Multiculturalism and Religious Fundamentalism

thewonder

How are Westerners to navigate the intersectional landscape when dealing with religious fundamentalism?

I, for instance, think that FEMEN is kind of insane and that France has no right to impose a ban upon how anyone dresses in any way shape or form, including the wearing of the hijab. However, certain left-wing parties see the wearing of the hijab as a reappropriative symbol of Muslim Feminist liberation. This, to me, is absurd. The hijab is an instrument of repression. It's not something else. If it's a matter of choice, then I don't see why anyone should be opposed to that a person decides to dress however it is that they please, but I do think that you have to be willing to question whether or not it is a matter of choice. To what degree are such cultural traditions imposed? In so far that they are, I think that, in order to do anyone any good, you have to be willing to say that, while you would respect that anyone should do so in so far that they are free to, you ultimately aren't in favor of that repressive traditions are maintained.

I sort of got into Arab rights activism, which I still see as being pressing and worthwhile, through my opposition to what can more or less be regarded as the "War on Terror", and this has been bothering me for kind of a while. I feel like the West has done so much damage in the region that we really do kind of owe it to them to make up for despairing situation that we have created there. I also think that a person should respect that people in the region have a myriad of different worldviews which drastically differ from those that we have here. I'm not quite sure how to be critical of Islam while still giving due regard to that it is a faith which I know almost nothing about. I think that it is better to see what is best in other worldviews than it is to focus on what is negative, but do ultimately think that, in order to really change things for the better, that you do have to be willing to be critical of the faith. How should one approach effecting restorative change in the region?

Terrapin Station

I like to tackle small nuggets at a time, of course:

The hijab is an instrument of repression. It's not something else. — thewonder

In my view, meaning (or "meaning" rather) doesn't work so that something clearly has the same meaning for everyone. Hijabs can mean anything. We have to ask each individual to know how they think about it.

thewonder

↪Terrapin Station

I think that it can be worn in some sort of radical sense, but that there is a sort of apologetic that goes along with some of the support for doing so. Anyone can reinterpret anything however they please. This is totally different, and, I do not at all mean to draw a comparison, but, to give an example, I think that when Sid Vicious wore the swastika on national television that he did, effectively, totally recontextualize it. The T-shirt was degenerate and banal, but the swastika on TV was a way of expressing that all that they wanted from him was for him to be a degenerate Nazi. I think that it was rather tragic that, in the end, they sort of got that.

That's sort of a tangent, but, from this, we can see, no matter what it is, it can be radically reinterpreted.

A person can drape themselves in a French flag in as much of an appeal to Communist revolution as they can to some form of reactinoary nationalism.

So, it can be done. The problem, I think, is that that women are expected to wear the hijab is generally somewhat repressive. I don't think that this should be generally supported in opposition to the absurd injunction to ban the hijab. Perhaps the clothing item just needs to be reinterpreted, and, so, in so far that it is, I suppose that that is good, but, in so far that it remains an instrument of repression, I don't think that the wearing of the hijab should be necessarily supported. As to how all of this should be handled, I am still unsure. I ultimately grew up in the West and it is ultimately not really my place to say how it is that a Muslim woman should dress. If asked, however, I feel like you should give a person your honest opinion. I think that it's kind of repressive, but that you should be able to choose how you express your belief system. I don't know whether or not that would go over well. I should like for it to, but ultimately can't say that I've really done the intersectional analysis to adequately put forth an opinion upon such things.

PoeticUniverse

not really my place to say how it is that a Muslim woman should dress. — thewonder

Yes, and it is also that the whole of a woman's body needs to be covered, for modesty, I suppose, which is mostly so but varies by the local Islamic law. Men need to cover up from their belly buttons down to their knees. Their religion is such to say that Allah has an interest in clothing the body.

The differences between cultures goes a long way to causing trouble, for human nature is not all that great about dealing with differences. Somehow, people think the credibility of their own culture gets diminished via the mere existence of the others (especially with differing religious beliefs).

thewonder

↪PoeticUniverse

Islam doesn't offend me in any way aside from that it tends be patriarchical. Perhaps I should have titled this thread Multiculturalism and Traditionalism. How does multiculturalism cope with traditionalism? I assume that it is a good thing that people should be aware of that there are all kinds of different cultures in the world and that people should take into account that various different worldviews are bound to drastically differ from their own and that you should approach other cultures somewhat openly. I just don't know what to do about that I do ultimately have qualms with certain kinds of traditionalism. Is the rejection of all forms of traditionalism culturally insensitive? How should you approach traditionalism in general?

I'm asking you as much as I'm asking anyone in general.

PoeticUniverse

How should you approach traditionalism in general? — thewonder

Live and let live, and even more so, if that's possible, because they have to do it, which fixed will understanding all the more lessons any possible aggravations. Even seek out other nationalities for their uniqueness.

thewonder

↪PoeticUniverse

I guess that I do that. One should only ever be so judgemental.

I met a guy once who was sort of into Bushido and I just rambled about Yukio Mishima because I think too much about Fascism and its various derivatives and then I felt sort of bad about it after the fact because I bet that that guy only really saw things that were good about Bushido and that I had, perhaps, to him, indirectly implied that I thought that he was some sort of esoteric Fascist.

I should try not to do that at least.

Then again, I don't see why you can't talk about Yukio Mishima in the bar if you really feel like it. I just kind of wanted to go on about him because I had been thinking about him lately. I had this experimental film that I was going to do about a guy in a dream state who was hunting down and killing off aspects of his own personality. The figure of the antagonist was going to be reading one of his books. It was supposed to be an Existential horror film.

Perhaps I'm just too bleak. I don't really think that I'm all that bleak, but I may come off that way. Anyways, I've gone quite off topic. Carry on as usual.

Echarmion

↪thewonder

Isn't the answer simply to treat religion and culture like any other sincerely held belief? I think one should always approach people and their views, especially dearly held ones, with a measure of respect. There is always a personal story behind them.

But one should also always question or criticize what one deems immoral or impractical. Why should culture and religion be accorded special status that makes them above ordinary discourse? Of course these are usually very dearly help beliefs, so one should be mindful of other people's feelings when discussing them. But to make them somehow taboo seems irrational.

Cultural relativism must ultimately lead to moral relativism. It's impossible to untangle culture from worldview. And I don't see anyone arguing we should respect and learn from the worldview of white supremacists.

alcontali

The hijab is an instrument of repression. It's not something else. — thewonder

To what degree are such cultural traditions imposed? — thewonder

Genesis 3:16. To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

A woman who does not want her husband to "rule over" her, will most likely not have one. I suspect that there is no other solution.

I also think that a person should respect that people in the region have a myriad of different worldviews which drastically differ from those that we have here. — thewonder

United States and Taliban negotiators have wrapped up their sixth round of peace talks with "some progress" made on a draft agreement for when foreign troops might withdraw from Afghanistan, a spokesperson for the armed group has said.

Since that small combat force, i.e. the Taliban, has now brought the USA to their knees, any hope of imposing western views on gender, upon other cultures/religions, had better be abandoned. These western views have simply failed the test of violent combat. The war is over.

Echarmion

A woman who does not want her husband to "rule over" her, will most likely not have one. I suspect that there is no other solution. — alcontali

Perhaps you'd like to have a talk with my wife about that. She seems to forget I am her ruler.

Since that small combat force, i.e. the Taliban, has now brought the USA to their knees, any hope of imposing western views on gender, upon other cultures/religions, had better be abandoned. These western views have simply failed the test of violent combat. The war is over. — alcontali

Western views are everywhere around the world. They're the standard according to which the upper classes of many non-western countries mold themselves. I think it's a little absurd to claim that western views have failed.

thewonder

↪Echarmion

I agree with some sort of "relative" ethics. I think that almost everyone agrees that you should respect other cultures. I suppose that Multiculturalism seeks to address this in general. I was thinking that there should be a multicultural equivalent to intersectionality, but then realized that that is just what Multiculturalism already is. I think that that has more or less solved my dillema, but you and whoever else can still go on about whatever if you feel like doing so.

↪alcontali

How was the war supposed to have effectively mediated a cultural dialogue?

alcontali

Western views are everywhere around the world. They're the standard according to which the upper classes of many non-western countries mold themselves. I think it's a little absurd to claim that western views have failed. — Echarmion

Matthew 5:5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

We do not descend from the upper classes of the past.

Why Millennials Refuse to Get Married. Marriage Rates Are Plummeting. Fertility Rates Keep Dropping, and it’s Going to Hit the Economy Hard.

Furthermore, the children of these upper classes will generally not be particularly upper-class any longer. It is the ones who keep up marriage and fertility rates who will ultimately prevail.

deletedusercb

Western views are everywhere around the world. They're the standard according to which the upper classes of many non-western countries mold themselves. I think it's a little absurd to claim that western views have failed. — Echarmion

The upper classes do not hold Western values. At least not modern ones. They increasingly see themselves above the law and have not the slightest problem with undermining democracy and fighting legislative changes that might make this harder to do both at home and abroad-

Echarmion

I agree with some sort of "relative" ethics. — thewonder

But aren't relative ethics a problem for stances opposing phenomena like racism or misogyny?

thewonder

↪Echarmion

I don't think so. I've never really studied Ethics, and, so, I couldn't really say with certainty, but it seems like some sort of situational ethics wouldn't discount that such things are still problematic. It'd be difficult to argue that according to the situation that the right thing to do would to be a racist or misogynist. Granted, there's always the potential for a reducto ad given a 'relativist' Ethical framework, but I think that if anyone really cared to hash it all of the way out that such problems would disappear.

NOS4A2

↪thewonder

How should one approach effecting restorative change in the region?

Promote a contrary view instead of just tearing down theirs. One reason westerners are converting to Islam is the lack of justification for the traditional western life. Only until we reform our own affairs and offer another way of life, can we work to change theirs.

Echarmion

I don't think so. I've never really studied Ethics, and, so, I couldn't really say with certainty, but it seems like some sort of situational ethics wouldn't discount that such things are still problematic. It'd be difficult to argue that according to the situation that the right thing to do would to be a racist or misogynist. Granted, there's always the potential for a reducto ad given a 'relativist' Ethical framework, but I think that if anyone really cared to hash it all of the way out that such problems would disappear. — thewonder

There is a difference in my mind between situational and relativist ethics. Ethics are necessarily situational, because they deal with decisions you make on given information. The relativist would be that different ethics apply to different people, not based on the situation they find themselves in, but because of who they are - that is the circumstances they have found themselves in in the past.

thewonder

↪NOS4A2

That's probably a good approach.

↪Echarmion

I think that Situational Ethics are grouped under the category of something like Moral Relativism, but you may be right that there is a real distinction. I think that "relativism" just denotes that a person doesn't believe in abstract moral truths. It, perhaps, shouldn't. But, to my estimation, that is what it generally refers to.

"Relativism" can, but does not necessarily mean that you think that Ethics stem from some sort of inner subjectivity. It just means that you reject that there is something like the Ten Commandments which are necessarily 'true' in every given case. It also follows that you would reject any set of abstract Ethical truths which are considered to be 'true' in a similar sense.

To me, it seems to be the case that no set of Ethical truths, no matter how well thought out, can apply to each and every given situation. This arises, in part, out of a preference that I have for subjectivity which is predicated upon that knowledge is situated by experience. @tim wood brought up a good point in a different thread, however, that there is a case to be made for that murder is just always wrong. I think that it logically follows that it is always wrong because it is, by definition, unwarranted. I disagree with his assumption that an abstract ethic should follow from that murder is always wrong, however, as I believe for it simply be an exceptional case. To me, even though you can probably make a case for a few things that are always just wrong, it doesn't really make very much sense to parcel out an abstract set of Ethical truths as the value judgements of any given event are moreso determined by the situation which engendered it.

Tzeentch

it is ultimately not really my place to say how it is that a Muslim woman should dress. — thewonder

In my view, it is a society's right to uphold those values that are fundamental to it. If a certain style of dress symbolizes something that conflicts with a society's values, I consequently see no issue in forbidding it.

Of course individual opinions on the meaning of such styles of dress may differ, but it is simply not practical for a society to judge these on a case-by-case basis.

Statesmanship is full of such concessions.

thewonder

↪Tzeentch

To me, there's something that's just implicitly totalitarian, and, therefore, totally undesirable, about regulating how it is that people choose to dress. Even if such legal actions are made in order to promote some Liberal principles which I may agree with, doing so seems to violate a basic right to free expression, which I am unwilling to concede. I am not of the opinion that is acceptable for a state to make such concessions.

Say, for instance, that an art band creates a glyph that they put on a shirt. This glyph somehow gets co-opted by Fascist terrorists through no fault of the band. The wearing of the shirt in support of Fascist terrorism becomes enough of a phenomenon to warrant concern. The banning of the wearing of the shirt is not a solution to the problem. The root causes of Fascist terrorism need to be addressed.

Echarmion

I think that Situational Ethics are grouped under the category of something like Moral Relativism, but you may be right that there is a real distinction. I think that "relativism" just denotes that a person doesn't believe in abstract moral truths. It, perhaps, shouldn't. But, to my estimation, that is what it generally refers to.

"Relativism" can, but does not necessarily mean that you think that Ethics stem from some sort of inner subjectivity. It just means that you reject that there is something like the Ten Commandments which are necessarily 'true' in every given case. It also follows that you would reject any set of abstract Ethical truths which are considered to be 'true' in a similar sense. — thewonder

Actually I think it's fair to say that a moral relativist rejects abstract moral truths. But I think there are situational abstract moral truths. Kant's Categorical Imperative, or a similar idea of reciprocity, would be an abstract moral truth, but it's not a list of commandments. It's a guide for decision-making and in that case is absolute in it's command. But the command can be different for any given situation.

To me, it seems to be the case that no set of Ethical truths, no matter how well thought out, can apply to each and every given situation. This arises, in part, out of a preference that I have for subjectivity which is predicated upon that knowledge is situated by experience. tim wood brought up a good point in a different thread, however, that there is a case to be made for that murder is just always wrong. I think that it logically follows that it is always wrong because it is, by definition, unwarranted. I disagree with his assumption that an abstract ethic should follow from that murder is always wrong, however, as I believe for it simply be an exceptional case. To me, even though you can probably make a case for a few things that are always just wrong, it doesn't really make very much sense to parcel out an abstract set of Ethical truths as the value judgements of any given event are moreso determined by the situation which engendered it. — thewonder

I agree with this more or less completely. I think the proper use for abstract morals is as a guidance for decision making, not a list of commandments. I do think it's possible to come up with a guidance that does it's job, in the same way as the scientific method does it's job.

thewonder

↪Echarmion

I don't know that Situational Ethics rejects necessarily rejects the Categorical Imperative, but I do think that "Relativism" does. It's a bit strange to discuss "Relativism", I think, because the term was sort of used a pejorative for the common Relativist Fallacy within the Soviet Union by the likes of Ayn Rand. I don't think that that is at all what "Relativism" is, but, to my understanding, the term is somewhat nebulous.

We can come up with general guidelines, but I would arguge that it is only so useful to do so. The logic of the general rule has a way, in my opinion of running away with itself.

You could, for instance, argue that it was wrong for Gavrillo Princips to assassinate Franz Ferdinand based off of the general rule that it is wrong to kill. When you begin to apply general rules to the situation, however, I think that the Ethical concerns get kind of out of hand. To deduce that it is wrong to kill a political leader because this hazards starting a world war fails to take into account the particulars of Princips's situation. He was only nineteen, a somewhat disaffected youth who became involved with parties who had nothing to do with the kind of society that he sought to create in the midst of political situation that he could not be reasonably held accountable for. That the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a somewhat lone act by an alienated teenager is a drastically different interpretation of the event than that Anarchists present a clear and present danger to peaceful society.

I'm not sure if that argument really makes too much sense. I just kind of wanted to bring up Gavrilo Princips for some reason.

I guess that what I'm suggesting is that the attempt to create general rules and guidelines hazards jumping to conclusions in a way that what I percieve to be Situation Ethics does not necessarily.

alcontali

In my view, it is a society's right to uphold those values that are fundamental to it. If a certain style of dress symbolizes something that conflicts with a society's values, I consequently see no issue in forbidding it. — Tzeentch

There is something very important missing in this equation, namely the requirement to put skin in the game.

That is why Roosevelt's decision to instruct Eisenhower to carpet bomb the nazi civilian population was so important. It was just too easy for these nazi civilian populations to clamour for "upholding nazi values" without them risking their own life at the Russian front. The carpet bombing of nazi civilian populations rectified that problem by forcing them to put skin in the game.

It is certainly possible to enforce any kind of "society value" but the idea that someone else will have to risk their lives and die for what you believe in, is simply not acceptable. If you refuse to put skin in the game, then you must be forced, kicking and screaming, to do so.

Tzeentch

To me, there's something that's just implicitly totalitarian, and, therefore, totally undesirable, about regulating how it is that people choose to dress. — thewonder

Aren't there so many things in society that dictate the behavior of people? Regulating the behavior of people in order for them to coexist peacefully is, dare I say, a constant in history. Perhaps you find that undesirable, but then I also suppose you are in favor of a style of living that is radically different from the society we live in today.

↪alcontali

These seem different topics. Whether citizens should be allowed to dress a certain way is an internal affair of state, whereas the situation you depicted concerns international affairs. The former deals with the "Us" and how "We" should behave, whereas the latter is deals with "Them" and how "They" should behave.

thewonder

↪Tzeentch

That it is constant in history does mean that it should be done. Slavery was sort of a historical constant. Just because things have been the case does not mean that they should be.

I am in favor of a style of living that radically differs from what exists now. I would contend that a continuation of politics as such is not necessarily positive.

alcontali

Whether citizens should be allowed to dress a certain way is an internal affair of state, whereas the situation you depicted concerns international affairs. — Tzeentch

In terms of "skin in the game", it is the same problem.

There are people who clamour for arbitrary enforcement action against other people, but who do not intend to put skin in the game. You see, Alexander the Great had real authority, because he would always personally lead the cavalry charge. If he had refused to take personal risk, his views would have been dismissed as "too easy".

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Nassim Taleb's "Skin in the game" even argues that there should be no such thing as a free lunch. People with no skin in the game, should never have a say; or else, they should be forced to put skin in the game.

It all shows the necessity to retaliate against civilian populations, who must never be allowed to believe that there is something like a free lunch.

Tzeentch

Just because things have been the case does not mean that they should be. — thewonder

Certainly. But perhaps you will agree that when something has been the case for all of history, there must be some good reasons for it?

I am in favor of a style of living that radically differs from what exists now. — thewonder

Would you care to share that with us?

thewonder

↪Tzeentch

Those reasons being that they are a means to maintain an ostensibly illiberal and unequal society which only benefits a select few. That the governance of the Pharohs made sense does make it at all desirable.

I am a very particular Anarcho-Pacifist with interests and critiques of Autonomism and Communization.

Tzeentch

Those reasons being that they are a means to maintain an ostensibly illiberal and unequal society which only benefits a select few. That the governance of the Pharohs made sense does make it at all desirable. — thewonder

Alright, but there must be some reasons for the majority to accept such conditions?

I am a very particular Anarcho-Pacifist with interests and critiques of Autonomism and Communization. — thewonder

Do you believe that humans are pacifist in nature?

thewonder

↪Tzeentch

There are of course, reasons. Everything has reasons. That doesn't make them good.

I think that humans are vaguely Pacifist in nature. I would probably suggest that while, in nature, human beings are neither violent nor nonviolent, that they can generally be considered to be somewhat nonviolent. I have an only partially optimistic view of human nature in general. I also think that it only 'exists' to a certain degree.

deletedusercb

Say, for instance, that an art band creates a glyph that they put on a shirt. This glyph somehow gets co-opted by Fascist terrorists through no fault of the band. The wearing of the shirt in support of Fascist terrorism becomes enough of a phenomenon to warrant concern. The banning of the wearing of the shirt is not a solution to the problem. The root causes of Fascist terrorism need to be addressed. — thewonder

How does one address the root causes of Islamic or north african ideas about women and their clothes and not be what you are calling totalititarian? What's the counterproposal?

I actually agree, I wouldn't outlaw women wearing the hijab, though I might for minors, that is girls.

Multiculturalism and Religious Fundamentalism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions