I don't quite understand this attitude I've often found here of people to dissect, "try to understand", and take a swipe at what's wrong about other cultures, point out how some attributes of other cultures are so deviant and then take a higher stand, a higher ground on those issues.
Frankly, if you haven't been born and/or brought up in a certain culture, you simply will not be able to understand some peculiar aspects about it. Yes, there are good and the not-so-good aspects and takeaways about every culture on this planet. But I sometimes find the tone of such articles and some of the comments in this discussion not only mildly condescending but also biased. I was born and brought up in India by fairly open-minded and unorthodox parents. And so were many of my friends.
Correct me if I'm wrong. This is not an intelligent article, or discussion. It's in fact a very superficial look at the best. This is just an informative article and in no way representative of the large group of "Indian Men" living in the states. It beats me how the writer takes a few examples and on a respected daily as the WSJ blatantly labels it as "Indian Men Living in US Strike Out.
> Frankly, if you haven't been born and/or brought up in a certain culture, you simply will not be able to understand some peculiar aspects about it.
A true statement, but not necessarily relevant. For instance, I cannot understand Aztec culture, because I have not experienced it. I condemn it nonetheless.
Your condemnation does not really have any place in the scheme of things, history, or a bearing on that culture for that matter. I'm not trying to be harsh here. I hope you understand my fundamental point. A culture is a culture, it's a consequence of history, time, and innumerable subtle things and relationships. Just as the American culture is, many aspects of which people outside America condemn. But it doesn't matter.
Outsiders attempting to generalize, analyze, dissect, and fix things about cultures they barely understand more often than not cause historical and irreversible damage.
> Outsiders attempting to generalize, analyze, dissect, and fix things about cultures they barely understand more often than not cause historical and irreversible damage.
Maybe it can also cause progress? For instance, the condemnation of Apartheid by the western world probably helped end it.
(I don't mean to say arranged marriage is the same as Apartheid, obviously.)
The concept and system of arranged marriages is not something that needs fixing. It has evolved and will continue to evolve to adapt to changing conditions and attitudes among the youth and parents in India. A marriage is much larger than whether it was arranged or born out of (fleeting/puppy/divine/heavenly) love.
The concept and system of _Apartheid_ is not something that needs fixing. It has evolved and will continue to evolve to adapt to changing conditions and attitudes.
This is actually true. You don't have to fix anything. Changing environmental pressures will induce change in any state of affairs as long as there is interaction among agents.
What I just wrote may be controversial, but it does not make it false.
The difference is to what degree does another agent, external to the system in question (here, the system that has apartheid), feels they have the right to intervene and accelerate the change in a direction they judge is fit.
Sometimes you can argue that everybody is better off -- people inside the system and outside (on the outside, I would argue it is mostly a psychological benefit, at least immediately after the change is induced) -- but the arguments are never perfect. And to think that there is a "correct" side to it is (usually) a fallacy.
My point is that your argument validly defends Apartheid. It is a standard (if somewhat impolite) rhetorical technique to parrot your opponent's arguments in a way that makes them seem obviously flawed.
Frankly, if you haven't been born and/or brought up in a certain culture, you simply will not be able to understand some peculiar aspects about it.
I think that's nonsense.
Non-controversial statement: Humans manage to use the power of reason to understand all sorts of things which are far outside our own experience such as quantum mechanics, the dynamics of stars, high dimensional geometry, neural networks, etc.
Regardless of all that, a different human experience is beyond the reach of reason?
(Note: not defending the article, just criticizing the idea that only club insiders can understand a club.)
I agree partly with what you say, it is possible to understand another human experience, by reason, by analysis, by empathy - but only objectively. At least that's my belief. To truly understand it's subtle corners, in a more subjective manner requires being immersed in that experience. IMHO.
I would think an objective understanding is all that is desirable or necessary. I can see a reason to elevate an objective understanding over a subjective one; the understanding is independent of the observer.
The subjective understanding is merely the personal perception of something. It is a joint property of the observer and the thing being observed. Why elevate the subjective understanding of one observer over another (insiders over outsiders, in this case) assuming equal information/rationality on both their parts?
Comments
I don't quite understand this attitude I've often found here of people to dissect, "try to understand", and take a swipe at what's wrong about other cultures, point out how some attributes of other cultures are so deviant and then take a higher stand, a higher ground on those issues.
Frankly, if you haven't been born and/or brought up in a certain culture, you simply will not be able to understand some peculiar aspects about it. Yes, there are good and the not-so-good aspects and takeaways about every culture on this planet. But I sometimes find the tone of such articles and some of the comments in this discussion not only mildly condescending but also biased. I was born and brought up in India by fairly open-minded and unorthodox parents. And so were many of my friends.
Correct me if I'm wrong. This is not an intelligent article, or discussion. It's in fact a very superficial look at the best. This is just an informative article and in no way representative of the large group of "Indian Men" living in the states. It beats me how the writer takes a few examples and on a respected daily as the WSJ blatantly labels it as "Indian Men Living in US Strike Out.
Why are we even discussing this here?
> Frankly, if you haven't been born and/or brought up in a certain culture, you simply will not be able to understand some peculiar aspects about it.
A true statement, but not necessarily relevant. For instance, I cannot understand Aztec culture, because I have not experienced it. I condemn it nonetheless.
Your condemnation does not really have any place in the scheme of things, history, or a bearing on that culture for that matter. I'm not trying to be harsh here. I hope you understand my fundamental point. A culture is a culture, it's a consequence of history, time, and innumerable subtle things and relationships. Just as the American culture is, many aspects of which people outside America condemn. But it doesn't matter.
Outsiders attempting to generalize, analyze, dissect, and fix things about cultures they barely understand more often than not cause historical and irreversible damage.
> Outsiders attempting to generalize, analyze, dissect, and fix things about cultures they barely understand more often than not cause historical and irreversible damage.
Maybe it can also cause progress? For instance, the condemnation of Apartheid by the western world probably helped end it.
(I don't mean to say arranged marriage is the same as Apartheid, obviously.)
The concept and system of arranged marriages is not something that needs fixing. It has evolved and will continue to evolve to adapt to changing conditions and attitudes among the youth and parents in India. A marriage is much larger than whether it was arranged or born out of (fleeting/puppy/divine/heavenly) love.
The concept and system of _Apartheid_ is not something that needs fixing. It has evolved and will continue to evolve to adapt to changing conditions and attitudes.
This is actually true. You don't have to fix anything. Changing environmental pressures will induce change in any state of affairs as long as there is interaction among agents.
What I just wrote may be controversial, but it does not make it false.
The difference is to what degree does another agent, external to the system in question (here, the system that has apartheid), feels they have the right to intervene and accelerate the change in a direction they judge is fit.
Sometimes you can argue that everybody is better off -- people inside the system and outside (on the outside, I would argue it is mostly a psychological benefit, at least immediately after the change is induced) -- but the arguments are never perfect. And to think that there is a "correct" side to it is (usually) a fallacy.
Well, obviously I didn't mean that Apartheid was a concept or system. And you know that.
My point is that your argument validly defends Apartheid. It is a standard (if somewhat impolite) rhetorical technique to parrot your opponent's arguments in a way that makes them seem obviously flawed.
I should probably be downvoted into oblivion for this but...
Is this actually a valid use of "Reductio Ad Hitlerum"? Surely such a thing is rare and beautiful.
Frankly, if you haven't been born and/or brought up in a certain culture, you simply will not be able to understand some peculiar aspects about it.
I think that's nonsense.
Non-controversial statement: Humans manage to use the power of reason to understand all sorts of things which are far outside our own experience such as quantum mechanics, the dynamics of stars, high dimensional geometry, neural networks, etc.
Regardless of all that, a different human experience is beyond the reach of reason?
(Note: not defending the article, just criticizing the idea that only club insiders can understand a club.)
I agree partly with what you say, it is possible to understand another human experience, by reason, by analysis, by empathy - but only objectively. At least that's my belief. To truly understand it's subtle corners, in a more subjective manner requires being immersed in that experience. IMHO.
I would think an objective understanding is all that is desirable or necessary. I can see a reason to elevate an objective understanding over a subjective one; the understanding is independent of the observer.
The subjective understanding is merely the personal perception of something. It is a joint property of the observer and the thing being observed. Why elevate the subjective understanding of one observer over another (insiders over outsiders, in this case) assuming equal information/rationality on both their parts?
I agree. This discussion reminds me of that guy on HN the other day who was generalizing all women to be Sex In The City watching, sex mad hussies.