If you found this piece useful or thought-provoking, tapping the ❤️ at the top helps more people discover it. And if you’d like future pieces sent straight to your inbox, you can subscribe above. Thanks.
Superb piece. Should be compulsory reading for every Guardianista and ‘progressive’ Tarquin/ Tarquina. To quote the professor from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe- ‘how I wish they’d teach logic at these schools’. Not only do progressives ignore evidence which is staring them in the face, they deliberately disparage western culture and sanctify all non western culture regardless of that evidence. It’s time we challenged their world view more robustly instead of fearing the abuse that inevitably ensues.
Thank you – yes, the sneering at the West by people who’ve benefited most from it is deeply irritating and does real harm. I mostly write pieces like this to get that frustration out of my system, so I’m glad you agree, TT.
Absolutely spot on. So refreshing to read an analysis of this situation without either resorting to racism at one end or obsessive hand-wringing at the other.
This is very much Sam Harris' thesis in the moral landscape. He has a Ted Talk where he's on the verge of tears at one point talking about women bearing the responsibility of being raped in some cultures.
I also can't help but see Rob Henderson's 'Luxury Beliefs' through it all. The moral grandstanding of these "progressives" enlarges their status at their dinner parties and book clubs at the expense of others. When they fail to condemn these objectively morally bankrupt practices and ways of thinking, it is the women who live lives lacking autonomy that suffer the consequences - but it's okay because Nathaniel can continue sniffing his own farts and get drunk on his feelings of moral superiority.
The more I think about it, the more perverse it gets.
Your article brings things together nicely - well written 👍
Yes, it’s got Luxury Beliefs all over it. I should reread The Moral Landscape – it’s been a few years. Sam Harris has been a big influence on how I think about these questions. Thanks for reading, really appreciate the comment.
Sadly it it's much more likely to be a liberal feminist Natalie than a Nathaniel who carries water for insanely racist, homophobic, and misogynist 3rd world countries.
People who claim that's not the case are in it for social status point scoring. The dinner party circuit, the school gates pickup, the online 'like' seekers.
Notably it's the claim of the comfortable middle classes, the academics, the professional class and the political elite.
It is the popular narrative. The unthinking, uncritical position. Sticking with consensus. Cowardice.
Thanks, David – agree, cowardice is a big part of it. Also, status. I read a book called 'The Status Game' by Will Storr a couple of years ago and found it very illuminating on this and related issues. Highly recommended.
Interesting - but I think there's a difference between your two concepts. I very much disagree with moral relativism and agree with the point that we should defend the same version of women's rights, for example, regardless of which country those women are living in.
But I don't agree with the 'some cultures are better than others' argument when applied to countries - as you do in your essay. Because culture is a many-layered thing . You use modern day Iran as an example, but Persian / Iranian culture is very different to the Islamic fundamentalist culture imposed by the theocracy that is ruling it.
There's also a difference between urban, city-centric culture and rural culture - you can even see that in the UK, so imagine it somewhere like Afghanistan where you can have highly-educated people in Kabul versus illiterate people in the countryside. Then you have the Taliban who first took over Afghanistan in the 90s and imposed rule on the people - that is not the same as Afghan culture.
I would never say, for example, that British culture was better than Persian culture - or that Persian culture was better than British culture. It's too sweeping a generalisation. And even though progressives get a bad name (sometimes rightly so!) nobody I've ever met is in favour of Islamic fundamentalist culture.
What happens is that people who subscribe to moral relativism haven't gone to the end of their thoughts: which means in effect they support a culture they don't support - ie the argument makes no sense.
Thanks, Stephanie. I agree that culture is layered – absolutely. And I’m not saying one country is better than another in some crude national sense. I’m arguing that some ways of organising a society are better for human flourishing than others – liberal norms vs Islamist theocracy, how Norway does things vs the Taliban’s vision for Afghanistan, and so on. When you distinguish Persian/Iranian culture from the fundamentalist culture imposed by the regime, and say nobody you know supports the latter, you’re already ranking one set of norms above another. That’s really all I’m arguing we should be allowed to do openly, including when we talk about Islamic doctrine, without it being lazily written off as bigotry.
Yes, then we agree. I think we should call it 'Islamic fundamentalism' as that's clear it has nothing to do with moderate Islam. It's what we used to call it, it's extreme and has had a massive influence all over the world.
I also see the generalization and simplification of terminology. Using just the word "culture" is way too abstract for such analysis, it causes interpretive ambiguity regarding the underlying proposed meaning. If we assume that author's argument is correct, then he should universally agree to such a replacement "..it’s clear that some cultures produce solutions that help humans flourish; others produce nazism." On contrary, he could use clearer definitions of national culture, political culture, ideology, power structures, and explain how they are all intertwined. Avoiding power structure analysis alongside culture creates a huge blind spot in his theory, leaving many factors of democratization being overlooked. For instance, such theory doesn't explain "democratization by mistake", or the fact that political and military powers dictate narratives and shift the set of norms to serve their goals using particular instruments (sometimes pure violence). It could be more critical to have a look through the history of one particular culture to analyze its fluidity, changes and reasons for changes throughout the time. The text is an example of publicism and should be traded as such, and unfortunately it doesn't serve as thought-provoking piece, rather emotions-provoking. Intention could be good, but the result looks methodologically chaotic.
Not everyone on Substack is a professor of politics and sociology, you know. As a pamphlet for human rights outside the academic ivory tower this piece is more than good enough.
I'm not a professor either. But there's a difference between providing clarity of complex things to provoke critical thinking–which, I assume, was the goal stated by the author– and triggering an emotional response by giving ready-made conclusions.
Frederick, I agree a lot with Stephanie Lam's comments. I think the mistake you may have made is that, your comparisons are not 🍎 to 🍎. You've looked at some tribal people which may have different mindset of those who live in cities. You've taken some countries like Italy and Somalia. One is a strong functioning democracy visited by millions for its food, artwork and culture. The other country mentioned went through years of a brutal civil war. Who really wants to visit Somalia? Most Americans can not even find this country on a map. There are sterotypes of this country with Hollywood films like 'Black Hawk Down' or 'Captain Phillips.' A different comparison (not from Hollywood) is by someone who actually grew up in Somalia-Abdi Nor Iftin. Are you familiar with him? Abdi saw the racism, the hunger and the effects of Al-Shabab in his country during Somali's civil war. Spoiler alert, Abdi didn't like them. His book is a must read, similiar to Aayan Hirsi Ali's perspectives in her book. Abdi's book is titled,
'Call Me American - The Extraordinary True Story of a Young Somali Immigrant"
If you wish to look at the islamic world, I respectfully ask which one? There are approx 50 islamic countries. There are 22 countries in the Arab League alone. Why would you choose Somalia? How about Turkey? Kuwait, UAE? Yet, you chose Somalia and compared it to the USA. Is this the most homest comparison? The USA is a huge nation- 3rd largest by size in the world. Somalia is ranked 19th in size and that is just within Africa. Similarily one could choose a state like Mississippi and attempt to compare to California. This wouldn't be a true comparison either. How many islamic countries allow only Islam as the official religion? Off hand I would suggest those countries NOT be selected, as they are not true 🍎 to 🍎 comparison. I would suggest you select countries with similiar GDP, size and comparitive values. Yes, I know different countries choose different values (gets back to the topic of moral relativism) but I have a lack of space to reply. Perhaps a discussion for another day. Somalia is a former war torn country with a very weak centralized government. Many people there have a tribal mindset outside of the capital. Therefore in my view, this country can not be honestly compared to a country like the USA- with the size (third largest in the world), Freedom of religion and rule of law. How many majority Islamic countries allow Christianity or other major faiths to exist within their borders? Why not choose a country like Indonesia? It is the world's most populated islamic country. 278 million people living there, ranking it 4th in the world. The USA is comprised of approx 330 million people, ranking it third in the world by population. Somalia? Under 20 million people. How about exports? Just one billion. Nearby Kenya? 12 billion in exports.
You choose (as an example) another former war torn coutry- Afghanistan. Population around 41 million people. GDP per capita? $400 dollars. Why highlight Afghanistan? Why not choose Kuwait? 97% literacy rate. Malayasia? Over 96%. Turkey? Over 96%. All muslim majority countried.
Lebanon is a muslim country that is one of the safest for Christian travelers. UAE (United Arab Emirates) allows for religious freedom as long as it aligns with its countries laws/social norms. UAE also has a high standard of living and low crime. Perhaps a more honest comparison to choose a region like this, rather than a former war torn and low ranked illiterate country like Somalia or Afghanistan.
Finally how would you answer the statement that women in the usa could not vote until 1920, some couldnt have their own bank account until 1974, and some could not purchase property until the 1970s. Yet "Islam gave these rights to woman 1400 years ago." In addition were you aware there have been over a dozen muslim women in history serving as prime minister or president? Yet here in the USA there hasn't even been one (yet.) How does that work?
Among these approx 50 Islamic countries is there a single one that meets the standard of human rights declared not only by the west but also by the UN, of which they are all member states? And what has size to do with human rights? Is it necessary to have a certain GDP or area of soil to not lock up journalists, suppress women and implement a state religion?
All agreed, except for the motivation part. It's more than snobbery when relativists look down on people who believe in the values of their society (for instance Western citizens who believe in enlightenment values). They are legitimately trying to solve a hard problem, "How to make multiculturalism work?" It's just that they have don't have good solutions to this question, nor do they respect that political liberalism is already a pretty good answer to this question.
Great read, thank you. For me the arguement needs the caveat 'some cultures are, *on the whole*, better than others'. Cultures are organic and have not been designed to be perfect systems, so I'd argue that looking at what is positive (by whatever your metric of 'good' is) from multiple cultures and adapting that into your culture is key to success. 'Our culture is better' can lead to a kind of epistemological chauvinism that closures the door for learning from other cultures that could truly be beneficial.
Depends on what’s priority for you in a culture. If stoning women for adultery is broadly acceptable in a culture, than this culture is a harbor of barbarism. Luckily, like you have stated, cultures changing into other cultures.
Totally agree, and would recommend Sam Harris’ 1st podcast interview with David Deutsch for a similar, and very interesting, discussion of moral relativity.
Very interesting. In the academia we are also taught that all languages are equally capable of expressing complex thoughts. I have my doubts about that claim, too.
Some languages, I've read, are incapable of counting beyond one, two, many ...
If true, that's proof you're right.
I'd imagine there'sa spectrum, and that or own poor language while magnificent in some, if not many ways, is less capable than others at expressing some forms of complexity. The same languages that are very limited in counting might, like the Inuits have many words for snow, have a depth of expression for phenomena important in their world.
“There’s no third option. The attempt to split the difference – condemning individual acts while refusing to judge the cultures that produce them – is intellectual cowardice. It lets you feel moral while abandoning the people who need moral clarity most.” I wish I could read this to a college campus but I’d probably get KO’d.
Of course culture matters. Of course some cultures are better than others. This is not only true country to country, but within a country there are internal subcultures that are better than others. For example, refusing to accept this truth is part of the liberal progressive subculture.
We can agree that no culture is perfect though. Ideally we would take the best from each and craft a more perfect set of values and practices.
Superbly articulated Frederick. Inspirational and essential reading for everyone who holds, or aspires to public office. The liberal self-hate and hypocrisy has done so much harm to the values of what is our demonstrably superior culture. Time to drop the euphemisms and call out Islam for what it is. A backward, 9th century mysogenistic death-cult.
If you found this piece useful or thought-provoking, tapping the ❤️ at the top helps more people discover it. And if you’d like future pieces sent straight to your inbox, you can subscribe above. Thanks.
Superb piece. Should be compulsory reading for every Guardianista and ‘progressive’ Tarquin/ Tarquina. To quote the professor from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe- ‘how I wish they’d teach logic at these schools’. Not only do progressives ignore evidence which is staring them in the face, they deliberately disparage western culture and sanctify all non western culture regardless of that evidence. It’s time we challenged their world view more robustly instead of fearing the abuse that inevitably ensues.
Thank you – yes, the sneering at the West by people who’ve benefited most from it is deeply irritating and does real harm. I mostly write pieces like this to get that frustration out of my system, so I’m glad you agree, TT.
I know the feeling. You’re lucky that you are able to express your frustration so eloquently.
You too, I notice. 🙂
I wish! 😁
Absolutely spot on. So refreshing to read an analysis of this situation without either resorting to racism at one end or obsessive hand-wringing at the other.
That's great to hear, thanks.
This is very much Sam Harris' thesis in the moral landscape. He has a Ted Talk where he's on the verge of tears at one point talking about women bearing the responsibility of being raped in some cultures.
I also can't help but see Rob Henderson's 'Luxury Beliefs' through it all. The moral grandstanding of these "progressives" enlarges their status at their dinner parties and book clubs at the expense of others. When they fail to condemn these objectively morally bankrupt practices and ways of thinking, it is the women who live lives lacking autonomy that suffer the consequences - but it's okay because Nathaniel can continue sniffing his own farts and get drunk on his feelings of moral superiority.
The more I think about it, the more perverse it gets.
Your article brings things together nicely - well written 👍
Yes, it’s got Luxury Beliefs all over it. I should reread The Moral Landscape – it’s been a few years. Sam Harris has been a big influence on how I think about these questions. Thanks for reading, really appreciate the comment.
Sadly it it's much more likely to be a liberal feminist Natalie than a Nathaniel who carries water for insanely racist, homophobic, and misogynist 3rd world countries.
A masterpiece.
Some cultures are better than others.
People who claim that's not the case are in it for social status point scoring. The dinner party circuit, the school gates pickup, the online 'like' seekers.
Notably it's the claim of the comfortable middle classes, the academics, the professional class and the political elite.
It is the popular narrative. The unthinking, uncritical position. Sticking with consensus. Cowardice.
Thanks, David – agree, cowardice is a big part of it. Also, status. I read a book called 'The Status Game' by Will Storr a couple of years ago and found it very illuminating on this and related issues. Highly recommended.
Interesting - but I think there's a difference between your two concepts. I very much disagree with moral relativism and agree with the point that we should defend the same version of women's rights, for example, regardless of which country those women are living in.
But I don't agree with the 'some cultures are better than others' argument when applied to countries - as you do in your essay. Because culture is a many-layered thing . You use modern day Iran as an example, but Persian / Iranian culture is very different to the Islamic fundamentalist culture imposed by the theocracy that is ruling it.
There's also a difference between urban, city-centric culture and rural culture - you can even see that in the UK, so imagine it somewhere like Afghanistan where you can have highly-educated people in Kabul versus illiterate people in the countryside. Then you have the Taliban who first took over Afghanistan in the 90s and imposed rule on the people - that is not the same as Afghan culture.
I would never say, for example, that British culture was better than Persian culture - or that Persian culture was better than British culture. It's too sweeping a generalisation. And even though progressives get a bad name (sometimes rightly so!) nobody I've ever met is in favour of Islamic fundamentalist culture.
What happens is that people who subscribe to moral relativism haven't gone to the end of their thoughts: which means in effect they support a culture they don't support - ie the argument makes no sense.
Thanks, Stephanie. I agree that culture is layered – absolutely. And I’m not saying one country is better than another in some crude national sense. I’m arguing that some ways of organising a society are better for human flourishing than others – liberal norms vs Islamist theocracy, how Norway does things vs the Taliban’s vision for Afghanistan, and so on. When you distinguish Persian/Iranian culture from the fundamentalist culture imposed by the regime, and say nobody you know supports the latter, you’re already ranking one set of norms above another. That’s really all I’m arguing we should be allowed to do openly, including when we talk about Islamic doctrine, without it being lazily written off as bigotry.
Yes, then we agree. I think we should call it 'Islamic fundamentalism' as that's clear it has nothing to do with moderate Islam. It's what we used to call it, it's extreme and has had a massive influence all over the world.
Where can this “moderate Islam” be found Ms Lam? And does it comply with universal human rights?
There’s no such thing as moderate Islam. Frederick is far to kind to your ignorant comment
I also see the generalization and simplification of terminology. Using just the word "culture" is way too abstract for such analysis, it causes interpretive ambiguity regarding the underlying proposed meaning. If we assume that author's argument is correct, then he should universally agree to such a replacement "..it’s clear that some cultures produce solutions that help humans flourish; others produce nazism." On contrary, he could use clearer definitions of national culture, political culture, ideology, power structures, and explain how they are all intertwined. Avoiding power structure analysis alongside culture creates a huge blind spot in his theory, leaving many factors of democratization being overlooked. For instance, such theory doesn't explain "democratization by mistake", or the fact that political and military powers dictate narratives and shift the set of norms to serve their goals using particular instruments (sometimes pure violence). It could be more critical to have a look through the history of one particular culture to analyze its fluidity, changes and reasons for changes throughout the time. The text is an example of publicism and should be traded as such, and unfortunately it doesn't serve as thought-provoking piece, rather emotions-provoking. Intention could be good, but the result looks methodologically chaotic.
Not everyone on Substack is a professor of politics and sociology, you know. As a pamphlet for human rights outside the academic ivory tower this piece is more than good enough.
I'm not a professor either. But there's a difference between providing clarity of complex things to provoke critical thinking–which, I assume, was the goal stated by the author– and triggering an emotional response by giving ready-made conclusions.
So, what’s your conclusion? That no comparison between cultures is possible?
Frederick, I agree a lot with Stephanie Lam's comments. I think the mistake you may have made is that, your comparisons are not 🍎 to 🍎. You've looked at some tribal people which may have different mindset of those who live in cities. You've taken some countries like Italy and Somalia. One is a strong functioning democracy visited by millions for its food, artwork and culture. The other country mentioned went through years of a brutal civil war. Who really wants to visit Somalia? Most Americans can not even find this country on a map. There are sterotypes of this country with Hollywood films like 'Black Hawk Down' or 'Captain Phillips.' A different comparison (not from Hollywood) is by someone who actually grew up in Somalia-Abdi Nor Iftin. Are you familiar with him? Abdi saw the racism, the hunger and the effects of Al-Shabab in his country during Somali's civil war. Spoiler alert, Abdi didn't like them. His book is a must read, similiar to Aayan Hirsi Ali's perspectives in her book. Abdi's book is titled,
'Call Me American - The Extraordinary True Story of a Young Somali Immigrant"
If you wish to look at the islamic world, I respectfully ask which one? There are approx 50 islamic countries. There are 22 countries in the Arab League alone. Why would you choose Somalia? How about Turkey? Kuwait, UAE? Yet, you chose Somalia and compared it to the USA. Is this the most homest comparison? The USA is a huge nation- 3rd largest by size in the world. Somalia is ranked 19th in size and that is just within Africa. Similarily one could choose a state like Mississippi and attempt to compare to California. This wouldn't be a true comparison either. How many islamic countries allow only Islam as the official religion? Off hand I would suggest those countries NOT be selected, as they are not true 🍎 to 🍎 comparison. I would suggest you select countries with similiar GDP, size and comparitive values. Yes, I know different countries choose different values (gets back to the topic of moral relativism) but I have a lack of space to reply. Perhaps a discussion for another day. Somalia is a former war torn country with a very weak centralized government. Many people there have a tribal mindset outside of the capital. Therefore in my view, this country can not be honestly compared to a country like the USA- with the size (third largest in the world), Freedom of religion and rule of law. How many majority Islamic countries allow Christianity or other major faiths to exist within their borders? Why not choose a country like Indonesia? It is the world's most populated islamic country. 278 million people living there, ranking it 4th in the world. The USA is comprised of approx 330 million people, ranking it third in the world by population. Somalia? Under 20 million people. How about exports? Just one billion. Nearby Kenya? 12 billion in exports.
You choose (as an example) another former war torn coutry- Afghanistan. Population around 41 million people. GDP per capita? $400 dollars. Why highlight Afghanistan? Why not choose Kuwait? 97% literacy rate. Malayasia? Over 96%. Turkey? Over 96%. All muslim majority countried.
Lebanon is a muslim country that is one of the safest for Christian travelers. UAE (United Arab Emirates) allows for religious freedom as long as it aligns with its countries laws/social norms. UAE also has a high standard of living and low crime. Perhaps a more honest comparison to choose a region like this, rather than a former war torn and low ranked illiterate country like Somalia or Afghanistan.
Finally how would you answer the statement that women in the usa could not vote until 1920, some couldnt have their own bank account until 1974, and some could not purchase property until the 1970s. Yet "Islam gave these rights to woman 1400 years ago." In addition were you aware there have been over a dozen muslim women in history serving as prime minister or president? Yet here in the USA there hasn't even been one (yet.) How does that work?
Among these approx 50 Islamic countries is there a single one that meets the standard of human rights declared not only by the west but also by the UN, of which they are all member states? And what has size to do with human rights? Is it necessary to have a certain GDP or area of soil to not lock up journalists, suppress women and implement a state religion?
All agreed, except for the motivation part. It's more than snobbery when relativists look down on people who believe in the values of their society (for instance Western citizens who believe in enlightenment values). They are legitimately trying to solve a hard problem, "How to make multiculturalism work?" It's just that they have don't have good solutions to this question, nor do they respect that political liberalism is already a pretty good answer to this question.
Thanks, Matt. You’re right – there’s much more to the motivation side than I touched on here. You’ve given me something to think about. Cheers.
"the sort of thing a plumber might say."
Having known and worked with many PhD holders, I can confidently say most plumbers are smarter.
Great read, thank you. For me the arguement needs the caveat 'some cultures are, *on the whole*, better than others'. Cultures are organic and have not been designed to be perfect systems, so I'd argue that looking at what is positive (by whatever your metric of 'good' is) from multiple cultures and adapting that into your culture is key to success. 'Our culture is better' can lead to a kind of epistemological chauvinism that closures the door for learning from other cultures that could truly be beneficial.
Depends on what’s priority for you in a culture. If stoning women for adultery is broadly acceptable in a culture, than this culture is a harbor of barbarism. Luckily, like you have stated, cultures changing into other cultures.
Unfortunately, the cultures that are better than others seem strangely afflicted by the belief that they are worse than others.
To believe that no culture is better than another is to believe that cannibalism is just a matter of taste
Where is that from?
I actually paraphrased the real quote because I heard it on a podcast and I could not remember who said it originally.
The real quote is ""If all cultures are equal, then cannibalism is just a matter of culinary taste," - Leo Strauss
Totally agree, and would recommend Sam Harris’ 1st podcast interview with David Deutsch for a similar, and very interesting, discussion of moral relativity.
Big fan of Sam Harris and David Deutsch – I'm sure I listened to that episode some time back. Probably worth another listen. Thanks for reading.
Very interesting. In the academia we are also taught that all languages are equally capable of expressing complex thoughts. I have my doubts about that claim, too.
That’s a fascinating thought – I suspect you’re right. Thanks for reading.
Some languages, I've read, are incapable of counting beyond one, two, many ...
If true, that's proof you're right.
I'd imagine there'sa spectrum, and that or own poor language while magnificent in some, if not many ways, is less capable than others at expressing some forms of complexity. The same languages that are very limited in counting might, like the Inuits have many words for snow, have a depth of expression for phenomena important in their world.
“There’s no third option. The attempt to split the difference – condemning individual acts while refusing to judge the cultures that produce them – is intellectual cowardice. It lets you feel moral while abandoning the people who need moral clarity most.” I wish I could read this to a college campus but I’d probably get KO’d.
"Those who say that all cultures are equal never explain why the results of those cultures are so grossly unequal."
~ Thomas Sowell
Of course culture matters. Of course some cultures are better than others. This is not only true country to country, but within a country there are internal subcultures that are better than others. For example, refusing to accept this truth is part of the liberal progressive subculture.
We can agree that no culture is perfect though. Ideally we would take the best from each and craft a more perfect set of values and practices.
Superbly articulated Frederick. Inspirational and essential reading for everyone who holds, or aspires to public office. The liberal self-hate and hypocrisy has done so much harm to the values of what is our demonstrably superior culture. Time to drop the euphemisms and call out Islam for what it is. A backward, 9th century mysogenistic death-cult.
Thank you, Alan – much appreciated.