|
I'm not sure we actually disagree on many points. We do disagree on some points. For example, what you view as an abusive relationship, I think is more simply a completely different worldview as to what are considered acceptable norms in society. But it's easy for you to look at the relationship and think it's abusive because of your foundational worldview about what is normal and what is OK, especially considering the likely difference between power distance index values between yourself and Chinese culture. edit: This reminds me of a business case about cross-cultural work I had to learn for my MBA. It is amazing how much a real-life company failed in China only simply because lack of cultural understanding led to immense distrust between the two parties, even though both parties really actually wanted to work with each other. But their cultural ignorance could only lead them to both believe that they couldn't trust each other, as they were completely misunderstanding each other's messages and signals. I can see that happening in general when analyzing another person's society. The point of the case was that cultural misunderstanding tends to lead to negative assumptions, rather than benefit of the doubt. :endedit I am definitely mostly saying that I've learned that the world has a lot more nuance than I realized when I was younger, and that we'd all do well if we realized that. It allows for better dialogue among people, especially with those who are different from us. For example, I imagine if Americans can figure that out, the American government and society will be much stronger; instead, there just seems to be an insane amount of partisanship that makes things worse, and no way to cross the aisle and bridge the gap. I will say that despite all the issues I have with the Chinese government, I will not say that "authoritarian governments are bad" full stop. I used to think like that. I don't anymore after realizing how the world is not so black and white. If we demonize a third party, it is easier to not understand the third party. The people responsible for deradicalizing ISIS converts that ran away from Europe are able to understand deeper root causes. They don't just hate people for joining ISIS, nor do they just simply hate ISIS. They are able to understand the other side, and it is because of their expansive knowledge and empathy that they are able to communicate with such people. As Ender Wiggin once said: "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves." Martin Jacques is an excellent scholar who I think understands China really, really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhUmLtlZpw |
I just don't buy this moral relativism.
In some societies, it's ok to beat your wife. But I think to normalize this behavior as a simple difference in cultural practices would be doing a disservice to the global political discourse and the larger concept of human rights.
Concepts like "due process" and "freedom of speech" are maybe less clear cut than "Is it ok to beat your wife?" But are they really? I think every society ought to have those things. They are major political innovations to come about over the last few hundred years. To do otherwise would be a regression. Yes that's a judgment. So is "beating your wife isn't ok". Understanding why someone beats their wife doesn't make it better either. It's just something that you shouldn't do.
As far as governments, disappearing people for saying mean things about the president is something that they shouldn't do. There's nothing to understand, they just shouldn't do it. I don't think this should be a controversial opinion. It's possible to understand different cultures while still standing up for what I would consider to be basic human rights and due process. I'm lucky I can do that from here, because to do so in China would be a jailable offense.