| Markus E Leypold 2007-04-20, 7:03 pm |
|
Ingo Menger <quetzalcotl@consultant.com> writes:
> On 19 Apr., 10:42, Markus E Leypold
> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> You don't argue that behaviour (of humans) is determined mainly
> through culture, do you?
As the statement stands, I argue. The truth is more complex than that
and differences between "sub cultures" which usual don't turn up in
peoples "cultural radar screen" are often cause for more diversity
than differences between main stream cultures.
And whereas culture influences peoples behaviour you cannot determine
behaviour from culture (and Xah Lee IS indeed not Chinese, a nice
example how that fails).
> So, in speculating why someone behaves as he
> does, one cannot but think about cultural influences.
You, perhaps. I can easily avoid it (especially in Xahs case, since I
can go to his web site and think about what kind of person he is, or,
who he portraits himself. Indeed I feel a certain amount of pity, but
I still wish, he wouldn't spam all kinds of news groups).
> In addition, I believe that stereotypes are almost unavoidable, if we
> like it or not. There is nothing wrong with it ("Germans drink lots of
> beer") as long as one is willing to learn, to adapt his views and
> stereotypes to reality ("Czechs actually drink even more beer, while
> Germans drink less and less beer and instead more and more mineral
> water.")
I drink neither. And I'd be justly insulted if you would attempt to
draw ANY conclusions from the fact that I have a German passport.
Stereotypes suck, simply, because they try to sort diversity into
simple categories and so loose every significance.
> It is true that some ideologues and demagogues misuse certain negative
> cultural prejudices, their goal being to seed hatred and mistrust
Since it varies what people experience as positive or neutral, there
is now way to assign and use a stereotype without insulting
people. Also there is no need: With individuals you can always deal on
an individual basis (so I'd say that Xah writes important sounding
nonsense that doesn't mean anything, but I don't imply that Americans
-- or Taiwanese -- have a tendency to overate the interest their
opinion has for the world at large: This is a conclusion you can
neither draw nor use here). With groups (i.e. political parties) you
can deal on the basis of their published policies: Everyone who's
voluntarily entered a group is probably still supporting their policy
if he's still in the group. It's different with conclusions (even
about "tendencies", which is the most stupid thing one can do to an
individual) that lead from cultural, national or geneder groups to an
individual: Neither has the individual joined the group voluntarily,
nor has he (or she!) the option to leave it. But people develop a lot
from their origin.
> among men. But the remedy may not be, IMHO, to pretend that there are
> no cultural differences, nor to erect the taboo not to mention them.
I'm taoist there: Seeing the difference is creating it. Humans are
made to learn and adapt and even play different roles where
necessary. In truth there is no difference. Only people I can't
communicate with (yet) -- so technically I can't talk about a
difference, since I don't know the other end -- and as soon as I can
communicate (which involves more or less understanding) I have (wether
I want it or not) become part of the culture.
> I for my part am entirely open for statements like: "You think, that
> in culture X, things are so and so, but in reality it is thus and
> thus, see <link,book,paper> for reference".
I think sentences of this structure are simply wrong, since cultures
are categories of perception (not part of real structures). Again see
the "chinese culture": Is there a chinese culture? Really? Or is this
a perception of an outsider? What's the difference between Cantonese
and Bejing? If I look in a history book, I find that one of the most
stable dynasties was mongolian. And so on. It's -- in my eyes -- the
distance which makes a construct like "chinese culture" emerge at all.
Sentences like "In China it's custom to ..." are permissible if you
want to vistit China and learn how to behave. Not, I said "in China",
which doesn't assume that there is a determining cultural factor
there: I simply state most people there do it like this, if you don't
want to become to obvious, do it similarly.
But sentences like "in culture X, things are so and so" are worth
nothing and I'd suggest to avoid them. If you're not a researcher,
probability is high that you're only propagating half truths and
falseness: "Culture" as a semantic concept in dealing with individuals
(as opposed to being a sociological researcher) in my opinion has
hardly any value.
> Which is the appropriate way to deal with prejudices one considers
> to be false ones.
It's not about prejudices, but about not seeing individuals (or
contemporary custom), about how stereotypes are formed and passed
down. Just avoid it.
Regards -- Markus (who again has deviating opinions, sorry).
|