Once Upon A Time, There were No Cultural Boundaries

Once Upon A Time, There were No Cultural Boundaries

 

 

Whether or not you take a bite of a vegetarian / vegan lifestyle, you probably started out as a full-blown carnivore, especially if you devoured those meaty fairytales served up by Children's Literature. Metaphors aside, what I mean to say is that these fairytales select animals; embellish their identities with some human attributes by suggesting they think and communicate like us; and incorporate them in stories to have their behaviour copied, that is, consumed by children.

 

Why? Because the creatures' behaviour conveys moral messages that reinforce our stereotypes and cultural values for the next generation so as to reproduce our communities. In doing so, fairytales imply the importance of animals in human society, despite some traditional claims about their inferiority. This, I argue, parallels views in Amerindian culture, where lines between the human and animal are also blurred: animals are seen as having human souls in non-human bodies; people assign creatures different traits and, by eating them, hope to acquire these traits to strengthen human communities. Do such resemblances mean that cultural boundaries are on their way out?

 

The Human-Animal Nexus

 

Both fairytales and Amerindian cultures muddy the distinctions dividing humans and animals and stressing our superiority. In the Three Little Pigs, for example, animals' experimentation with different building materials, namely straw, wood, and stone respectively, appears to mimic our historical evolution from an agricultural to an industrial society. They represent humans coming to terms with the demands of the natural world around them, epitomised by the wolf and his threats. Their victory symbolises the perceived triumph of modern humans over nature. Although making non-humans imitate us suggests we are ideal creations and animals are inferior emulations, readers may note that animals experiencing the same dilemmas as us reminds us that we share the world with them and are related in this sense at least.

 

Meanwhile, Amerindians suggest that animals are human spirits wearing animal bodies; they have personalities and emotions and could be monitoring us. This is why animals are respected and feared for their anger or power. Amerindians here may seem to go beyond fairytales, as animals' relations with humans are more than just about food: they can judge people and react accordingly. However, I argue that fairytales equally respect that animals think independently and have opinions on humans; the pigs' decision to defend themselves using human technology hints creativity and perhaps their distrust of people to protect them.

 

Role of Animals in Human Culture

 

Both fairytales and Amerindian culture illustrate how human communities can profit from non-human contribution. In Goldylocks and the Three Bears, the bears and their house are arguably a warning indicating the vulnerability of collectives and the impending threat of individualism: three bowls, three chairs, and three beds are used to identify each individual; there is nothing to identify the family as a whole. The hasty appearance of the bears together at the end perhaps provides hope that this vulnerable order, the nuclear family, can still be saved. Therefore, through animals, readers are instructed to maintain their communal links, conserving their common cultures and traditions.

 

Similarly, for some Amerindians, animals play a crucial role in social reproduction. Capturing the spirit of a Jaguar, a strong creature at the top of the hunting hierarchy, is believed to endow shamans with supreme powers. They then employ this to benefit the well-being of their community, and thus, hint the importance of animals. Indeed, some may contend fairytales don't explicitly describe animals as powerful agents but treat them more like tools to shape society. It nevertheless should be noted that the creatures must be given agency for humans to be able to relate to them and think that the morals they advocate are worth following.

In other words, children may look up at "lived happily ever after" stuffed with ideas and morals, regarding humans and animals as much closer species. This blog post has argued that Amerindians share this perspective, and hence, that there may be some truth in that fairytale about no cultural boundaries.

 

“Britain can do Better than this”: A Reason Why Nationalist Fertilisers are not Going to Regrow Support for the Welfare State

For the orator, Ed Miliband, the nationalist hints sewed into his speech at last Tuesday's Labour Party Conference were very well done. For the Politician, Ed Miliband, the rusty trick, i.e, emphasising Britons' ability to "do better" for ourselves and each other to encourage support for welfare, seemed rather futile. Would a sudden affection for your nation and its citizens persuade you to contribute to welfare? If so, is your attitude likely to last long? I doubt both for one reason: basing your welfare decisions on whether someone is part of a nation or not, like a member in a club, does not help people appreciate and develop the ethical tools necessary to sustain the welfare state, such as the capacity to recognise and respond to the needs of others beyond ourselves and our community. Once the immediate warmth of nationalism simmers down and austerity hits, I argue citizens will wonder why they should care about each other and find very few reasons.

 

The nation, like any other community with unique influences, offers its members a firm foundation for building their personal identity. In it, they learn moral and social values, develop ideas, and feel a sense of unity with fellow citizens. No wonder some communities often adopt the nationalist principle of aiding each other before the rest of the globe, for this reassures the continuation of the nation on which their identities rely. This special affection for your compatriots therefore appears to mask selfish motives. Ironically then, nationalist ideology seems to indirectly feed individualism. It therefore may not compel people to look beyond their own needs as required by the welfare state.

 

Of course, many contend nationalism often teaches one to sacrifice self-interest for strangers: a crucial aspect of the welfare state. Nevertheless, by emphasising citizens' common identity, nationalism risks making a nation like an extended family. This family-like representation could cause a partiality towards one's nation, which seems only a few doors down from individualism. Yet again, what is essential to the welfare state, the ability to empathise with those not very similar to yourself is not cultivated.

 

Progressive nationalism, a concept explored by David Goodhart et al in a pamphlet of that name, suggests that today's multi-ethnic Britain can still have a shared, national identity and solidarity that can yield more support for welfare. The revised form replaces the ethnic ties between people with political ones, namely one's legal citizenship, which apparently indicates they follow the nation's laws and perhaps pay tax. This national identity is also created by multiple cultures to suggest a truly integrated, cohesive society, which should urge a greater willingness to help. However, this not only assumes all citizens fulfill these conditions, but also fails to acknowledge subtle differences between individuals and so seems rather insensitive to people's varying needs. Overlooking such differences amongst welfare recipients, for example, risks creating such generalisations as "scroungers" and so, indirectly, leads to reducing support for welfare.

 

In conclusion, the support for welfare caused by nationalism, despite being occasionally strong like in post-war Britain, can, in the long run, decline. Simply, this seems because becoming used to a common identity and an absolutist duty to compatriots does not nurture the empathy and consequentialist decision-making skills required by a redistributive process like the welfare state.

Can a Religious Plea Save the British Welfare State from Death and Damnation?

 

Irked by the sudden cracks in his tottering Universal Credit program, Ian Duncan Smith has finally laid bare his stubborn resolution to see through his plans "on time" and "on budget". This, more than ever before, threatens what we know to be the welfare state with death and damnation. Time to review the capacities of its potential saviours, including religious ones! With faith-based organisations (FBOs) having been front-line welfare providers before and during the current system, it seems that a religious plea to stop cuts may be armed with the necessary commitment and practical experience. Nevertheless, can their often ancient, scriptural principles command modern politics and economics?

 

Even before the opposing armies take to their firing posts, the mere presence of religious arguments on the battle-field highlights that the welfare debate, usually painted from an economic perspective with bright statistics emblazoned here and there, is in fact a moral issue. Some Christians referring to equality and shouldering your brethren's burden, though not appealing to everyone, is a valuable reminder that we are discussing humans with sentiments; not robots incapable of valuing anything but the economic.

 

Indeed, the coalition may also prioritise morality. Consider, for example, their powerful rhetoric of "skivers" and "strivers" that seek to promote "self-help" over relying on others. Through creating such binary opposition, however, the Coalition mechanically label, categorise, and generalise. This steers the debate away from viewing people as individuals with unique identities and away from morality. Obviously, the inevitable disunity caused leads to fewer discussions about our ethical responsibilities to the vulnerable and more discussions about whether we can afford to pay for interests that are not our own. Religion, by arousing society's spiritual side, crucially recalls that the welfare state was originally a system generated from our ancestors' social harmony and ethical concerns about the labour market.

 

Nonetheless, would this help sway present critics? The bishops' favouring welfare, for instance, occasionally gleaned some support, but their religious arguments were largely received like any old ideology staggering into political debate: with suspicion or “muted reaction”.

 

Suspicion because, like with other ideologies, we are tempted to refer to former outcomes of implementing it, such as the recent religious protestations against same-sex marriages in church and women bishops. Although the bishops in Lords had been

divided on these subjects, their religious arguments supporting welfare can still be suspected of harbouring the same Cultural Conservatism, which could accordingly influence the formation of the welfare system. Even in 1945, this Cultural Conservatism had been blamed for some benefits that kept women at home and men in work.

 

The bishops' intervention sometimes triggered “muted reaction” because their arguments counter-productively challenged negative rhetoric with negative rhetoric, suggesting few clear, positive steps for moving forward. The state calls some citizens "welfare dependent". Bishops, in a report titled "The Lies We Tell Ourselves" by the Baptist Union of Great Britain et al, call us all "myth" dependent, namely on "lies" about poverty spread by the government.

 

Undeniably, FBOs, with their inspirational principles, played a key role in Labour's universal benefit system and aid the Coalition's private welfare efforts. However, it could be argued that the rigid duties to the poor coupled with FBOs having significantly more exposure to poverty than most politicians makes their arguments likely to seem subjective, and hence, unconvincing.

 

I therefore suggest that a religious plea for welfare could raise crucial questions about the grounds on which today's political decisions are made whilst revealing the frequently hidden ethical dimension of the welfare debate. Yet its capacity to practically garner support for the existing system appears limited. Undoubtedly, this post's readings cannot apply to all parts of Christianity or indeed all religions. It is merely one part of a wider debate about religion's role in politics.

Why "Woman-Friendly Policies" Can Be a Feminist's False Friend

The term "woman-friendly policy” was introduced by the academic Helga M. Hernes to describe state-led welfare initiatives that enable women's self-development, such as labour market participation, without needing women to sacrifice familial responsibilities. We now know some of them to be maternity leave, parental leave, and flexible working hours. In fact, the "woman-friendly policies" do seem amiable with feminists: they facilitate women's economic independence, their presence in the public sphere and gender equality. Or do they? I argue that "woman-friendly policies", unlike what their name suggests, are discretely hampering the progress of women and Feminism; it's high time that the false friendship is exposed.

 

To begin with, their efforts to promote gender equality appear merely sluggish. Undoubtedly, provisions like rights to re-join employment after maternity leave permit women to reconcile long-term professions with family commitments and enjoy career progression alongside their male counterparts. By doing both breadwinning and care-giving, women become the multi-tasking, all-enduring heroines; they set an example to men who are traditionally only assigned the former task. Yet, such gaps in one's career could mean they take longer to gain sufficient expertise for the elite jobs which, in this rapidly-developing age, could leave them behind others, and hence, make them vulnerable to discrimination from employers on these grounds. Although unpredicted circumstances can hinder employees of any gender, it should be noted that women have the additional challenge of disproving negative preconceptions about their capacities. If anything, calling these family-orientated benefits "woman-friendly" seems to prolong the stereotype of females as being the major care-givers in the home. Meanwhile, embellishing public sector jobs with accommodating benefits could, as authors have observed in the Swedish welfare state, lead to women preferring them and leaving the perhaps better-paid private sector jobs to men. Where is the gender equality?

 

Through focusing on women's roles in the public sphere, the "woman-friendly policies" risk diverting attention from other equally-important feminist concerns in the private sphere. As mentioned above, they barely endeavour to correct preconceptions about women: our screens and pages are cheerful with feisty, working women but the free choice has still not earned them security, what with domestic violence and similar forms of oppression. Though women in employment may have uprooted some stereotypes, the more tenacious ones cannot be eradicated without establishing equality behind closed doors, such as with fairly-divided domestic labour. Therefore, whilst "woman-friendly policies" may give many feminists the impression that the battle has been won, a battle, on a less conspicuous front, is still raging on that Feminism must address.

 

Finally, let's not forget that any attempt to be "woman-friendly" is labelling all women with the same interests despite social and cultural differences. Rather than recognising them as individuals, we are made to think of women as occupying one camp against men. Just like men, working class women may have some different needs to upper class women; female immigrants may seek some different opportunities to female citizens. Feminism then, if supporting these policies, may overlook the values of certain women in society, and hence, deny them the representation they deserve.

 

As some writers note, "woman-friendly policies" aid the economy and lower the average age of the active population through introducing more workers, as well as permitting the work-family balance necessary for a higher fertility rate. However, I argue that all these benefits to the state could be at the expense of women and Feminism. This post may not offer solutions but I suggest that, at a time when Feminism is doing some soul-searching, it is worth differentiating between its friends and false friends.

 

The Thinker: A Preface

Dear Readers,

 

The name of this blog is not a subtle reference to its writer's intellectual exertion.  It is instead an allusion to the bronze, life-size casting by the French sculptor, Auguste Rodin, of a pensive, nude male, which is often used to symbolise philosophy.  In this Politics blog, I neither intend an indorsement of bodily exposure or Rodin's queer imagination.  What I wish for my writing to take from this sculpture is merely metaphorical:

To be thought-provoking- putting forward rigourous analysis on a range of key political issues;

To be experimental- drawing together knowledge from history, philosophy, and the social sciences to enrich ideas on politics;

To celebrate independent thinkers- being guided by no allegiances to particular ideologies.

As an essential footnote, I would like to thank my readers for baring with the metaphors and can assure them that the politicians' vagueness will end here and be replaced with greater clarity.