolute of justice does value the individual's right, religion does not view the individual but the social/communal way of understanding culture. I find that in our international world, there are various ways of understanding citizenship, for instance.

The young Somalian woman who sought political asylum in the Netherlands and became a Dutch citizen found out that her citizenship was negated after some of her forms were not "truthful". Later, it was ruled that under Somalian law or understanding of citizenship, she had filled out the forms "correctly". The Netherlands took her motive into evaluating her credibility. Her Somalian culture determined her understanding and therefore, her way of filling out the form.

So, in regards to justice in international relations, the individual will always trump religion's social cultural "rules" and values. Thus, the secular humanist understands the danger of religion and religious zeal. I agree.

The "Ideal" Sits Within the "Imperfect" World

This morning over breakfast, a friend and I had a discussion about "life". We realized that life was a "desire", as well as a "disappointment". What do we do with the disappointment? And what does the "desire" mean?

The "desire" we both had was over the "Ideal Life". And we questioned how we came to the "ideal". Was our "ideal" the same as another's cultural "ideal"? Was our "ideal" influenced by our cultural "Disney World" standards? And what would that mean as to a "True Ideal"?

The cultural "ideal" of Islam is not what I would consider an "ideal". Honor killing for the sake of God's honor is horrendously offensive. And I told my friend that it makes me very angry. This is why I find myself curious as to the U.N.' tolerance to Islam's atrocious acts of inhumanity! How can ANY civilized society tolerate such barbariansim? The civilized world MUST defend itself against such religious zealotry! Otherwise, our disregard of injustice toward individuals will lead us down a primrose path to slavery under Sharia Law, in the name of tolerance and cultural relativity/diversity!

I told my friend that I had grown more passionate about political engagement than theological reflection, because the political realm was where people really lived. The ideals of our Constitution which defends and protects our citizens' lives are universal standards of human rights, as well as national defenses.

We are a people because we choose to live in a land that is free, but also, dependent on our commitment to freedom and justice in our public life. So, when it comes to reason, most of us would choose freedom of conscience in regards to religious conviciton and not the other way around, where religious conviction supplants reason because of some cultural understanding of "god"!

Honor and Shame as a Modern Cultural Value?

In ancient cultures, as in some "uncultured" societies, honor and shame rule the cultural landscape. These cultures, believe that social control is held by the social mores, which are bound within tradition's values.

In today's modern West, culture has become dissolved from societie's traditions, which have inhibited some social behavior that would bring shame on the individual or family. These values were what held society "together", as they underwrote man's responsibility for and in his environment.

Cultural values are maintained or upheld by the culture's religion. Religion gives the frame of reference for what culture should be about. The conditioning of children in the home, as well as within the Church was internalized as an identification factor for the child. These were maintained in ancient culture by shame or honor. Duty was the watch-word for the child trained under tradition's influence.

But, in the modern world, the child's education exposes him to a larger frame, where these values are "challenged". The young adult, then has to assess whether he will continue to be committed to his tradition's values, or where these traditions have lost their moral vision and need revision individually or socially.

Tradition has all but died in the Western world because of many societal factors. These factors range from technological advances that discourage face to face interaction, to the break-down of the family. Yesterday's social and moral challenge was the issue of slavery in our country, while today's challenge is redefining marriage.

Every time culture is challenged to change or revise its values, there are many social tensions within the tradition-bearing messengers, whether tradition's scholars, or tradition's insitutions.

Social change is not viewed by the majority as "good" or beneficial, as it revises cherished understandings of "truth", which brings a crisis in identity. While social change is challenging to all, it is necessary and needed, so that mankind can be more understanding of neighbor and enlarge his scope to 'self".