I had this huuuge response typed, and wouldn't ya know? Eaten. :/ Anyway -
I wasn't thinking of cultures in this thread - but now that you mention it....
In some cases the culture can be the disadvantaged group, so it can be one and the same...that's one reason I mentioned it, but no worries.
It seems that a culture is a long-standing set of customs. Sometimes a culture is used to identify an ethnic group. However, within ethnic groups there are always counter-cultural individuals. So I'm going to stick to calling a culture a set of customs (just so I can keep track of things).
Be careful here, though; culture isn't necessarily built on customs. In fact I'd say the culture comes first - you have a culture built on individuals who probably share physical characteristics first (or mannerisms). As that community grows then that community will also create customs for the group: Religious customs, superstitious customs, etc. But culture and custom are not necessarily synonymous. In fact, I'd say they're not synonymous at all. But no worries; for the sake of the discussion we can try and focus on customs rather than culture.
I suppose that cultures, like individuals, are entitled to a certain level of respect - however, cultures are somewhat more stagnant and open to scrutiny than individuals.
Hmm, now this is an interesting statement. Why do you feel cultures are more stagnant and open to scrutiny than individuals? I'm truly curious.
But what would be a fair standard for evaluating a culture?
Some criteria for evaluating cultures might include:
1. The extent to which the culture supports (or undermines) the wellbeing of the individuals partaking of that culture. (ie. a culture that requires bodily mutilation, or human sacrifices will obviously be less congenial to the wellbeing of individuals).
This can be very subjective, FA - every culture has a different level of what "well-being" means to them. In the United States it's normal for girls to pierce their ears - they do it all the time. It's almost a rite of passage. It not even be considered in other cultures (or customs) and some customs may practice full-body piercing. But those aren't wrong, they're just different. And what may be considered mutilation may be extreme piercing. Now mind you, there is a line, but even that can be a hard line to see based on the culture or custom. But let's address that later.
2. As a subsidiary: How well a culture enables an individual to interact with other cultures in a way that benefits the individual. (ie. a culture which is either insular, or does not condition for good judgement will either prevent people from adopting better customs; or dispose people to adopt bad foreign customs - some cultures adopted human sacrifice).
Again, subjective. The Japanese culture/custom is considered insular by many in the West, but its a thriving culture and outstrips many (despite the tsunami and nuclear reactor incidents). This culture is less likely to accept other cultures, and they are less likely to adopt other customs but they are hardly stunted in their growth. What makes a good culture or custom, then? Is it a culture or custom that is more or less similar to ours, or is it a custom that we can accept as "equal"? There is more to ponder here, methinks.
Human sacrifice...well, no, I think that's outside the boundaries. But what would another culture say about our tendencies to play violent video games--?
3. Whether the culture is sufficiently robust to be of continued benefit to an individual, exposed to many other cultures. (ie. when given a choice of many beneficial cultures, will one culture still offer a better standard of life? If it does, then this culture, for this individual will be superior to others and thus deserving of more respect).
(Emphasis mine)
Now I absolutely disagree here, and here's why: What is considered quality of life? How can we judge one culture's quality of life as better than another's? You can have someone who has one hut, three cattle, no electricity and a pond and he could be infinitely happier than someone who has four computers, a Nintendo, and all the video games in the world. If we're talking quality of life, the concept itself is highly subjective. You can't say one culture offers a better quality of life; you can only say you like your quality of life.
Mind you, I love my computer and my internet and my modern conveniences, but that's not quality of life. I think the person with fewer modern conveniences might even be better off. Because when weather tragedy strikes, the person who knows how to live off the land will have a much easier time of getting back to "normal" than I will.
In short, there's no such thing as a "superior" culture. There are only different cultures. And unless we take the time to experience those cultures and customs, we can't judge them. And even if we *do* experience them unless we're in them for a very long time can we compare and contrast them. I lived in Great Britain for a year, and I can honestly say that I prefer some things there than I do in the United States. Culturally, I'm still a US citizen, but I'd celebrate Hogmanay in a heartbeat if it wasn't so weird to celebrate it alone. And I personally do not celebrate Kwanzaa (I personally think it's silly), but I will respect those who do.
Some cultures are not only worthy of no respect - they should be actively shunned.
Depending on what it is, yes. I'd agree.
Now to explain it: Some customs are so detrimental to individual welbeing, that they cannot be tolerated. For example: forced human sacrifice; or systemetised brutality towards minors, women, the elderly, etc.
We're absolutely on the same page with this, but that's kind of an extreme example.
But one may object: that particular custom should be shunned, not the entire culture. To this, it must be noted that a culture is not just a random set of customs - it is a cohesive set of customs. If you change one significant custom, you have changed the culture - it is no longer the same thing afterwards. In this sense, some cultures which are openly complacent with destructive practices should be shunned, not not regarded with the same esteeme as other non-destructive cultures.
Okay - here it sounds as if you're saying culture and custom are the same, but I would categorically disagree. You can separate the two; it may be customary to get your ears pierced as a girl in the United States, but it doesn't make you any culturally less a US citizen if you don't. You may be looked at strangely, but you're not going to be shunned for being an outsider. It doesn't change the
culture to go against some of its customs; it changes the
individual. Obviously as I said before there is a line. There are extremes in every culture. For example, I don't think it's healthy to play video games 15 hours a day, but many in the United States do. That isn't a healthy practice. But should that be shunned culturally? There are many things people practice in the United States that rub me wrong, but I'm not going to eschew my entire culture because of a few people. If I leave the US it'll be because I like another country better in general. But it won't be because of a few customs or cultural practices.
Moreover, it cannot be said that one has at least to respect individual's rights to choose certain cultures - because if a young man were to adopt a primitive European tribal culture, which permitted, or even encouraged him to raid neighbouring towns to pillage and rape - he should be forcibly prevented from following his culture.
Again, I think you're using too many extremes in your examples. Most cultures don't have such extremes; but even an extreme for me may not be an extreme for someone else. For example, I detest the "southern flag" of the United States in deference to my own culture (and what it means to my culture). But if a person chooses to do so, then that's on them. I'll probably ask them why they have it, and I'll honestly want an answer, but I won't go off on them for having one.
If one were to insist that one's local culture must accept other cultures without qualification, it would change and transform one's culture into a different entity. For example, if we in the West were to accept/tollerate that cultures that forcibly mutilated their individuals - we would no longer be a culture that values freedom and physical saftey.
This is pretty extreme, and I think going too far in the opposite direction. It's not about accepting things that could either harm us or harm another individual; it's about understanding the other person's culture and how it made them who they are, with the understanding that they're different but not an anathema to us. There are levels of understanding we can all tolerate.
Everyone's culture has been transformed by the dominant culture in society. We're all forced to conform to the dominant flag over our society, but it doesn't mean we have to accept everything within our society. Respect is a two-way street; in order to respect each other, we have to respect why the customs or cultural references came in the first place. We don't have to *like* them, but if we seek to understand the other culture we need to understand why those customs came about in the first place.
Again, my twocents.
