[lbo-talk] Tell them we are democrats (was: freedom to swim)

[ravi]

On Jun 28, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2009, at 12:40 PM, ravi wrote:
>
>> Fine as far as that goes, but it is not an act of exoticising for  
>> someone to say that perhaps your "ideas of justice", even if its  
>> shared by a "lot" of Iranians, may neither be universal nor shared  
>> by the majority. Rather, I suspect, it is the assumption that  
>> indeed your ideas of justice are universal that is driving this  
>> accusation of exoticisation i.e., you seem to be suggesting that if  
>> X does not agree that a majority of Iranians share your idea of  
>> justice, then X is exoticising Iranians (correct me, if wrong).
>
> Quoting Slavoj Zizek from memory: During the struggle against  
> apartheid, the ANC spoke of universal values, and Buthelezi, in the  
> pay of the CIA, always talked about special African conceptions of  
> human rights.

You are getting my argument wrong. I am not suggesting that special  
conceptions of justice (or human rights) are legitimate for certain  
communities. Rather, I am saying that at the outset there are no  
things other than special conceptions of justice. You have your ideas  
of justice. Khamenei has his. Bush has his. So on. How do we develop  
some universal norms against which these can be evaluated?

Perhaps a science of morality would give us a priori codes and laws,  
or alternatively a framework might emerge from a filtering of these  
various conceptions to extract out what is consistent.

And this is where the question-begging comes because, unless I missed  
something significant (which is entirely possible), I haven't seen  
such an agreed upon or derived set of norms. If we had one, and then  
denied it to certain groups because we believe those groups are  
exotic, then your accusation would be correct. But as the debate  
around bikinis shows, it is the absence of such agreement that  
describes our current state.

	--ravi