Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print

It is a time of freedom and fear, of Gaia and of borders, of many paths and the widening of a universal toll road, emptying country and swelling cities, of the public bought into privacy and the privacy of the public sold into invisible data banks and knowing algorithms. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.

These are the times when maps fade and direction is lost. Forwards is backwards now, so we glance sideways at the strange lands through which we are all passing, knowing for certain only that our destination has disappeared. We are unready to meet these times, but we proceed nonetheless, adapting as we wander, reshaping the Earth with every tread.

Behind us we have left the old times, the standard times, the high times. Welcome to the irregular times.

The Requirements of Cultural Sensitivity
Monday, October 11, 2004

Last night I had a conversation with good friends about different standards of behavior in different cultures, and it got me to thinking: what are the ethical expectations to have two people of different cultures, with different cultural standards and interpretations of behavior's meaning?

My first answer is to say that while it is helpful to understand where someone else is coming from when they do or say something, that doesn't mean you should have to tolerate it. No one can tell me I have to wear a beard or dance a certain way or put up with it when they spit in my salad. My respect for your culture ends when it starts shoving itself down my throat.

But then, on reflection, I realize that this is itself a culturally determined (my wife says "chip on your shoulder determined") response. I have no idea where that rabbit hole ends.

Any thoughts?

Posted by James Cook at 8:11 AM. # (permalink)

Comments:

I think that the key is paying attention to intention - on both sides. Thus, you might forgive a spit in your salad at the same time that the spitter acknowledges offending you and promises not to do it again.

So, initial gaffes and other problems at least get resolved, because both sides make accomodation, and no one says, "You wouldjn't understand - it's a salad spitter thing!"

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:38 AM

"Sensitivity" is often used as a synonym for "niceness." It really doesn't mean that--it means the ability to take in information, access to knowledge.

Take the salad spitting example: If you knew that salad spitting really were a gesture of respect, wouldn't you feel differently about it than if you didn't know?

As to someone making you wear a beard or dance a certain way: That's really about someone else failing to tolerate your culture, not you failing to tolerate theirs.

It is certainly socially inappropriate to dance in certain ways at certain places and times, and people generally respect that. Is it really fascist to frown on moshing in subway cars?

Perhaps you're talking about someone else's social mores restricting what you do in private? But if you're really doing those things in private, social toleration wouldn't be an issue, would it?

Of course, different societies have different levels of personal privacy. The U.S. pre-Ashcroft used to have a lot...

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:54 PM

Gee, I don't know about that. If someone spit in my salad even as a gesture of respect, I'd still be grossed-out. Hepatitis, anyone?

Kindness is nice if both people practice it. But if not, you liberal wussies don't need a permission slip to slap someone in the cheek.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:07 PM

Sure, you'd be grossed out. But you wouldn't get mad. You'd be more likely to apologize and politely refuse than to start a fight over it, if you knew it was a genuine expression of respect.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:40 PM

You mean YOU would. Right?

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:31 PM

I mean any reasonable person would. Why be an ass about it when no offense was intended? It doesn't mean you have to eat the thing. You can always politiely refuse, or better yet take the trouble to inform yourself about the culture enough to avoid the situation in the first place. What kind of person repays a sincere gesture of respect with hostility?

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:38 AM

You know, just as a practical concern, we liberals have to restrain the urge to slap people who are offensive, insensitive and ignorant. We'd be too busy slapping conservatives all day to get anything else done.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:42 AM

These are interesting posts, with the issue I meant to get to in the blog coming up. What constitutes a "reasonable person"? That varies from culture to culture. Where I grew up, if someone spit in your salad you'd tackle them for a number of reasons. It would be a reasonable course of action because a "reasonable person" would know that a show of physical retaliation was necessary to save face and to let it be known that you wouldn't stand for that sort of thing. If you didn't, you were denigrated as a "loser," a "wimp," or "gay", and others became much more likely to spit in your salad, or other disrespectful act at least.

From my current cultural standpoint, however, slapping someone because they spit in your salad does not merit a slap. I agree with the other anonymous -- I, personally, think it's a waste of time. I moved away from where I grew up because I didn't want to have to live in such a retaliatory place. But there are a lot of "reasonable people" (from their point of view) who don't agree with that anonymous. If you call them an "ass," is that being culturally insensitive? I don't think so. I think that minds don't have to be so open that they fall out. It's OK for us to judge others from our vantage point and act accordingly.

So if someone spit in my salad, even as a gesture of respect (which is really stretching it), I would forgive it if it were a one-time thing. If the person kept spitting in my salad every time we went out for lunch at Saladorama, I'd stop going to lunch with them. My life is too short to pick goobers out of my romaine.

# posted by

James Cook : 7:20 AM

I might forgive someone, once, for spitting in my salad, but only if they paid for it. Politeness is one thing; letting someone steal from me is another.

-- John Stracke

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:36 AM

I think you're missing the point again. If something is seen by everybody around you as a sign of respect, it is by very definition not picking a fight. So why pick a fight back? You're wasting time and energy, and creating enemies you don't need. That's just plain stupid. Explain to me how the notion of someone being an ass is unique to one particular culture. All cultures have rules of etiquette, and people that break them are perceived to be asses. Not everything is a Western social construct. The conception of someone being an ass is probably pretty close to being a cultural universal.

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:34 PM

Der, the whole point is that NOT everyone around Matthew in his example sees it as a gesture of respect. The asshole spit in his salad, and you're calling HIM an ass for having a problem with it?

Jesus fucking Christ, you pantywaists are so interested in being nice to everybody that you bend over and say more up the ass, please! No, no lubrocant if it's too hard for you -- just ram it up there if that's what makes YOU comfortable -- I'm sure that in your culture it's a gesture of RESPECT!

And you wonder why we're going to vote for Bush? It's because HE has the balls to stand up for what he thinks is right without apologizing for it first.

What a load of crap. Get a fucking backbone and stand up for yourselves, ALL of you numbnuts.

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:56 PM

Numbnuts? Oh, I'm all a-tingly!

Seriously, and ignoring the last post altogether because I don't want to admit my anarcho-commie syndicate membership...

The concept of the "ass" may be present in all cultures, but I would be surprised if it turned out that the content of what makes one an "ass" is constant across cultures. It sounds like you're basing your idea about how everyone would think based on how you (the penultimate anonymous "you") think. And the thing is that not everyone does think the way you think. Right?

# posted by

James Cook : 12:05 AM

Of course, the specifics of what constitutes being an ass change from culture to culture, but all cultures see people who behave inappropriately as, more or less, asses. And there's no surer way to be an ass (in this sense), than to actively resist any attempt to understand the motivations of the people whose culture you find yourself dealing with.

The argument that failing to display hostility at an unintentional offense will hurt your credibility is based on the assumption that the people around you see this as a social slight. If they don't, it's pointless to defend your honor.

Let's take a look at what's really going on in that last conservative rant. We've already established that this person is for some reason actually arguing in favor of taking offense where none is intended. That is not only pointless, but dangerous. It leads to completely unnecessary hostility. What use is there in that? Being tough? Think about this for a moment. This person is actually calling for groundless hostility--anger for its own sake.

What possible good could come of this kind of thing in the context of business, foreign policy, or anything else for that matter?

If an actual disdain for the process of trying to understand other people's perspectives is a requirement for not being a wimp, go ahead and call me whatever you like.

Notice this person is also trying to manipulate emotions through name-calling. Nothing shuts down attempts at mutual understanding faster than name-calling and accusations. It is poison for civil society.

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:53 AM

Post a Comment Here

Return to the Irregular Times Main Page

Read our Blog Archives