[Xmca-l] Re: Prof. Ionna Kuçuradi

[Andy Blunden]

And of course, as Vygotskyans, we understand the importance of symbols.

We had a discussion once before, Ulvi, about why in a country like the 
US there is such a large percentage of people who reject the idea of 
Evolution of Species, and accept the literal truth of the Biblical story 
of Genesis, despite the US being such a modern, educated, technological 
society. My answer then was that in the US, belief or not in Evolution 
has become an integral part of a political agenda. You have the same 
problem in Turkey. People do not evaluate a belief "on the basis of 
evidence," but rather from the standpoint of the great social projects 
to which they are committed.

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


Ulvi İçil wrote:
> Thanks Andy. And I can say the same for Turkey: Because secular and 
> elitist republic did not feed the masses economically and socially 
> also, these masses could be easily directed against the bourgeois , 
> elitist republic. And now, we live the collapse of this republic.
>  
> Ulvi
>
> 2013/10/19 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>
>     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/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>
>
>     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.
>
>          
>
>
>