Fadiman reminds us of the different value systems that other groups can have in the chapter “Why did they pick Merced?”, where she discusses ways in which Hmong ethical codes contradict general American ethical codes. She give many examples to illustrate the differences, especially of the group ethic that the Hmongs value—for example, it is considered far more honorable to be loyal to one’s friends and family than to tell the truth to authorities; it is much better to live near family than to accept high paying jobs that would take one too far away. “Does money mean more or does family mean more?” is the question asked by one Hmong father mentioned in the book; the answer would be unequivocal for any Hmong.
There are also other ethical/values conflicts that exist besides the medical conflict that is the main subject of the book. What about the Hmong tradition of marrying young and having lots of children, perhaps more than can be comfortably (according to our notions of comfort) supported? I see this as conflicting with the traditional American plan of marrying after earning an education (preferably after getting a college diploma) and having a limited number of children that can be well supported through their own college educations. The chapter “Life or Soul” also briefly notes the conflict between traditional Hmong gender roles (the husband being the main contact with the social worker Francesca Farr, even though it is the wife’s health in question) and our own perceptions of a woman’s rights (in this case, the female should have been allowed to take control of her own health).
We talk about assimilation in terms of language and accepting American food, medicine, and pop culture, but asking the Hmongs to tell the truth to authorities they distrust, to use contraceptives, or to let wives make decisions about their health without having to get their husband’s approval is also a form of cultural assimilation. Is it appropriate for another group to intervene and “correct” these injustices or problems that we perceive in another culture? The answer of our ethical code would be “yes”—and the answer of the Hmong would probably be “leave us alone.” This attempted imposition of foreign value systems on the Hmong in other countries besides the U.S. has resulted in the multiple migrations of the Hmong; it has also played a role in numerous conflicts around the globe.
I think that a general “do no harm” policy works—don’t interfere with a practice unless someone gets physically or emotionally hurt by the tradition in question. But as the definitions of “harmful” or “beneficial” can be subjective, there is probably a need for other approaches as well. Also, I’m not sure whether outsiders should interfere in another culture’s practices, even if they perceive it as their duty to intervene. Perhaps it is a better route to raise awareness and let cultural insiders effect the changes themselves? Or are there certain traditions that call for “emergency intervention” by outside observers?
1 comment:
I’m not sure if the questions you have raised will ever have a straight forward answer. Like you said it is difficult to categorize what practice is harmful or beneficial because it depends on one’s standpoint. Therefore it is hard to say when outsiders can intervene with a culture’s traditions. One issue that immediately came to mind was the cultural practice of clitoridectomies in Africa. Western society sees the clitoridectomies as being harmful and genital mutilation yet at the same time it doesn’t recognize the surgeries performed on intersex children as mutilation. Instead it sees the surgeries as being beneficial because the child won’t be confused about their sex or gender and will also save them from being ostracized by society.Though the number of intersex children who have their sex assigned to them surgically is much smaller than the thousands of young girls who undergo the painful clitoridectomies, the fact that it does occur decreases Western culture’s legitimacy in interfering with the tradition.
I do agree with your suggestion that a better way to create changes in a culture is through awareness and then letting the people from that culture initiate the changes instead using outside force. For example there are many reasons why cultures that practice clitoridectomies perform them. One of the major reasons is to stop sexual arousal so that the woman will be less likely to have pre-marital sex or commit adultery. Another reason is the belief that the clitoris can cause health problems in men or babies if either make contact with it. Also it is believed by some that the removal of the clitoris will make the woman’s face beautiful. If information could be provided to make both women and men in these cultures aware that the reasons listed above do not have any proof, then I think we would probably see a change occur. However as long as these reasons legitimize the practice, it will be hard to argue with the culture that what they are doing is wrong and should therefore stop.
Post a Comment