International Dialogue, the Politics of Iran and Cultural Relativism

The Politics Behind Cultural Relativism

My understanding is that this conversation appeared on international TV. However, I do not know when or where exactly it was televised. This article appeared at a site entitled (butterflies and wheels .com). Although I was not able to discover the expertise or the credentials of the two conversationalists, the conversation contained an intelligent forum and to me was worthy of a post.The theme of the discussion fits perfectly with the theme of my blog:

"Maryam Namazie: You mentioned earlier that there is a political reason behind the depiction of Iran or other ‘third world’ countries as having one homogeneous culture. That it is ‘our culture’ and ‘our religion’. It’s interesting that when you look at the West, for example, you don’t see one homogeneous West, you see different opinions, different movements, different classes, religions, atheism, socialism, etc. But when it comes to countries like Iran or Afghanistan, it just seems that everybody is very much the same as the ruling classes there. Why is that the impression that is always given?

Bahram Soroush: You are absolutely right. When you talk about the West, it is accepted that there are political differentiations, that people have different value systems, that there are political parties. You don’t talk about one uniform, homogeneous culture. But why is it that when it comes to the rest of the world, suddenly the standards change? The way you look at society changes. It doesn’t make sense. But it makes political sense. We are living in the real world; there are political affiliations; there are economic ties; there are very powerful interests which require justifications. For example, how can you roll out the red carpet for the Islamic executioners from Iran, treat them as ‘respectable diplomats’ and at the same time dodge the issue that this government executes people, stones people to death, carries out public hangings, and that this is happening in the 21st century. It’s a question of how to justify that. So, if you say that cultures are relative; if you say that in Iran they stone people to death and they veil women because it is their culture, your conscience then is clean. This is the reason that we are seeing that something that doesn’t really make sense to anyone, and which they would not use to characterize anyone else in the Western world, they use it to characterize people from the third world. In fact it is very patronizing, euro centric and even racist to try to divide people in this way; to say, it’s OK for you. For example, to say to the Iranian woman that you should accept your fate because that’s your culture. This is part of the larger discussion of what lies behind this sort of thinking, but the motive is very political."

I am quite a bit in agreement with this simple philosophical approach to the"real world" approach to cultural relativism that the respondent utilizes in his analysis to the question posed. However, where he is going exactly at least with "its very political" I am not quite sure. What might he mean by this? Maybe you readers can comment me and help me come to a better conclusion to his interpretation of the questions answer. I know he has a point here, just what the heck is it? What exactly is very political?

William

Iran:President Ahmadinejad: 'We are not in the race for development'

Ahmadinejad: 'We are not in the race for development'

It was great to see the President of Iran's speech in the light of his cultural perspectives which came right around the same time as President Obama's much heralded speech regarding health-care. What a "coincidence" I say. President Ahmadinejad not surprisingly so, made his speech to announce how much "different" his nation was compared to the "west" which has now reached the pinnacle of our development. He is not about a "race for development" so he says. This speech definitely has undertones of nuclear talk all about it if you ask me. But even more relevant to my blog I like some other "cultural talk" that he spews forth:"In the western society, according to the theory of development, all efforts are aimed towards dominance of liberal democracy, establishment of free market economy, favoring moral relativism and the non-interference of moral values intro social relations," he continued. "This definition has a dark future, but all efforts are along this route."

Ahmadinejad, who is embarking on his second term in office, continued his critique of the western developmental theory, saying: "According to this theory, the US society has reached the peak of social development, and, to paint the world in their own shade, they have created various international bodies with their particular culture in mind and they try to sway the countries of the world to fall in line with them."

However, the president said, "It is evident that his theory has reached a dead end, and, even if we want to step along its path, this road will end in a precipice."(1 : a very steep or overhanging place 2 : a hazardous situation).source:(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precipice)


OK, so we are pretty sure that Iran's president is not on the road that the US is taking to anywhere, anytime, anyplace, ever. This is of course not exactly "new" information to anyone that is "informed" in international relations in this region. But, furthermore he goes on eloquently to say this: "He advised the professors that "We have no alternative except returning to ourselves, and the duty of the universities in Iran is to show us the specifications of our utopia and ideal society, so that all forces and potentials move in that direction, and so that we will have a society in possession of its own economy, culture, politics and art."

"Cunningly and intelligently, our enemies try to make us busy with small concerns, so that we do not think and achieve the great goals. "

Well, he does not elaborate on what his great goals are exactly, but who is to say really? Here is a guy that has thought patterns that are not in any way parallel to those of a "western" thought pattern. His cultural perspective is morally, spiritually, and definitely distinctly dissimilar than most of those that reside in the "west". So the question remains over and over again, how do human rights apply in this culture?

William