Hello Chaps. Got to get this off my back before we get too deep into Fascism and it becomes ever so slightly passe (excuse the lack of the e accent). These points are less well researched then I would have liked so I would love it if people could post decent sized posts supporting my position*. I would also appreciate if people could post rebutting me**.
Interesting points have been made on this blog, in the class, and in the tutorials (and I'm sure on the Wiki as well) regarding the question "Are some cultures incompatible with democracy?"
Yes and No. Yes because although the ideals of "Democracy" and its emphasis on personal freedom can be argued as fairly universal, the fact that these values and ideals are bundled under a "Western" banner and presented to many countries as the one true way forward, it is not uprising that so many States have chocked on it and spat it out. How would we appreaciate being told that the only way we can solve the drug, gang violence, and child abuse problems of NZ would be to adopt Confucianism as a National policy?
No because the freedoms promoted by a Liberal Democracy include the freedom to maintain your close nit family unit and to elect a government that you feel will best promote the cultural values most important to you.
Next:
PLEASE DO NOT USE THE TERM ASIAN VALUES, OR ASIANS, OR ASIA. Good god but it is frustrating. Its probably the biggest generalization you can make***! Referring to the people living on the largest continent on Earth (may I remind you that the borders of this continent are up for much debate) as all sharing the same values? What idiocy is this? Honestly, think before you label 2/3s of the World's population with the same sticker. Even the term "East Asia" barely does justice to the diversity that exists, can you imagine the response if you asked a Chinese if he shared the same cultural values as a Japanese?
Some sense is needed chappies. Keep up the good work on the PP2 Blog!
*Lollipops may or may not be provided to those who do support my position
**People rebutting me will not receive lollipops.
***yes that is a generalization
You are quite right about "Asian Values" though it must be said that it was people like Lee Kwan Yew and Mahatir Mohammad (former prime minister of Malaysia) who brought the term into wide circulation.
ReplyDeleteBut Lee Kwan Yew coined the term to justify his own autocratic rule - however amazing it is... it is just that!
ReplyDelete'Asian values' may be a general term, but the different Asian subcultures are similar enough to warrant the general term.
ReplyDeleteAre the cultures of India and China the same? Not exactly, but they share similarities such as the role of the family. It would be better to compare the Chinese and Indian cultures than to compare the Chinese and French cultures.
Ben, I agree with you on the term 'Asian values', (although you don't have to give me a lollipop thanks)
ReplyDeleteWhat puzzles me, is that when this term was created there was never a set list of Asian values. Lee Kuan Yew never properly defined them. It is merely a generic term, used to lump all Asian cultures together. How can it be said that all countries in Asia have homogenous beliefs? When using the term 'Asian values', we are primarily creating the idea that Asians are 'the other', because they are different from Western societies.
When looking at the term 'Asian values', I came across the work of Richard Nisbett. He conducted research using a small number of Americans and Japanese, and used it to anwer his question, "do East Asians think about and view the world differently from Westerners?" In his study, he managed to completely homogenise Westerners, and East Asians. The polarization of the two cultures seems problematic; it is far too simplistic. Here is a quote from Nisbett, that summed up his distorted view of the 'Asian culture'.
"When I speak of East Asia I mean China and the countries that were most heavily influenced by it's culture, most notably Japan and Korea. When I speak of Westerners I mean people of European culture."
As you can see, Nisbett uses geography as a means of creating his categories.
In creating such a generic term, people diminish the importance of each country's individual culture. New Zealander's dislike it when they are mistaken for Australians, and the same with Americans and Canadians. So why group all countries on the continent of Asia together and say they are the same?