mutant
13th February 2003, 10:33 AM
Abid Ullah Jan
Standards of Acceptability
Two phrases, "socially acceptable" and "internationally acceptable" crop up with some frequency, usually as a variant of the sentence: Twenty years ago this might not have been socially or internationally acceptable, but today it is.
"This" might refer to anything. In the social context, from lighting a cigarette before elders to being half-nakedly dressed; and in international context, from denying a people right to self-determination to disregarding sovereignty of weaker states at will. The sentence itself might be uttered in conversation or printed in a newspaper. Sometimes, it's even pronounced in court and United Nations. People usually say it as if it were the last word on a subject.
In fact, it is not. It is not the last word because it has nothing to do with the merits of any issue. "Social acceptance" is used by people to give weight to a trend they want to espouse or resist. It's employed to push one group's - particularly western - tastes, sensitivities or special interests on the other. It's a pressure-group phrase, not an argument.
Similarly, "internationally acceptable" has nothing to do with what majority of the nations approve. This term has been introduced by the US, UK and some of their Allies, who have started calling their league "international community" after the Gulf War. "International acceptance" is also used by the US and some of its Allies to give weight to what they want to impose on weaker states. It is used to push their agenda. It's an imperialist phrase, not an argument. Socially or internationally acceptable doesn't tell the first thing about the value of whatever the "acceptable" idea or practice may be.
The value of an idea is derived from general principles of ethics, morals, science, religion or common sense. It's not derived from whether or not it happens to be espoused by people in the vanguard of intellectual fashion, or even by the majority of people in a given time or place. The value of an idea is not dependent on the might of a few powers of that age.
On social level, such espousal might make something current as opposed to traditional. It might make it trendy as opposed to old-fashioned, or customary instead of unusual. In the context of international relations, it might silence the critics and wipe out opposition. But it does not make it right or wrong. Right or wrong is decided by entirely different tests.
To use an easy example, keeping slaves is wrong, even though there have been times and places where the keeping of slaves (whether by individuals or by the state, as in labour camps) has been "socially acceptable." Enslaving people has not always been an old-fashioned practice either. Sometimes it could be a brand-new idea.
A German newspaper in the 1930s could have written: "Twenty years ago it might have been internationally acceptable to leave the great Germans live under different flags in separate countries, but with allies such as Mr. Chamberlain standing on our side, it is not any more." Or a German newspaper could have written: "Twenty years ago it might have been socially acceptable for Jews to live and work wherever they pleased, but today it is not any more." Such sentences would have been accurate but not right. With the advent of the Nazis, Germany's earlier social acceptance of Jews as equal citizens came to a halt. It became trendy to consider Jews socially unacceptable. After Hitler and his followers occupied the leading edge of political fashion in Germany, only reactionaries would continue considering Jews acceptable or Germany's ambitions to occupy other countries wrong.
By choosing such an extreme example, it is not suggested that new forms of social or international acceptability are invariably evil. It is just to suggest that whether something is old or new - whether it is called "progressive" by its partisan or "reactionary" by its detractors; whether it is called internationally acceptable by a group of few powerful countries or imposed by them with force - has nothing to do with its merits.
The battle of ideas is not decided on the basis of currency or power. You cannot clinch an argument by force, or calling your opponent old-fashioned or by proving that his ideas have also been held by his grandfather. His grandfather might have been right.
Incidentally, what is old fashioned is to consider "progress" an unbroken line from the dark ages to enlightenment. It isn't. Progress in human affairs, just as in the physical world, simply describes a movement from point A to B. It can lead from light to darkness as easily as from darkness to light. Similarly, being weak doesn't mean that whatever a weak believes or considers is absolutely wrong and it is the will and idea of the powerful that would always be right, and would also have a right to prevail.
To put it another way, it is always "progress" that lands a car in ditch. True, pulling it out of the ditch is also progress, but this simply illustrates that the word "progress" tells you nothing.
You must find out its direction and nature to evaluate it.
On international level it is, for example, accurate to demand disarming Iraq but looking at it in broader context may not make it right. Even if it is right, will of the US and UK doesn't make an idea "will of the international community" or acceptable to all at the same time. Why does the "international community," which has shouldered the responsibility to disarm Iraq, not look around and see other violations of the UN resolutions? Why does it not enforce the "internationally acceptable" idea on its close allies, such as Israel?
All these problems arise from our flight from religion and permanent norms. Inventing social or international norms and standards of acceptability for material satisfaction would always hurt us either in the form or moral bankruptcy or in the form of "internationally" approved genocides through inhuman economic sanctions or carpet bombings
Standards of Acceptability
Two phrases, "socially acceptable" and "internationally acceptable" crop up with some frequency, usually as a variant of the sentence: Twenty years ago this might not have been socially or internationally acceptable, but today it is.
"This" might refer to anything. In the social context, from lighting a cigarette before elders to being half-nakedly dressed; and in international context, from denying a people right to self-determination to disregarding sovereignty of weaker states at will. The sentence itself might be uttered in conversation or printed in a newspaper. Sometimes, it's even pronounced in court and United Nations. People usually say it as if it were the last word on a subject.
In fact, it is not. It is not the last word because it has nothing to do with the merits of any issue. "Social acceptance" is used by people to give weight to a trend they want to espouse or resist. It's employed to push one group's - particularly western - tastes, sensitivities or special interests on the other. It's a pressure-group phrase, not an argument.
Similarly, "internationally acceptable" has nothing to do with what majority of the nations approve. This term has been introduced by the US, UK and some of their Allies, who have started calling their league "international community" after the Gulf War. "International acceptance" is also used by the US and some of its Allies to give weight to what they want to impose on weaker states. It is used to push their agenda. It's an imperialist phrase, not an argument. Socially or internationally acceptable doesn't tell the first thing about the value of whatever the "acceptable" idea or practice may be.
The value of an idea is derived from general principles of ethics, morals, science, religion or common sense. It's not derived from whether or not it happens to be espoused by people in the vanguard of intellectual fashion, or even by the majority of people in a given time or place. The value of an idea is not dependent on the might of a few powers of that age.
On social level, such espousal might make something current as opposed to traditional. It might make it trendy as opposed to old-fashioned, or customary instead of unusual. In the context of international relations, it might silence the critics and wipe out opposition. But it does not make it right or wrong. Right or wrong is decided by entirely different tests.
To use an easy example, keeping slaves is wrong, even though there have been times and places where the keeping of slaves (whether by individuals or by the state, as in labour camps) has been "socially acceptable." Enslaving people has not always been an old-fashioned practice either. Sometimes it could be a brand-new idea.
A German newspaper in the 1930s could have written: "Twenty years ago it might have been internationally acceptable to leave the great Germans live under different flags in separate countries, but with allies such as Mr. Chamberlain standing on our side, it is not any more." Or a German newspaper could have written: "Twenty years ago it might have been socially acceptable for Jews to live and work wherever they pleased, but today it is not any more." Such sentences would have been accurate but not right. With the advent of the Nazis, Germany's earlier social acceptance of Jews as equal citizens came to a halt. It became trendy to consider Jews socially unacceptable. After Hitler and his followers occupied the leading edge of political fashion in Germany, only reactionaries would continue considering Jews acceptable or Germany's ambitions to occupy other countries wrong.
By choosing such an extreme example, it is not suggested that new forms of social or international acceptability are invariably evil. It is just to suggest that whether something is old or new - whether it is called "progressive" by its partisan or "reactionary" by its detractors; whether it is called internationally acceptable by a group of few powerful countries or imposed by them with force - has nothing to do with its merits.
The battle of ideas is not decided on the basis of currency or power. You cannot clinch an argument by force, or calling your opponent old-fashioned or by proving that his ideas have also been held by his grandfather. His grandfather might have been right.
Incidentally, what is old fashioned is to consider "progress" an unbroken line from the dark ages to enlightenment. It isn't. Progress in human affairs, just as in the physical world, simply describes a movement from point A to B. It can lead from light to darkness as easily as from darkness to light. Similarly, being weak doesn't mean that whatever a weak believes or considers is absolutely wrong and it is the will and idea of the powerful that would always be right, and would also have a right to prevail.
To put it another way, it is always "progress" that lands a car in ditch. True, pulling it out of the ditch is also progress, but this simply illustrates that the word "progress" tells you nothing.
You must find out its direction and nature to evaluate it.
On international level it is, for example, accurate to demand disarming Iraq but looking at it in broader context may not make it right. Even if it is right, will of the US and UK doesn't make an idea "will of the international community" or acceptable to all at the same time. Why does the "international community," which has shouldered the responsibility to disarm Iraq, not look around and see other violations of the UN resolutions? Why does it not enforce the "internationally acceptable" idea on its close allies, such as Israel?
All these problems arise from our flight from religion and permanent norms. Inventing social or international norms and standards of acceptability for material satisfaction would always hurt us either in the form or moral bankruptcy or in the form of "internationally" approved genocides through inhuman economic sanctions or carpet bombings