Divergence From Western Values Is Not Deviance
by Patrick Chabal
Monday, February 6, 2006
Financial Times
The furore over the publication in some European newspapers of Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed prompts the Czech daily Mlada Fronta Dnes to speak, once more, of a "clash of civilisations". The Muslim Association of Britain accuses the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten of "flagrant disregard" for the feelings of Muslims worldwide. Yet again, there appears to be a clash between Muslim and western "values". So what is going on?
At a time when the globalised world order is meant to be sustained by liberal democracy and free-market economics, we are confronted by complex and often violent problems that seem intractable. Paris suburbs burn at night; warlords thrive in Afghanistan; the Group of Eight wants to usher in democracy in Africa. All the while there is talk of the war on terror being a struggle to uphold "western values". Indeed, we seem to have entered an age when conflict is primarily about culture: al-Qaeda rejects western ethics; Iraqis favour their own political morality; the estranged youth of France prefer Algerian raï music and Muslims in Gaza object to cartoons of the Prophet published in Copenhagen. But if the frontline is now cultural, who decides on the right values?
Because we in the west are convinced of the superiority of our own political system, we tend to explain the refusal of some to adopt or adapt to it by way of their beliefs. Muslims cannot assimilate into European society because of their "creed"; the Middle East must be "taught" democracy; Africans need to "learn" the virtues of civil society. What this illustrates is the repeated failure to think of culture other than in ethnocentric terms. While happy to assume our values are universal, we are loath to accept that others differ. We explain disagreement as deviance: when these people understand our principles, they will agree.
Such presuppositions are dangerous because they lead to the type of rigid reductionism – people who disagree hold the wrong beliefs – that makes misunderstanding and violence more likely. Telling Afghans, Iraqis or Africans that their problems stem from their backward beliefs is unlikely to gain their support for an agenda of "freedom". Ordering alienated western youth of foreign descent to behave according to local values is liable to focus their anger on those very western values from which they feel estranged. It is this narrow view of culture that leads to simplistic policy decisions.
One way out of the ethnocentric trap is to consider culture not as a set of values but as the shared logic used by people to tackle issues important to them. What we regard as corruption in Africa often results from widespread and well-respected relations of reciprocity, which form the bedrock of social integration. The same goes for Iraq's tribal politics. The dress code and language of second-generation immigrants in Europe is less a challenge to western standards than an assertion of distinctiveness in the face of disaffection and poor opportunities.
Understanding the culture of others thus involves explaining what makes sense to them. As the HSBC advertising campaign illustrates, it is critical to know when to bow and when to shake hands. Explaining why Africa has failed to develop requires understanding how patrimonial power is legitimate on the continent and why it is structurally inimical to investment – not giving more aid to engender democracy. Coming to terms with the politics of Iraq and Afghanistan demands an appreciation of the ways accountability is conceived in different sections of these societies – not arbitrarily imposing constitutional dispensations that make little sense locally.
Devising policies to meet the challenge of French suburban violence or of British Muslim terrorists means eschewing the bland, value-laden and discredited commissions on French citizenship or Islamophobia that produce predictable results. What is needed is empirical research into questions of identity among young people from ethnic or social groups that feel divorced from the society in which they live. This means understanding their social and political language in its local (Vitry or Bradford) context. Concern about Islamic "values" is a diversion.
Governments and politicians must realise that making policy without understanding culture is doomed to failure, but they must also see that equating culture with values is a dead end. This entails a change in mindset: culture is what people share, not just what they believe.
The writer is author with Jean-Pascal Daloz of Culture Troubles: politics and the interpretation of meaning (London: Hurst, 2006)
Monday, February 6, 2006
Financial Times
The furore over the publication in some European newspapers of Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed prompts the Czech daily Mlada Fronta Dnes to speak, once more, of a "clash of civilisations". The Muslim Association of Britain accuses the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten of "flagrant disregard" for the feelings of Muslims worldwide. Yet again, there appears to be a clash between Muslim and western "values". So what is going on?
At a time when the globalised world order is meant to be sustained by liberal democracy and free-market economics, we are confronted by complex and often violent problems that seem intractable. Paris suburbs burn at night; warlords thrive in Afghanistan; the Group of Eight wants to usher in democracy in Africa. All the while there is talk of the war on terror being a struggle to uphold "western values". Indeed, we seem to have entered an age when conflict is primarily about culture: al-Qaeda rejects western ethics; Iraqis favour their own political morality; the estranged youth of France prefer Algerian raï music and Muslims in Gaza object to cartoons of the Prophet published in Copenhagen. But if the frontline is now cultural, who decides on the right values?
Because we in the west are convinced of the superiority of our own political system, we tend to explain the refusal of some to adopt or adapt to it by way of their beliefs. Muslims cannot assimilate into European society because of their "creed"; the Middle East must be "taught" democracy; Africans need to "learn" the virtues of civil society. What this illustrates is the repeated failure to think of culture other than in ethnocentric terms. While happy to assume our values are universal, we are loath to accept that others differ. We explain disagreement as deviance: when these people understand our principles, they will agree.
Such presuppositions are dangerous because they lead to the type of rigid reductionism – people who disagree hold the wrong beliefs – that makes misunderstanding and violence more likely. Telling Afghans, Iraqis or Africans that their problems stem from their backward beliefs is unlikely to gain their support for an agenda of "freedom". Ordering alienated western youth of foreign descent to behave according to local values is liable to focus their anger on those very western values from which they feel estranged. It is this narrow view of culture that leads to simplistic policy decisions.
One way out of the ethnocentric trap is to consider culture not as a set of values but as the shared logic used by people to tackle issues important to them. What we regard as corruption in Africa often results from widespread and well-respected relations of reciprocity, which form the bedrock of social integration. The same goes for Iraq's tribal politics. The dress code and language of second-generation immigrants in Europe is less a challenge to western standards than an assertion of distinctiveness in the face of disaffection and poor opportunities.
Understanding the culture of others thus involves explaining what makes sense to them. As the HSBC advertising campaign illustrates, it is critical to know when to bow and when to shake hands. Explaining why Africa has failed to develop requires understanding how patrimonial power is legitimate on the continent and why it is structurally inimical to investment – not giving more aid to engender democracy. Coming to terms with the politics of Iraq and Afghanistan demands an appreciation of the ways accountability is conceived in different sections of these societies – not arbitrarily imposing constitutional dispensations that make little sense locally.
Devising policies to meet the challenge of French suburban violence or of British Muslim terrorists means eschewing the bland, value-laden and discredited commissions on French citizenship or Islamophobia that produce predictable results. What is needed is empirical research into questions of identity among young people from ethnic or social groups that feel divorced from the society in which they live. This means understanding their social and political language in its local (Vitry or Bradford) context. Concern about Islamic "values" is a diversion.
Governments and politicians must realise that making policy without understanding culture is doomed to failure, but they must also see that equating culture with values is a dead end. This entails a change in mindset: culture is what people share, not just what they believe.
The writer is author with Jean-Pascal Daloz of Culture Troubles: politics and the interpretation of meaning (London: Hurst, 2006)
posted by machiavelli at 6:00 PM
