[Xmca-l] Re: Prof. Ionna Kuçuradi

[Andy Blunden]

Ulvi,
the literature on this problem is sooo extensive and sooo complex I am 
almost lost in trying to respond to your message, the more so because 
the domain is so contested and aggravated.

"Human Rights" has a long history, which I think can be traced back to 
1776 and the "Rights of Man and the Citizen" of the American and French 
Revolution and were ensconced in the founding of the United Nations in 
1948. Here "human rights" were raised by advocates of liberalism against 
repressive or aristocratic regimes governing them. But the first time I 
recall "human (universal) rights" being counterposed to culturally 
specific conceptions of right was when Ronald Reagan introduced "human 
rights" into the discourse of "free trrade" in about 1982. This move 
reflected the shared interest of US capitalists and their employees to 
prevent the importation of products of cheap labour. Singapore's Lee 
Kuan Yew responded with the idea of "Asian Rights" which he claimed 
represented cultural differences in the conception of right. (also 
"human values" and "asian values"). So we had perfectly legitimate 
conceptions promoted for self-serving reactionary motives on both sides 
of this discussion. At the same time, Reagan was arming the religious 
Mujaheddin to fight the secular government in Afghanistan.

Your observation, that 40 years ago women in Turkey went about their 
business without wearing veils, is important. Of course, Turkey has had 
a militantly secularist government since 1922. But even in Cairo or 
Tehran, it was the same. I have seen a photograph of a market place in 
Cairo in the 1950s, filled with women doing their shopping, and not a 
veil in sight, indistinguishable from a market place in London. Why has 
this happened? I would say that the secular, modernist, socially 
progressive, nationalist leaderships which led the people of the Arab 
world in the decades after the Second World War, to free their countries 
of domination by Western colonialism and imperialism, unfortunately 
failed to deliver the prosperity and happiness that they had promised. 
Oddly, even though these leaders were explicitly "anti-western" they 
were seen as vehicles for modernism. After the defeat of Egypt in its 
struggle with Israel, Egypt reconciled itself with the West, and Sadat 
was seen as a representative of the West. The Shah of Iran would be the 
classic representative of this type. Secularism by means of the torture 
chamber. Even without the actual overthrow of the "founding fathers" who 
had fought the colonial powers, these regimes became representatives of 
"the West"; secularism became identified with foreign domination, and 
the cause of people's misery.

This spread from the Middle East to the European and American 
metropolis, where it intersected with the discourse of the various 
emancipatory movements which had grown up in the wake of the Civil 
Rights and Womens Liberation movements. And this is where the really 
perverse results came about. Women, blacks, homosexuals, immigrants, 
etc., etc., all demanded respect for *difference*. Initially these 
movements had begun with the demand for equality, which was usually 
taken on the basis of "justice is blind", but developed by separating 
the notions of equality and sameness, and demanding not that people be 
treated the same, but be accepted as different.

I have friends who fervently support the French line on laiete, which 
seems to unite native French people from extreme left to extreme right 
and everything in between. I can see the logic of it. But I think to 
some extent we have to see the re-assertion of the right to be oppressed 
by one's own religion, as a *social problem* rather a matter of crime 
and punishment, or government regulation.

It is a tragedy that the great ideals of the Enlightenment have been so 
discredited in the eyes of those who really need those values and forms 
of life. But it cannot be resolved by forcefully imposing emancipation.

Apologies for all the oversimplification, inaccuracies and omissions in 
this sketch.

Andy


------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/


Ulvi İçil wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> For your information.
>
> http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/interview_with_ioanna_kucuradi_turkish_philosopher/
>
>
>
> *You have even said that the promotion of respect for all cultures is a
> “trap” for human rights.*
>
> **The differences of cultures is a fact. But these differences should not
> cause discrimination. I have nothing against people living as they like, *so
> long as their world views, ways of living and norms do not prevent
> themselves and their children from developing their human potentialities.
> The unconditional promotion of respect for all cultures as an attempt to
> fight discrimination is well-minded but very problematic. Many cultures
> have norms that are incompatible with human rights – take as an example
> polygamy or blood feud. This escapes attention, probably due to the
> importance of culture in the singular. That is a trap for human rights.
> What we need to respect are human beings – not cultural norms. Cultural
> norms must be evaluated. *
>
> *What is, for instance, your stand on the claim of schoolchildren or
> employees to carry symbols of religious conscience?*
>
> **When I was a student more than 40 years ago, there were no girls wearing
> a scarf in Turkey, neither in school nor in the university. *Today there is
> a revival, all over the world, of world views and norms that prevent
> people, and children in particular, from developing as human beings. This
> revival is closely connected with the promotion of “respect for all
> cultures”. The best way to solve this problem is through education. The
> concept of laïcité is often misunderstood. It does not simply consist in
> the separation of religion and the State. Laïcité is a negative principle
> which demands that religious and cultural norms in general do not determine
> the establishment of social relations and the administration of public
> affairs. This is why laïcité is a precondition for human rights and the
> reason why it is very important. Those who agree with the claim of
> schoolchildren to carry religious symbols are probably not aware that they
> push children to give priority to one of their various collective
> identities, that they push them to give priority to their cultural identity
> and not their human identity, and that by doing this they promote
> discrimination.* There is a philosophical problem behind all this. The
> premises from which universal human rights and cultural norms are deduced
> are different, and so are the ways in which they are deduced. So to better
> protect human rights we need a philosophical understanding of their
> concepts and foundations. Unfortunately, I still see it missing
> internationally.
>
>