v
Against Liberalism
Ø
History: against
universalism (by liberals): liberalism, with
its “individualistic” assumptions, may not be exportable.
(Is “individualism” a straw person? Vide Nussbaum)
Ø
Association of
Liberal “individualism” with laissez-faire capitalism (c.f. my utilitarian argument for affirmative action,
etc.)
Ø
Face-to-face
communities: Gemeinschaft and Gesellshaft “Think globally act locally” Appiah on “traditional
cultures”
v
Communitarianism: A
Response to Rawls
Ø
“Asian
Values” and the value of
“community” ( compare Sen, Nussbaum p. 37) Contrary to liberals (of
all kinds) for whom liberty is the primary (or only intrinsic) value, there may
be a plurality of values and
liberty may not have pride of place.
Ø
Women’s rights
as a “gray area” (p. 6)
See section on wife-beating, test case of Maasai woman.
Ø
Critique of
“individualist conception of the self” e.g. Charles Taylor “Atomism” and the
“feminist” critique—the importance of affiliation and
embodiment (vide Jaggar) in light of women’s association with the body
and involvement in primary affiliations. The Liberal Ideal, allegedly, accepts
the characteristically male view of the world, formed by the lives men live, as
normative. Response: so why not regard the allegedly female view of the world,
formed by domestic servitude, exclusion from public life and intellectual
activity, as something women want, and need, to get out of? Moreover, how many
educated women have this characteristic view? Engage in communal quilting bees,
etc.?
Ø
Bedrock: is choice
intrinsically valuable? “Communitarians
can reply by casting doubt on the view that choice is intrinsically valuable,
that a certain moral principle or communal attachment is more valuable simply
because it has been chosen following deliberation among alternatives by an
andividual subject.” (p.9) … A feminist theorist may point to the
mother-child relationship as an example of a constitutive feature of ones
identity and argue that any attempt to deny this fails to be sensitive to women’s
special needs and experiences.” (p.10)
v
Nussbaum in Defense
of Universal Values
Ø
The Capability
Approach (objection to preference
utilitarianism, vide the Perfectly Benevolent Dictator)
Ø
Objective List Theory
(objection to both Rawls on primary
goods and to and subjective
welfarism (preference-satisfaction or
pleasure). The aim is to promote “flourishing.”
v
Arguments for
cultural preservation
Ø
Curio value
Ø
Cultures as
“welfare subjects”
§
Argument from Culture
(Nussbaum): Worry that we’re ethnocentric, assessing alien
practices adversely. (Nussbaum pp 41ff): “deep” values and
“things indifferent.” Nussbaum’s remarks about women’s
cooperatives, female solidarity. To what extent are attractive cultural
practices entangled with the rejection of important human values? Neutral example: religious practices,
superstition and authoritarianism, crucifixes in classrooms. The option to
choose traditional practices should be there—and also to reject them.
(but what about my knights/knaves problem?)
§
Argument from the
good of Diversity (Nussbaum): But
consider Gone With the Wind some cultures are just bad. There are
trade-offs but sometimes it’s worth trading off the culture if its most
fundamental values are oppressive.
Ø
Argument from
Paternalism Nussbaum however suggests
that the universal values in question are precisely those that support free
choice and provide real options (positive freedom). Jayamme in a sense had the coince to go to school
but the economic circumstances of her life made this impossible.
Ø
Argument from Western
hegemony (ad hominum, genetic
fallacy) (1) interference is an excuse to promote Western political and
economic, (2) Western countries don’t have a great human rights record,
and (3) given the record of past interference it’s unlikely that they
will use their power to promote human rights. Response: (1) intentions don’t matter—consider the
Civil War, (2) tu quoque, (3) in some place it, given the record, it’s
even less likely that indigenous regimes will use their power to promote human
rights without interference.
Ø
Preferences and
trade-offs by members (Nussbaum p.
46) Response: Don’t
romanticize traditions from without. Women at China conference attacking
western feminist’s attempts to rehabilitate Confucious “’That
was a Western paper’…the traditions could look beautiful, since she
had never had to live in the world they constructed.”
Ø
“Authenticity”
and allegedly “true” references. (1) Patronizing, (2) possibly racist (compare Reconstructionist Pagan
board), (3) ignores cultural change.
v
Color Conscious
Ø
Cultures aren’t
homogenious: “whose culture?” (1) cultures aren’t homogenious and (2) we oftentake the
“voice” of the most powerful members of the culture as the
“voice” of the culture. Compare to taking Bush as the voice of our
culture. New Yorker article on a Yank at Oxford.
Ø
Cultures change
Ø
“Scripts”
(1) Tight-scripting restricts
individual liberty; (2) any scripting at all can be detrimental, promote statistical
discrimination
v
Gender Conscious: A
Utilitarian argument for Integration (Assimilation)
Ø
Integration vs.
Diversity
Ø
Social salience Not all visible, unchosen characteristics trigger
“scripting”
Ø
Two dimensions of
freedom: (1) the characteristic is chosen, (2) whether
chosen or not, I can choose to make it part of my identity, e.g. old school
tie, left-handedness, etc.
Ø
Race, Gender and
Ethnicity are scripted: both unchosen
and impossible to avoid identifying with.. The knights/knaves problem. Compare
female modesty conventions.