Cultural Differences and Approaches to Justice - Coursework Example

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND APPROACHES TO JUSTICE It has pertinently been d that human societies have been divided into countless categories on the basis of some specific traits and characteristics. Among the most dominant differences, culture is the largest and most imperative one, which not only describes the belief, values and activities of the people belonging to one society, but also determines the attitude of its followers that distinguishes it from other cultural patterns. It regulates the activities of the groups of individuals in such a way that all their movements look confined within the cultural design they imitate. Before embarking upon the topic under study, it would be appropriate to define culture. Culture is the amalgamation of religious belief system, cult, social norms, values, mores, customs, traditions and conventions. Language, art, literature, festivals, folkways, food, dressing, writings, music, dance, thought and philosophy also come under the fold of culture. “Culture is”, Macionis submits, “the values, beliefs, behavior, and material objects that together form a peoples’ way of life. Culture includes what we think, how we act, and what we own.” (2007: p 60) Hence, culture is not specific to one single era only; rather, it maintains its roots in ancient past, branches of which seek their way in future centuries to come. Since cultural patterns vary from one region to the other, the values, norms and traditions also observe imperative divergence in them. A tradition, thought to be complying and pleasing in one set up, may be offensive, ridiculous and annoying within the framework of some other. For instance, shaking of hands with the colleagues of the opposite gender is a common thing in the west, and is viewed as a part of interaction, but the same is considered very awkward and indecent in the East, particularly in Muslim states and India. Similarly, intimate relationship among the males are viewed as a sign of sincerity and friendship in Asian countries, while the same act is suspected as homosexual aptitude in some parts of Africa and western Europe. “Differences between people”, Encina (2007) notes, “within any given nation or culture are much greater than differences between groups. Education, social standing, religion, personality, belief structure, past experience, affection shown in the home, and a myriad of other factors will affect human behavior and culture.” (Quoted incnr.berkeley.edu) Thus, cultural values develop the tastes and decide intellectual thoughtfulness of the individuals belonging to that very region in which one has grown up and completed his socialization process. Cultural mannerism not only establishes the direction of everyday activities of the people, but also it undoubtedly determines the thinking, intellect, political strategies and socioeconomic policies of an area. Man learns the significant part of his knowledge through socialization process. Socialization is the by-product of man’s interaction with his environment, which teaches him how to act, react and behave sat some specific time or occasion. Hence, socialization trains humans in such a way that the strong influence of his religious and social values reflects in his everyday individual and collective performances. This individual impact gives birth to the well-settled collective national behavior, and man sees the world his colored spectacles of his cultural set of belief. Political and religious leadership has the long lasting impact on the life-style of the common people. “For instance, Mao’s cap won great popularity in China, while the wearing of hat by the Queen in England at once becomes the fashion of the whole country. In the same way, Jinnah’s cap got admiration among the Muslims of India during the last years of 1930s.” (Zaidi, 2001: p 76) Since every group and nation views itself superior to others and maintains feelings of prejudice and biased ness towards the members of out-groups, an overwhelming majority of that group remains strictly confined to its own belief and determines to go to any extent in order to keep it in a leading position within national and global perspective. The entire situation gives birth to conflict, anarchy and disorder at local, national and international levels. The situation is particularly grave in nature in the most advanced societies, where individuals belonging to divergent racial and ethnic background migrate and settle in order to seek wider work opportunities as well as better education, trade and health facilities. The same is applied in the contemporary multicultural US society, where people belonging to all races and ethnic groups of the world have settled and have observed the process of acculturation. Since the White Anglo Saxon Population (WASP) has been in an influential preponderance in the USA for the last four centuries, it has gained considerable control over all the social, political, economic, religious and cultural institutions of the country. Consequently, it regards other racial, religious and ethnic groups as inferior to it in status and position. It is therefore the minority races including the individuals from Central Asia, Far East, Middle East and Africa had been the victim of apartheid and discriminative behavior for decades, human rights of which have also been denied by the third quarter of twentieth century. But the majority population does not consider it even an injustice at all. Rather, the white population views it as the part of their struggle for the maintenance of their control over their religious and cultural activities. Thence, the extraordinary achievements and services rendered by the individuals belonging to minority racial and ethnic groups, in any field of life including health, science, technology, sports and others, are not admired wholeheartedly. On the contrary, an unpleasant atmosphere of competition and conflict starts making a sure headway within the country subsequent to the accomplishments of the minorities. “Sociologist Harry Edwards”, Schaefer argues, “agrees that the self-fulfilling prophecy of innate black athletic superiority can have damaging consequences. Edwards points out that although this perception of athletic prowess may channel many African Americans into sports, only about 2,500 of them at best currently make a living in professional sports.” (2003: p 228) The power of cultural drive develops man’s personality and regulates his activities in such a way that he feels himself quite unable to take decision independently. There are many practices found in one community, observing of which is seriously considered as grave threat for the survival of social unity and integrity, and is unanimously viewed as injustice, but the group exercising such maltreatment is unable to understand it as an act of inequality and social injustice. Renowned French Philosopher and human rights intellectual of eighteenth century, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) has declared the very fact in his book “the Social Contract” that man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains. By this statement, he simply indicates the injustices, inequalities and bounds humans have to face during the course of their life. Hence, he stands for the preservation and implication of the human rights, which portray the need, popularity and universality of human rights. Human rights simply refer to the basic privileges and civil liberties every man must enjoy while living as a member of a human society as well as the part of the culture. Looking into the history of cultures and civilizations at large, it becomes evident that humans have always been the lovers of freedom of thought and action since their arrival on the Earth. All the wars, battles and conflicts are mere the outcome of the suppression and oppression committed on the poor, weak and helpless strata by the influential minority of a social establishment since ever. It is therefore, the religious leaders, philosophers and intellectuals devoted their lives for the elimination of tyranny and observance of social justice for all human beings without discrimination. Rosa Park’s story also narrates the same, where the renowned writer and social activist of twentieth century Rosa Park had to undergo severe social injustice during her journey through a bus. Being an African American, she was mistreated and misbehaved by the white driver in 1955, which was widely declared as an evident injustice, though the white population refused to deliver any words of sympathy for the injustice. It was actually because of the prevailing cultural impact on the individuals belonging to white race, who considered it their birth right to dominate and rule over the blacks, which were, according to them, the descendants of African slaves, and had no right to challenge the supremacy of the white population. The bus driver had ordered Parks and three other black passengers regarding relinquishing their seats in the bus in favor of the white passengers on which Parks and three other African Americans were sitting on December1, 1955. Parks resisted against the unethical instructions of the driver and refused to move from her seat altogether. It seriously infuriated the white majority and caused Parks’ subsequent arrest and court trials, but subsequently ended in the victory of minority groups, which is now enjoying the equal status in the country. “My resistance against leaving the seat, Parks submits, was neither due to my physical tiredness, nor it was an outcome of my age factor; rather, the whole incident was the reaction of the humiliating attitude of the whites, who considered the blacks as the inferior stratum of society.” (1992: p 130) Almost same is applied on Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus and other nations, all of which have their share in the misunderstanding of justice because of their cultural differences. Discouraging an individual from performing his religious obligations is a violence of human rights, but every country observes the same within its jurisdiction. The rulers as well as local population of Saudi Arabia are as much racist that they do not offer any type of equal citizenship to the foreigners; even the foreigner has made huge investment in the country, and has rendered valuable services for the country. “For nearly 30 years,” Schaefer quotes, “new events have fueled anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feelings within the United States and contributing to stereotyping.” (2003: p 230) The co-operation and understanding between them all is essential for the peace and solidarity of various groups and communities. It may surely be supportive in developing of a progressive and prosperous America at large. History is replete with the examples of apartheid and racial discrimination in various cultures. The French under Napoleon were always ready to display their unique identity in order to show their uniqueness on the one hand, and commitment to their leader on the other. “Following the democratization of the French army under Napoleon, there was a saying to the effect that every soldier carried a marshal’s baton in his backpack.” (Tetreault, & Lipschutz , 2005: p 15) While looking into the behavior of Ottoman Turks during their dealings with the Armenians by the beginning of the last century. The Ottoman Turks committed horrible genocide and inflicted every type of pains and sufferings on the minority Armenian population during World War I in 1915, which not only shoved the innocent Armenians into destruction, devastation, damages, despair and disappointment, but also gave a go to making further atrocities on approximately the same patterns and by applying more cruel forces and more destructive weapons to crush the rival races, ethnic groups, religions and cultures. “The Armenian genocide resulted in the death of Armenian society in the former Ottoman Empire, the flight of many Armenians across the border into Russian territory resulted in compressing part of the surviving Armenian population into the smaller section of historic Armenia.” (Adalian, 1991: p 11) In the same way, the renowned German Chancellor Adolf Hitler exercised injustices and mortifying attitude towards the Jews during the WWII, and forced them either leave the country or lead a very humiliating life in the German soil. All the tyrants declare the cruelties displayed by others as socio-cultural injustices, but vehemently support their own crimes as a justifiable act. Similarly, the condemnable atrocities committed by the USA in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, Israeli brutalities in Palestine and Russian atrocities in Bosnia are the instances of reprehensible genocides of present-day era. But the Jews only consider their own miseries as cruelty and injustice, but do not look ready to stop imitating the footprints of their worst enemy Hitler, by dealing with the Palestinians on the same model in the present day, which they had suffered over six decades ago in Germany. Cultural and ideological divergences between the groups inspired the lust of the powerful nations to dominate over weak nations of same or different ethnicity, which cost thousands of lives and other losses both in men and material. It could particularly be observed while studying the Colonial Era from 17th of early 20th centuries, where the western powers left no stone unturned to capture the wealth, resources and man-power of Asian and African countries. “International forces”, Mahajan argues, aggravate differences between weaker nations in order to fry their own fish. The conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungry had German, Russian and Ottoman conspiracies behind it before the beginning of WWI.” (1999: p 341) The massacre of Ochakov in 1788 in the Russo-Turkish war has restrained its notoriety as an increasingly infrequent example of lust for occupying more and more land in various parts of the world. (Corvisier, 1994: p 467) The first, second and third partitions of helpless Poland at the hands of Russia, Austria-Hungary and Prussia in eighteenth century also reflect the cultural domination lust of the powerful neighboring countries towards small and weak nations where no religious differences or ethnic discriminations involved at all. But any such transgression and trespass in the area of great regions is not only condemned, by also retaliated in a decisive way. The nefarious terrorist organization Al Qaeda is synonymous with terrorism and taken as a new threat to imperialism, which is anxious to capture the resources of the world at large in the name of ethnicity as well as religion. It also takes its activities culturally fair and true one, and declares the struggle of the globe against its nasty network as injustice. On the contrary, the USA advocates her invasion over Iraq as a justified act. Hence, these hostilities at global level are the outcome of strong cultural differences among nations, groups and individuals at large. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adalian, Rouben Paul. 1991 The Armenian Genocide: Context and Legacy Chander, Parkash & Arora Prem. 1998 International relations. Cosmos Book-hive Private Limited Delhi. pp Corvisier, Andre. 1994 A Dictionary of Military History Blackwell Publishers Oxford UK Encina, Gregorio Billikopf .2007 Cultural Differences? Or, are we really that different? (Retrieved from http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article01.htm) Mahajan, V. D. 1999. International Relations since 1900. S. Chand & Company Limited. Ramnagar India Macionis, John J. (2007). Sociology. Eleventh edition. Prentice Hall Inc. p 60 Parks, Rosa. (1992) My Story p 130 Porter, Jene M. 1997 Classics in Political Philosophy. Second Edition. Prentice-Hall Canada pp 293-402 Schaefer, Richard T. 2003 Racial and Ethnic Groups. Tenth Edition Prentice-Hall Pearson Education, Inc pp 228-230 Solomon, Benjamin. (2003) Kants Perpetual Peace: A New Look at this Centuries-Old Quest. The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution Summer 5.1 ISSN: 1522-211X | www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/5_1solomon.htm pp 106-126 Tetreault, Mary Ann. & Lipschutz, Ronnie. D. 2005 Global Politics as if People Mattered Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, Lanham pp 15-19 Read More