A cultural value that is widely and strongly adhered to in the United States is egalitarianism. While this is admittedly a vague concept and there are likely to be as many definitions of it as there are people, we can loosely define it as a belief in certain inalienable rights that every human being is entitled to regardless of ethnicity, gender, creed, social class etc. We envision a society constructed on this value where all individuals can navigate the social landscape on equal footing with the opportunity to realize their personal aspirations through their merit and force of will. Another useful term for our discussion of this value is self-determination – we are equal when we possess equal power over decision-making. Although it is highly questionable whether we are living in such a society, many of us take it for granted that we have indeed fully realized our ideal of universal self-determination and thus have a duty to pass this value on to parts of the world where ‘unjust’ and ‘unequal’ societies still exist, or to enforce this value as a norm on new entrants to our society. Such support for imposed egalitarianism, while perhaps less pronounced today, has historically manifested itself in foreign policy decisions and stances on immigration.
If we correlate egalitarianism with self-determination, we can see the absurdity inherent in an imposed egalitarianism. How can we pay lip service to self-determination while imposing our values on others? It is my belief that like egalitarianism, any value pushed to its extreme empties itself of its spiritual and ethical potency and becomes a parasitic shell of itself, an ethnocentric propaganda tool, or just a meaningless cliché. It becomes its own enemy, the very evil it sees in the binary opposite from which it seeks to differentiate itself – freedom becomes tyranny and justice becomes arbitrary domination. To understand this process we need to look not only at the diverse cultural values held in the world but also at the asymmetrical power relations that exist where they intersect and clash.
Why is it that what is conventionally viewed as a strong commitment to values or principles generally entails a covert or even overt violation of them in actual practice? Such a ‘cultural crusader’ attitude polarizes issues and creates confusion over what values actually mean. It also reveals a fundamental disparity in power relations in that the culturally marginalized do not have the privilege to impose their values on others. Rather than a strength, to me this attitude seems more like a defense mechanism to mask insecurity and a weak commitment to principles. I wonder whether it is possible to reconceptualize values and what constitutes authentic commitment to them. Under this new conceptualization I would prioritize security in one’s identity and principles as a demonstration of real commitment rather than measuring this by how aggressively we assert ourselves in the face of difference.
How we choose to present our beliefs and react to the presentation of others determines the success of an intercultural encounter more than the beliefs themselves. While debate tends to entrench each side in their preexisting beliefs and thus has a polarizing and narrowing effect, dialogue and engagement have the potential to enhance these beliefs, refine them of their inconsistencies, and bring out their latent truths. Which one of these approaches seems more likely to cause a ‘watering down’?
