Now that my three cycles of "fever" have been sweated out, let me try to
respond to some of the comments. I'll take them in reverse order since
that will streamline the conversation.
Leigh Star expresses some discomfort with my notions of arbitrariness and
then provides an interesting 3-fold distinction on the possible causes of
arbitrariness. I find her conceptions intriguing, but unfortunately they
do not map to the concept was trying to work with.
I guess I was working within what could be called a "functionalist" or
"empirical" concept:
- Something is arbitrary if an observer (real or postulated) would not be
able to detect a difference between the possibilities proposed.
Implicit within this notion is an idea of perspective or frame of
reference. Thus, if we picked an observer of the New Zealand situation
who was fanatical supporter of the Western traditions - that person would
always detect names that were Maori.
The names of New Zealand landmarks become arbitrary only to an agent that
has no connection to the islands. From that observer's point of view,
(once conflicts settle out) all she/he can observe is the use of names to
refer to locations. The words themselves do not matter. So in English
we use the 4 letter word 'love' to refer to the same thing that the
French use the 5 letter word 'amour.' I am reasonably confident the
affairs of romance occurs in equivalent ways in the two languages (even
if the French have been known to boast otherwise. :-)
The same concept of arbitrary applies to the doomsday example. Observers
of the Sun supernova will not be able to detect if the human race
succeeded in becoming totally non-violent, or it if violently
exterminated itself.
I think too that my argument needs a little unpacking. Leigh argues
quite rightfully that something like the names of landmarks are worth
fighting for, *IF* you are part of the cultures in dispute. What I
wanted to argue for was something a little more subtle: that the conflict
is unresolvable except through the raw exercising of contemporary power.
To make this point, I seek to undermine two possible strategies of
resolution:
a.) there is a "method" to determine the "proper" names for the landmarks.
b.) there is a "method" to determine which culture should name the
landmarks.
I think that the impossibility of a.) is made clear above.
Point b.) is probably a little more controversial. However, I argue that
both the Maori and Westerners are invaders to the Islands, they dominated
the islands using similar tactics, and controlled it for comparable
lengths of time. Again for an observer outside of either culture, the
choice of any one would seem arbitrary.
We all have biases that would probably allow us to take sides in this
dispute, yet my fear isn't the explicit biases, but the implicit ones.
While careful intellectuals would not admit to a "method" for
conflict-resolution, they would nevertheless subscribe to some "bedrock
principles": Two might be: non-violent solutions are always better than
violent solutions, and all parties should be allowed to express their
grievances and be heard.
Yet, these too are nothing more than assumptions and are arbitrary from
the standpoint of the celestial observer. Nevertheless, these
Euro-Western notions are being imposed everywhere from the school yard to
the international theater. For the Maori, it practically means that the
only way to regain the names of some of their familiar landmarks is to
play the Westerner's political game. What is gained on the map, is lost
in cultural identity and traditional ways of political action.
Paradoxically, the very processes of empowerment actually further erode
the Maori traditional culture. Empowerment is provided with a catch -
only those with Western political savvy need apply. Should we applaud a
process that "resolves" disputes nonviolently and 'includes' diverse
cultures, or should we mourn the sacrifice of another culture on the
altar of "the new world order"?
Edouard
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .
: Edouard Lagache :
: lagache who-is-at violet.berkeley.edu :
:...................................................................:
: We can not recapture the past any more than we can escape from it :
: Linda Lichter :
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .