The western world does seem to believe that an input of foreign aid or a common trajectory of history justifies an imposition of foreign ethics/culture/political organisation. It is understandable to some extent – media exposure has made the world a smaller place and, confronted with poverty, famine, injustice, what else can the western world do but proceed along the lines that has, for all intents and purposes, worked for them?

But there is a distinction to be made, now more so than ever, between what can be achieved economically and what can not. That economic transactions should remain just that and do not represent a usurper value system should be a lesson well learnt by western societies in recent months (i’ll leave the question of the relationship between economic aid and self-determination for another day…).

Though everything in me accords with the view that human rights violations in (some) Muslim countries are wrong, just as inappropriate would be asserting the moral values of a world that decided to forget about them for a while. Either way, cultural relativist or dominator, I can’t help but feel we’re left with some blood on our hands. It’s enough to make you feel like MacBeth at times.

I served in Saudi Arabia in 1990-1991 with a brief few months in Kuwait during the 1st Gulf War. The appalling condtions I saw towards females nearly led to many confrontations between my Marines and Saudi men. Yes, I am told this is this culture and we our to respect it, however human rights violations are not a culture but a violation of the most basic human rights. Let’s be honest here, the west turns a blind eye so we can have the oil. Woman are nothing more then slaves to Saudi men, somewhere just above a dog, and perhaps below a camel. I have very little respect for Saudi men, I found them to be nothing more then arrogant cowards who took great pride in beating woman, while paying American to provide for thier defense. It sicking me and nearly all Marines. The only way to end this tragedy is to cut th eoil and demand reform. So much for dreaming. As I look back now, perhaps we should have allowed Saddam to invade Saudi. Woman would have faired much better under Saddam.

Brian – I feel exactly the same. I would classify myself as a weak cultural relativist. I abhor FGM, but I also feel that you can’t go to a community that has been practising it for generations and say stop doing it because I find it abhorrent. I think you need to engage with that culture, try to understand why that sort of thing is done, critically engage with alternatives from within that culture, and hope that there can be a genuine ‘change from within’. Otherwise, you’re a benevolent conquerer, and there’s a really fine line between that, and the conquerer plain and simple.

But having said all of that, more often than not it feel like a lose-lose position.

Patrick – First of all, that’s a horribly tragic story. I can’t begin to imagine being in your position.

I agree with this: I have no problem with collectivist rights if they have been formed by equal participation by all to whom these rights pertain. But the collectivist rights of all are “collected” by who ? Therein lies the problem.

Therein lies the problem. A phrase that I have found I use very often is ‘who decides?’ There is a big difference between something that’s shared and collective, and something that is imposed on a large group by a minority and is covered up by collectivism rhetoric. Robert Mugabe is a good example of this. He hides behind Zimbabwe’s right to self determination from the West. In some things he is right. But in increasing measure, his rhetoric is an excuse for despotism. And I imagine that happens in many places.

The problem is it often isn’t as clear cut as it is in Mugabe’s case. What proportion of Saudi women want to see a significant change to the order of things in that country? I don’t know. What if it’s 30%? That’s not a majority but is it right to deny a third of people their right to live as they see fit because they are not in the majority? Back to Zimbabwe, at the time when the opposition got started, the majority of the country were concerned with their economic state and were not really bothered over who ran the country or whether or not it was a democracy. Did we, the minority who pushed for a democratic reforms, and in so doing helped to wreck the economy, have a right to override the will of the majority? I’m still grappling with that one.

In short, you’re right, it’s complicated.

DHF5811 – I’ve never been to Saudi Arabia, and I don’t know any Saudi’s personally. I don’t know if the men you encountered are representative of all Saudi men, or if there were mitigating circumstances. I don’t know if their behaviour seemed worse than it was because of the different cultural lens through which it was being seen. But the things you’re bought up raise some serious and difficult questions DHF5811.

John – Thanks for the link. That case is appalling. But that’s why it made it into the newspaper. To call people Cavemen based on their worst practices is worse than just short sighted or foolish. It’s exactly what extremist fundamentalists do. The worst of Western society is just as revolting to a set of eyes from a different culture which doesn’t understand the context. I think the reason Mary Fitzgerald’s article doesn’t come down hard on Saudi society is that having been there, she experienced positives as well as negatives and realised that things weren’t black and white, though I could be wrong.

In any case, I take exception at the cavemen remark. Read some history John. Europe owes much of its ‘civilisation’ to the East. If anyone has the right to call another a caveman, it’s not this part of the world.

As for the ’stay in your cave’, I think self determination works both ways. If I choose to live in Ireland, I have to be willing to give up any of my cultural practice that Ireland finds unacceptable. In that regard, we agree in principle.

“Europe owes much of its ‘civilisation’ to the East. If anyone has the right to call another a caveman, it’s not this part of the world.”

I am fully aware of Islams much trumpeted scientific past. What is rarely if ever talked about is how the most scientific civilisation of the middle ages managed to return its people to the stone age. And yeah, thats what I think it is -the stone age. I have no respect for a society that legitimises child abuse, the execution of homosexuals & rape victims etc etc etc. Cultural relativism is moral cowardice.

Claire – Mary Fitzgerald is a very talented journalist. Like you, I have thoroughly enjoyed her series. It has both informed and challenged my thinking.

John – It didn’t return its people to the stone age. The global balance of power shifted westward. I suggest you read Samir Amin’s Eurocentrism. Though it is a hard book to read, it might change your perceptions.

As for cultural relativism being moral cowardice, I couldn’t disagree more strongly. I think the idea that one’s ideals must necessarily be universal is arrogant and doesn’t take into account history. Countless crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of extending universal values.

Patrick – I agree.

That’s disingenuous David. You didn’t have a situation in apartheid South Africa where the majority of the people had a shared cultural background that was accepted to varying degrees. There is a world of difference between cultural relativism and imperial/colonial domination.

Saudi Arabia is different in that from a Western perspective, many aspects of its social norms are unacceptable. From the perspective of Saudi’s, things aren’t as clear cut. Yes, there are plenty of people from within it that don’t like a lot of aspects of that society. But those arguments/disagreements on the whole are on a different basis. For example, I had an interesting conversation with an Iranian human rights activist on advocating for reforms in keeping with the tenets of Islam.

I’m not saying I like everything or even most things that happen in a place like Saudi Arabia. But I think it’s incredibly arrogant to say to another people group that they must model their society on the basis of the norms of this one. An understanding of the histry of this society shows that it got to where it is by centuries of conflict and grappling with itself. It would be a mistake to think of the Western world today as the culmination of an evolutionary process where no other outcomes are possible given the same degree of ‘progress’, ‘advancement’ or ‘progress’.

At the heart of the argument of cultural relativism is the idea that no culture has the monopoly on the wisdom in terms of how to order society. Maybe more importantly, the right to self determination is like the right to free speech. Yes, there must be limits, but if we are quick to enforce them when we don’t like what is being said then that right ceases to exist for all but the most powerful.

David, one thing that fascinates me about the ‘Western world’ is that there is a tendency by its inhabitants to look at the rest of the world from only their perspective. I had to grow up with a dualism that was always there. There was our day to day reality, and then there was this other reality put forward by mass media, foreign workers, etc. that was very different. You came to accept that the way you viewed the world was different to the way others view it.

An example is the manner in which religion or belief are largely dismissed in favour of a more logical ’scientific’ paradigm of the world. But there are hundreds if not thousands of other such differences. I don’t understand Islam. I don’t understand the Arab world. But I do understand the fact that what may appear bizarre and unjustifiable to an outsider may make perfect sense to members of that society.

To categorise, label, dismiss, something without fully appreciating the power of the forces that keep it alive and make it important is, in my opinion both unwise and wrong. I’m not a postmodernist. I believe in absolutes. But I am also keenly aware of the limitations we all have in terms of understanding the other’s perspective despite all the rhetoric there is on globalisation.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.