Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA23663 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:21:28 +0100 Message-ID: <39C29EA9.2C107991@clara.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:11:54 +0100 From: Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk> Organization: University of London X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A06@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <39BFDF9E.A5A2C363@clara.co.uk> <001c01c01f4c$1a500040$e506bed4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> > My interest is how the relationship of self to collective varies from
> society to society and determines the kinds of questions we permit ourselves
> to ask in certain (intellectual) situations. Can you please give an example
> so I can study such variations ?
> Thanks.>>
One example is North American aboriginal potlatch traditions in the Pacific
North West. The tradition involved kidnapping the person to be initiated.
The tradition clashes with Canadian law that prohibits kidnapping. It is
difficult for non-Aboriginals to understand the way in which aboriginal
individuality is more subordinate to the collective identity of the tribe. The
'rights talk' that has characterised legal discourse in English Canada is not
really meaningful to 'aboriginal Canadians' (although in the aboriginal
community attitudes to 'rights' differ between males and females.)
Conversely, English Canadians, owing in some measure to their innate sense of
the balance between individual and collective dynamic, (it is a part of their
identity as a group) have a lot of trouble understanding (including moi-meme)
how kidnapping someone should be anything but illegal. English Canadians also
have a lot of difficulty understanding the collective sense of nationhood felt
by French speaking Quebecois, particularly with respect to laws enforcing the
use of French. The Quebecois see laws relating to the use of French as
necessary to preserve their identity. (cf English as the official language
movement in the US). The point about 'questions we permit ourselves to ask'
is that in societies that have a strong individualistic outlook, not a lot of
time is spent considering the legitimacy of potlatch kidnappings, they are
seen as unacceptable without much discussion. (but cf the very interesting
phenomena in Germany of 'weekend' Indians, where large groups of adult Germans
go into the wilderness and pretend they are North American Indians.)
A second example is the tradition of the arranged marriage in Bangladesh and
other Asian countries. A Bengali child does not possess the autonomy over
themselves that we take for granted in Western societies. Bengali children
accept a subservience to their parents, with respect to their marriage and
other matters in a way that can't be understood in the West. A Bengali
acquaintance, male, age 23, once told me he was not permitted to smoke in the
presence of his uncle, even when his uncle was smoking. This was how it was
in his culture. It is possible to rebel, but rebellion generally entails
being ostracized from the family and the community, and is seen as an
unacceptable price to pay.
> One major blast for memetics is that just its theoretical structure
> homogenise collectiviness where IMHO the individuality stance is more
> appropiate. A strange effect though, while we are trying to determine what
> makes the cultural tick, we dismiss the subjects which are cause and effect
> of that change, all of the individuals we are ! >>
I'm not discounting the individual, my concerns are trying to be based on
observation of different cultures as they are seen internally, unacknowledged
contradictions and all) rather than on my personal values. Different
societies express different senses of the relationship between the individual
and collective which may not be discernible without cross-cultural
comparisons. De Tocqueville wrote that 'there are some things Americans can
learn about themselves only from strangers'. (not to single out
Americans). Also there is no society that is homogenous - every society has
fault lines. (French-English in Canada, Black-white in the US, as two obvious
examples). These fault lines are like the stagnant waters that breed the
malaria bearing mosquito.) A view of the collective as homogenous (something
common to most mystical schools' belief in a universal soul) can only serve
some theoretical prescriptive end, i.e. allowing one to reach the conclusion
desired. It seems a theory that doesn't take into account all of the cultural
variations in the relationship between its two essential elements, the
individual and collective can only express the values of the culture that
produces it.
My subject area is western law, the project at hand is to try and understand
how these different perspectives are reflected in the kinds of laws that are
possible in some countries and not possible in others. Also, why some laws
are prone to be controversial and others are not. Between the UK , the US and
Canada there are differences in the individual and collective relationship
expressed in law, so its not just about the west and the non-west. There is a
strong difference between American individualism in common law, and the more
collectivist, state oriented European Civilian tradition. One can argue one
is good and one is bad, but each finds its validation in a society's often
expressed sense of its own identity and history. There are a lot of
microcosms in individual societies, the Amish for example who have a strong
collective focus, the Roma in Europe. Shame based punishments that are being
used in some American states (convicted person sentenced to sit at a busy
intersection at certain times with a sign describing their crime) are
interesting for the way punishment moves away from its long standing
individual focus (fine, incarceration) to one with a more communal context.
One punishment that is effective in societies with a strong collective sense
is banishment from the community, an approximate of 'civil death'. As an
effective punishment in a society with a strong individual, rights focus, its
laughable.
Issues relating to the individual-collective dynamic can be talked about from
the point of view of philosophy or from other points of view such as
anthropology or linguistics. The goal of some disciplines is more
value-oriented and prescriptive, that's what they're about. Others are more
observation-based and descriptive, more about processes of validation than in
the merits of particular validation outcomes. Legal scholarship, like many
other disciplines, has strong prescriptive and descriptive schools. In my own
work I sometimes can feel the way each pulls at me) What is interesting about
the anthropological approach (which might include mysticism as its sole object
without either embracing or rejecting mysticism) is that in the study of the
unfamiliar value systems of others one comes to understand one's own values
better - values so woven into the fabric of our thinking the only way we find
out that have them is when someone who doesn't - the alien observer - asks us
what they're all about. Trying to understand something alien is a good way to
understanding your self.
Hope this says something.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 23:22:36 BST