A lot of our recent conversations, especially regarding
Pogge, have touched on concern about promoting and implementing democratic
procedures abroad. I, too, have been fascinated by this complex idea of
Americans abroad, espousing democratic virtue to a people that may or may not
want to receive the “help”. Sen’s analysis of The Importance of Democracy in
Chapter 6 offered some answers, but also presented new ironic twists in this
idea of American imperialism today.
I was most interested in Sen’s response to the cultural
critique of human rights that claims Asian values to be opposed to basic
political rights that we hold within a universal conception of human rights.
Sen argues: “Insofar as human rights include claims to political liberty and
civil rights, alleged tensions have been identified particularly by some Asian
theorists” (231). Sen proceeds to defend a distinct diversity internal to Asian
values, a diversity that Westerners fail to recognize or take seriously. He
also goes into defending certain parts of Confucianism, showing how the value
system is “entirely consistent with a freedom-valuing ethical system” (238),
and therefore, not opposed to our
conception of human rights, valuing democratic freedom. So in the case of current anxiety about
promoting democracy abroad, it seems those values are actually already there.
The ends to which imperialist projects aim are still instrincly valued within
that “undeveloped” country.
So, it seemed
paradoxical that within this concern of being imperialist, Westerners and
Americans can actually reify the notion that only Western societies value human
democratic rights. When we are so concerned about not being “Western promoters
of personal and political liberty in the non-Western world […] bringing
Occidental values to Asia and Africa” (233), we may actually be reinforcing
Western, or American exceptionalism in the process. By claiming that “Non-Western”
countries do not inherently like democracy, we may “admire and endorse
traditional ‘Western values’” (233) by claiming they could only really belong, as
ends in and of themselves, to us.
I realize that this post is problematic insofar as it doesn’t
take up seriously the question of implementation or how we may promote democracy abroad—obviously our track record on
this, especially in the Middle East is horrific. However, I sometimes feel that
when talking about ends of democracy as being foreign to “Non-Western”
countries, instead of the means of implementing democratic processes, we may
actually reify the idea that those democratic ends do not belong inherently to the
“Non-West”. Sen certainly shows this to be false, and also that the process by
which we group countries as undeveloped in terms of democratic values does not
honor the diversity within the
country’s values. Unless we begin to honor these democratic ends of "undeveloped" societies as intrinsic to their values, regardless of how diplomatic our means of implementing democratic processes may be, we will reify the idea that democracy belongs to the West.
Hi Becca!
ReplyDeleteI love the blog post and expansion on previous seminar conversations!
I also found Sen’s discourse on this subject to be very interesting and find the topic to be very important. It is very hard to know how we promote human rights in other countries without bringing in our ethnocentric biases, but paradoxically we may also bring in these very ethnocentric biases by believing that democracy and our political processes are uniquely western and are counter to other nations’ cultures. I was very interested in Sen’s take on this matter especially because I know that Sen is not from a western nation. Due to this upbringing, not only is Sen very attuned to the specific nuances of Asian history and culture, but he also perhaps comes to his opinion with a different perspective than we may have or than other western philosophers have.
I was curious about Sen’s background, so I did a little research. Sen was born in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. Sen spent his entire childhood in Southern Asia, but he did recall, “The curriculum of [his] school did not neglect India's cultural, analytical and scientific heritage, but was very involved also with the rest of the world. Indeed, it was astonishingly open to influences from all over the world, including the West, but also other non-Western cultures, such as East and South-East Asia (including China, Japan, Indonesia, Korea), West Asia, and Africa” (Nobelprize.org). Moreover, Sen explains that he “loved that breadth” and was happy that “extensive heterogeneity in India’s cultural background and richly diverse history” was emphasized (Nobelprize.org). Thus, when Sen continued his education later in life, he explains that he had a well-formed concept that countries need cultural plurality in their identities. I think I just find it interesting that while Sen may discuss many similar concepts to those we have previously covered, perhaps he has a different perspective in the way that he discusses democracy or the influence of the West. Sen’s upbringing may give us further insight into your discussion of the ways in which we may actually be reinforcing the idea that the West is unique and “special” by believing that democracy is uniquely western. Rather, Sen has the insight from his childhood and his background to show that democracy and these political values have been incorporated into Asian culture for most of its history.
Sorry also I found all this information on Sen from his Nobel Prize bio: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1998/sen-bio.html
ReplyDeleteHey friends! I think it's really important to clear a few things up about Sen's account. We need to be careful about what he's trying to demonstrate in chapter 10, because he purposely limits his scope. In his words, "The roots of modern democratic and liberal ideas can be sought in terms of constitutive elements, rather than as a whole" (234). Now it's clear we're talking about specific parts of the democratic ideal and how prevalent they are -- his different examples show the existence of different "constitutive elements."
ReplyDeleteBecca, you write, "So in the case of current anxiety about promoting democracy abroad, it seems those values are actually already there. The ends to which imperialist projects aim are still intrinsically valued within that 'undeveloped' country." I think saying that those values are "already there" is an importantly misguided umbrella claim, and Sen would probably agree. He's not trying to say that Confucion, Indian and Muslim societies value democracy, but rather that "freedom-oriented perspectives are [not] absent there" (234). This allows him to at least make the claim that democratic ideals are not completely alien to these peoples, and that SOME aspects of what we champion as uniquely western exist (and have long existed) elsewhere. To your credit, I think this sentiment is certainly implicit in your post -- there is something to the American exceptionalism argument for sure. I just wanted to clarify that Sen's scope is decidedly more limited than you make it out to be.
One really cool example that Sen does not bring up in his discussion of Islam (or religious skepticism) actually comes from the Quran. Surat Al-Kaafirun reads, "Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Nor will I worship those whom you have worshipped;,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship. For you is your religion, for me is mine." This could have easily slotted into his claim that Islam is not fundamentally intolerant. Beyond this, this is even evidence that other societies/cultures have tolerated of religious skepticism (at least in theory), because "Kaafirun" means non-believers generally!