This is really an interesting, critical problem which we tried to address
at AERA in P. Samgorinsky's session on the ethics of culturing others.
Local vs global became the issue as if to say that intervening (or any
other word less acute like taking action, promotion , don't want to get
hung up on terms, so let's just say 'organized action by one group that
affects another) here is more ethical than intervening there, or out there.
The latter seems to be not ok but close to home, ok. Mike agreed with the
local, particularly after revisiting some of the fiascos etc, yet the
problem I see is that there are also non-fiascos like the Brown decision,
or the Cuban literacy campaign, some Westerm aid programs to the 3rd world,
and some, within nation multicultural programs that are not malignant..
a. A problem with that sort of "conclusion" is that of where is "there"
exactly, or here for that matter, the external versus internal impositions?
b. another issue with the last statement in the above note is that it
leans towards the unidirectional when, of course mutual, reciprocal
influences is the std. semiotic, dialectical thinker's favorite observation
(the latter notion or prescription (ie. reciprocal relations) too could
indicate a cultural set or practice, or value in the academic circles in
particular, but is tangential..)
So,
The problem is where do you draw the line in the sociogenetic line between
the local and global?, (cf. I know long discussions have been recorded
along the internal/external thing" when adressing internalization of
concepts etc..along the ontogenetic),
Between the West and the rest of the world's cultures Within nation,
state, city, community or family? The most local level of course, is solo
with the individual in context acting with cultural tools..
My point is that Diane's example calls in question whether at the national
or say, state level, we can think "locally" enough to not be accused of
imperialistic, outside chauvinistic, imposing aims.
Whether we have an obligation to end sterilization there? To deal with
Nazi's before it was too late heps deal with the what is ethical?.
( i wont't touch that further to get to the original issue),
Do "we" (defined here as xmca etc, as a culture's thinker caste or as a
relatively empowered 'us'), have an obligation to seek and establish a
level playing field for children born to poverty?.
Well, yes if it is local enough, involves your children, perhaps not if not?
But Who is we, or who are our children anyway,
depends on how has one's identity has been constructed,(individually and
collectively),
Has it been developed locally or does it transcend boundaries?
.3.. concluding thoughts;
1 Desideratum-It seems to me that given that we are already intervening in
other people's business, that at least some proportion of those efforts be
aimed toward those "grays" areas between the local and less local, the
proximal zones that can be shown to improve the lot of those not having
choices or self-determinism regarding their bodies or minds (but there we
go again with that value thing again)..and perhaps ours.
2. Seems that as we expand the definition of who "we" are, the 'local'
reaches out further and further, so much for how we construct our social
identity..how far are we allowed to identify with the human condition?
3. Historically, we tend to intervene when our interests are threatened, so
the notion of what is ethical needs to be defined carefully (but will it be
a local definition or a universal one, ? are there really universals?/
if not, the ethics question becomes situated in context./ if so, (e.g.
love, hate,as universals...) then the quest for the ethical lives on..So
at what point does the ethical require action?
And I agree, it must come out of a process, of cultural development and
discussion, perhaps this is very discussion is part of that process. Yet in
retrospect, what emerges or comes out also from a process is often a
response to what others have imposed unto a group's (children's) process of
cultural development.
pedro