Jenissa Rusiana Silliman University BS Accountancy CULTURE AND MORAL BEHAVIOR ELEMENTS OF CULTURE • • • History Power Dynamics Religion Filipino Culture • Bayanihan system • Biblical teachings *This is also determined by internal and external influences. What is culture? Culture is normally understood as what people do and how they do things. >it is also made up of external and internal material elements. ✓ Western culture = individualistic ✓ African culture = collectivistic Edward Said - Wrote Orientalism in 1979 - Western cultures have represented non-western cultures in such a way that they are pictured as the following: ✓ Snake charmers, Belly dancing, natives igorot, Arabs in movies REPRESENTATION IS A MECHANISM THAT “SHAPES” KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE How is representation possible? This is made possible through “power” – the power to cultural produce a type of knowledge. In such a way, no knowledge formed are neutral. *it is always geared towards biases, prejudices, and stereotypes > this often leads to discrimination and sometimes, racism. QUESTION 1 In the production of knowledge, what are types of knowledge produced? • Biased • Prejudice • and stereotypes WHO DETERMINES THE TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCED? • The superior culture/ the colonizer • The victors of history *“History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe.” - Da Vinci Code QUESTION 3 WHY IS THIS DONE? • To shore up the superiority of the colonizers and the inferiority of the colonized! *to postulate that anything that is not western is barbaric. Ex: Dr. Jose Rizal vs. Antonio De Morga - (Annotated work) *In this way, the representation of other cultures through the lenses of westernism is not only inaccurate, but misleading. Edward Said • The study of history of colonialism was extended to literature and the implications of oppression. But more so, the justification of colonialism. *These are not immediately seen in the obvious, but essentially, is or are embedded in hidden and veiled ideas. (ex: while race is superior and western ideas are civilized and objective.) For Said, colonialism operates insidiously – it is Pervasive FILIPINO CULTURE As we can see, this is an Amalgam of local and colonial ideas and practices, shaped by western colonialism. PIERRE BOURDIEU’S SOCIAL THEORY • As a sociologist, Bourdieu sought to provide an “authentic” theory of practice to explain the social, political, and cultural practices that surrounded him. >>To have” authentic” theory of practice subjectivism and objectivism must be reconciled • He structured his famous “thinking tools”: ✓ Habitus ✓ Field ✓ Capital HABITUS • HABITUS IS THE SUBJECTIVE DISPOSITIONS AND SCHEMES OF PERCEPTION WHICH IS PRESENT IN ALL SOCIAL AGENTS; IT IS THE GENERATIVE PRINCIPLE OF ALL PRACTICES Ex: a farmer’s habitus = farm, farming, labor, low income class *from here, we deduce the kind of lifestyle and routine he practices FIELD • This is the social arena where a heterogenous population of social agents act; it is constituted of positions hierarchy, and its own rules. > It is important to note that habitus and field are “structuring structures.” that is, they are structures which structure one another; the internalization of the external and the externalization of the internal. CAPITAL • This could also be regarded as assets which a social agent possesses or seeks to possess; the quantity and quality of capital possessed by a social agent determines his position in the social hierarchy. • He distinguished four forms of capital: ▪ Economic Capital – money and material assets ▪ Cultural Capital – knowledge on the arts, aesthetic, and cultural preferences, language. ▪ Social Capital – affiliations and networks ▪ Symbolic Capital – things which stand for all other forms of capital; its efficacy depends on the recognition of social agents. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL INEQUALITY • According to Bourdieu, the structure of the field itself leads to inequality • As is mentioned, the field is merely composed of social positions in the social hierarchy which social agents occupy - this would men that domination is “inherent” in the social world *But this domination is symbolic Ex: A person who is rich, knowledgeable in the arts, and whose last name is Aquino is in a dominant position SOCIAL AND CULTURAL INEQUALITY • For Bourdieu, the social world is a site of a struggle for legitimation • This is what Bourdieu calls symbolic violence defined as the imposition of an arbitrary culture by an arbitrary power • now, once the culture of the dominant group has been legitimized, everybody within that social field must adhere to that culture in order to succeed. Hence, everybody takes part in the perpetuation of domination • Furthermore, the culture imposed by the dominant class is used as the evaluator of the value of social agents. • Once the dominant system has been legitimized, the dominant has only to let the system they dominate take its own course to exercise their domination. MICHEL FOUCAULT >>Foucault’s theory is focused on power and how it operates to produce particular kinds of subjects. Two conceptions of power: Juridical Power = Negative Power • A power that is possessed and consciously exercised by an individual or groups of individuals. This is also power that is exercised by the state • Relationship of violence * This is characterized by police powers that mitigates chaos through means of force and repressive powers of authority • PRODUCTIVE POWER • The capacity to form and produce subjects not through repression but through a positive mechanism. • It creates and it induces pleasure in the process. > Here, the individual appreciates and internalizes the values of the knowledge imposed to him. • here, the necessity of freedom in the subjectification of the individual is what makes productive power – productive *This is what Foucault believes to be the governmentality of the subject • Governmentality = internalized through freedom - After the individual internalizes the values of the system of domination, by virtue of our being free and autonomous, she assumes responsibility of her own subjection • After internalizing this, the subject inscribes itself, prohibits itself, regulates itself, regulates and monitors • The deadliest of all, IT DOMINATES ITSELF! - Disciplinary power • here, the subject conforms because it believes that this is how they are expected to behave. Ex: norms such as not being noisy in church or listening to the teacher in class. This is also applicable in different scenes such as hospitals, prisons, factory line, and etc. • The Panopticon – Jeremy Bentham The guard watches over the prisoners and the prisoners would behave accordingly even if the guards are not watching. Here, the domination has been internalized *this is evident in prisons, hospitals, psychiatric ward, factories, schools, churches, etc. Thus, we are all prisoners of our own internalization of domination – we are our own guardians. WHAT IS THE ”NEW NORMAL”? ▪ The new normal is a new “normative” way to do things in the pandemic. ▪ Oftentimes, this new normal is imposed in the juridical sense (restrictive power, there is an element of force in the implementation of policies) ▪ But, once internalized, that is, the individual became accustomed with the idea of the new normal as something that brings “safety” thus, minimal danger, it becomes” normative” ▪ Hence, the law does not have to be there all time to watch over the individual. The individual himself corrects and disciplines, reminds and maintain the “normative” order. MORAL AGENT Male Version Lawrence Kohlberg - He was particularly well-known for his theory of moral development which he popularized through research studies at Harvard’s Center for Moral Education. Stages of moral Agent: Lawrence Kohlberg's theory claims that our development of moral reasoning happens in six stages: 1. Obedience and Punishment 2. Self-interest 3. Interpersonal Accord and Conformity 4.Authority and maintaining social order, 5.Social Contract, 6.Universal Ethical principles. Kohlberg claims that we reach one stage after another showing an ever-deeper understanding of moral questions. The stages themselves are structured in three levels: 1. Pre-Conventional 2. Conventional 3. Post-Conventional. Female version Carol Gilligan - was influenced both by Erik Erikson and Lawrence Kohlberg “In contrast to the justice ethic described by Kohlberg, in which personal liberty and rights are prime, Gilligan noted that women utilize an ethic of caring, in which the moral imperative is grounded in relationship with and responsibility for one another” (Burkhardt and Nathaniel, 2002, 84). In other words, while Kohlberg’s theory of development reflects the male's view of morality based on justice, Gilligan works on moral development mirrors the female's perspective of Care. **Gilligan proposed that women come to prioritize an "ethics of care" as their sense of morality evolves along with their sense of self while men prioritize an "ethics of justice." Kohlberg's theory of moral development consists of three levels each made up of two stages. At the lowest, the Preconventional Level, the needs of the self are prioritized. This evolves into the Conventional Level to an understanding of how to be a moral member of society. Finally, at the highest level, the Postconventional Level, the individual adopts a universal idea of justice. ETHICAL RELATIVISM ETHICS - seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. • Through different ethical schools of thought, ethics attempts to identify forms of justification behind what we perceive as right and wrong. - virtue ethics - utilitarianism - Natural Law DIFFERENCES > DISAGREEMENTS > CONFLICTS DIFFERENCES > DISAGREEMENTS > COMPROMISE TOLERANCE Where do we draw the line? Are there possibilities for discourse? WHAT IS ETHICAL RELATIVISM? • This holds that ethical or moral values/beliefs are relative to the various individuals or societies that hold them. • Thus, according to the ethical relativists, there is NO objective right and wrong. TWO FORMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM ✓ Personal or Individual Ethical Relativism ✓ Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism PERSONAL OR INDIVIDUAL ETHICAL RELATIVISM • Ethical judgments and beliefs are the expressions of the moral outlook and attitudes of individual persons. *hence, for the individual ethical relativists, there is no objective standard of right and wrong inasmuch as the “individual person” is the basis of moral judgments. ETHICAL RELATIVISM • The ethical relativist may, therefore, say “I have my own view and you have yours. Neither my view nor yours is better or more correct.” • EXAMPLE: • INUIT – INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF NORTH AMERICA Senicide or geronticide – the abandonment to death or killing of the elderly *the Inuit would leave their elderly on the ice to die. (the individual relativist would say that no one, especially the outsiders of this culture, has the right to say that the Inuit are wrong because the morality of such action depends entirely on the individual Intuit beliefs. ANCIENT INDIANS • The Ancient Indians had the practice of burning the wife alive in the funeral pyre of her deceased husband. *whatever the reasons behind this practice, the act was seen as heroic. (in fact, records show that some wives willingly allowed themselves to be burnt alive on their husbands’ funeral pyre) THREE POSSIBLE REASONS THAT SUPPORT ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. DIVERSITY OF MORAL VALUES • The ethical relativists may have argued that the presence of disagreements on many ethical issues or even on basic moral values or principles will prove the point that we cannot attain objective truth. • Hence, the idea of objective right and wrong is inconceivable for ethical relativists. MORAL UNCERTAINTY • Because of moral uncertainty, the ethical relativists would have argued that because there is great difficulty in knowing what is the morally right thing to do or believe, then again we cannot attain objective right or wrong. SITUATIONAL DIFFERENCES • The situations and life world of different people vary so much that it is difficult to believe that same things that would be right for one would be right for another. • Hence, that is right and wrong for one may not be necessarily right or wrong for another. CRITICISMS AGAINST ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. Self-contradictory The objective of ethical relativism was to take away absolutes, that is, an objective moral theory that would decentralize the claim of normative ethics to have an absolute and systematic justification to moral acts. • This is self-contradictory because it creates a new form of normative ethics by placing the criteria of right and wrong in the hands of the moral agent. (the dismantlement intuitively creates a new norm) 2. IT GOES AGAINST REALITY • The points of history wherein ethnicities were systematically murdered • These evils could not be justified by ethical relativism as it simply necessitate the rule of law and justice. 3. REMOVES POSSIBILITIES OF CONSENSUS • It removes all forms of consensus because the individual or groups of individual would opt to insist on his theory of personal ethical rule. • • The key to consensus is compromise and empathy. The absence of which even one is the impossibility of consensus.
