Cultural Encounters and Cultural Exemptions - Essay Example

Liberal Philosophers should support cultural exemptions because cultural exemptions promote autonomy. In todays world, there are many different typesof culture that exist side by side in any society. This is a trend that has been taking place for hundreds of years, since the philosophy of Liberalism started to become more popular than earlier traditions. Many of the traditions it replaced were far less accepting of different cultures. In fact, their focus on a presumed “natural hierarchy among human beings” which was often used to justify bad treatment of others is a large part of the reason Liberalism was developed in the first place (Pike 93). One important aspect of Liberalism is that everybody is presumed to be equal. It is for this reason that Liberal philosophers should support exemptions to the rules and norms of society for minority cultures: by promoting cultural exemptions, they will also support autonomy and equality. Before proceeding further with an argument for the importance of cultural exemptions to Liberalism, it is probably a good idea to define some terms and make sure that the concepts of Liberalism, autonomy and cultural exemptions are fully understood. Liberalism, as describe above, basically espouses the idea that everybody should be treated equally. As we saw in earlier chapters, like the one on the art of Benin, this is not always the case. In regards to Benin, they were seen as less “civilised” than the British, and this led to their being abused and mistreated when the two cultures clashed. This would not have happened if the British at the time had followed Liberalism, because it accepts that different cultures have “differences in moral values; different tastes in art, literature or music; differences in social customs and traditions; and differences in belief” (Pike 97). However, Liberalism itself has varying traditions. Two of those which are discussed in this chapter are difference-blind Liberalism and the Liberalism which accepts “rule and exemption approach” (Pike 106). The first of these seems fairly straight-forward. It basically means that the philosopher ignores any sort of difference whatsoever between any two people. The “rule and exemption” idea, on the other hand, involves creating rules for all people and then giving people exemptions based on cultural, social, or religious differences. In this case, then, the philosopher would acknowledge some that differences are important and need to be taken into account. On the surface, difference-blind Liberalism seems perfectly reasonable when your philosophy is “that every human being is of equal moral value, and that justice is a matter of treating people equally” (Pike 95). When explored in more detail, however, the ideas do not necessarily match, as we will see later. Likewise, the “rule and exemption” approach at first glance seems to run counter to the basic ideas of Liberalism. Surely its impossible to treat people equally if youre actually treating them differently in a legal and social sense? However, Pike argues that although “treating people equally involves ignoring certain kinds of difference between then” (96), it is also important to not do this for absolutely everything, and to determine “which differences should be ignored” and which should not (96). Two philosophers discussed in the text by the names of Margalit and Raz argue “that it is important to preserve cultural traditions” and let people “live in accordance with their own principles” (Pike 114). These two are obviously not difference-blind: they accept that people are different in many ways, and clearly believe that those differences play an important role in making people who they are. They argue against the ideas put forward by some difference-blind philosophers. For instance, some non-Liberal philosophies might argue that those who are cultural minorities can become equal simply by accepting the traditions of the dominant society. However, Margalit and Raz state that the loss of the traditions people are born into “will almost always have a damaging effect on them” (Pike 115). In other words, “the membership of a flourishing cultural group enhances ones autonomy” (Pike 115). The concept of autonomy is an important one to understanding the arguments for the various kinds of Liberalism. Autonomy, according to Pike, is self-rule or more fully, giving people the ability to “make his or her own choices about how to live” (106). The idea of autonomy is obviously one that should be important to any modern philosopher who considers himself a part of the Liberal tradition, since that tradition has such a big focus on equality. By ensuring that everybody is given the same choices about how to live their lives—or that they are autonomous—the Liberal philosopher would be able to make sure that nobody is discriminated against. This is why the “rule and exemption” approach does actually make sense with Liberalism. As an example, there might be a law which requires all people under a certain age to wear a certain coloured armband for identification purposes. In legal terms, this could arguably provide many benefits: youth would be less likely to get in trouble because if they strayed into places they shouldnt be such as bars or other places, they would immediately be identified by authorities. Additionally, if a police officer or other authority figure saw someone with the armband who looked like they were in trouble, they would be able to help more easily. However, this might take away autonomy if a particular minority culture had a strong aversion to the colour chosen. This is where a cultural exemption would tie in. In the example above, a different colour might be chosen for the particular culture which had religious, cultural, or social reasons for objecting to the one chosen for everybody else. Obviously this is only an example, and there are probably not many cultures who would object to such a thing. Nonetheless, it does serve to prove the reasoning behind what Pike calls cultural exemptions, which “help to preserve cultural resources of various kinds” (114). These exemptions—counter though they may seem to be to the idea of treating everybody equally—make sure that “laws and policies that ignore cultural differences” do not destroy “cultural resources, leaving members of minority cultures isolated and adrift” (Pike 114). The argument that Pike puts forth in this chapter is that cultural exemptions are in fact very important to anybody who wants to consider him or herself to be a Liberal philosopher. Difference-blind Liberalism, although it may seem like its arguing for equality, could potentially be a dangerous tool in the hands of an elite culture which is bent on converting other less powerful cultures to its own practices. By ignoring the obvious differences that do exist between two or more cultures, this brand of Liberalism could potentially stray close to Fascism, insisting that if its good enough for me, its good enough for everybody. A pertinent example of this might be in a society where Christianity is the dominant culture. In such a culture (for instance, the United States) the mainstream, powerful elite might assume that since they pray to God, everybody else does the same thing. This would in theory be “difference-blind” since they would be ignoring those who have different beliefs under the assumption that equality means doing the same thing. This would be insulting to those of other beliefs, such as people who worship different Gods like Hindu or Buddhists, or those who worship no Gods at all, like Atheists. Although it might seem fair to give everybody the chance to pray in school and make them equal in that way, obviously this would ignore important differences. So while it may be counter-intuitive, treating everybody the same is not the same as treating everybody equally. Such a situation would also undermine the ability of minority cultures to be autonomous. They would no longer be able to decide for themselves what they or their children did. Instead, they would have to simply go along with what the majority want to do. Obviously, this is not equality, because it would be giving the cultural majority what they want while denying the minority the option to behave freely. Therefore, it can be seen that cultural exemptions do in fact lead to autonomy and proper equality. Although all kinds of Liberalism believe in the importance of treating people equally, some versions of the philosophy operate on shaky ground. Difference-blind Liberalism, for instance, can be seen as a version of Liberalism that does not actually treat people equally in all cases. Therefore, a brand of Liberalism that accepts the importance of cultural exemptions would be the best way to go. Cultural exemptions, as seen in the text by Pike and the examples given above, can lead to greater autonomy for cultures and peoples who would be discriminated against in a world where absolutely all differences were ignored. To truly destroy the hierarchies that Liberalism is acting against, therefore, and to ensure that autonomy and equality are given out to all, it is important for Liberal philosophers to accept cultural exemptions in some cases. Bibliography Pike, Jon. (2008) Cultural Encounters and Cultural Exemptions in Brown, R.D (ed.) Cultural Encounters, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Read More