Do as the Romans do. Everyone invokes this idiom when unusual situations arise in a culture other than one's own. Drive on the left? When in Rome! Take my shoes off before going inside? When in Rome? A bidet? Uh, what? Well, okay, whatever, when in Rome! If you think about it, it does make more sense than toilet paper. Anyway ... Sacrifice a dog to commemorate Tuesday afternoons? SCREEEEECH. Nope.
When the figurative Romans cross over from doing/believing "whatever" things to "definitely not okay with me" things, I think about where the balancing point of cultural relativism and universal rights lies. I teach about this subject in my introductory sociology class and spend quite a lot of time guiding students to figure out where they think that point is. Many recent news examples, such as the effort to ban hijabs in France and the ban and Merkel's subsequent protection of circumcision in Germany, provide opportunities to define our "whatevers" and our "definitely not okays."
As as happened countless times before, I was recently in the company of individuals having a conversation about how rude it is to be a vegetarian in a culture that routinely eats meat. (Let's not even dig into the presumption that it's widely accepted to decline meat in our culture! Walk a mile, meat eaters...) Despite my excitement to dine in Afghanistan, rooted in my love for The Helmand and Maiwand Kebab back home, eating vegan in Afghanistan was a bit challenging- not because Afghan people eat meat all the time, but because my midwestern aggie hosts were pretty certain I couldn't eat anything but rice. I get that people have questions about what constitutes a vegan diet, but does it take more than several emails and conversations and a dozen declined offers of yogurt and ice cream to get the major tenets down?
Anyway, I dissect the perspective that declining to eat meat while abroad is offensive every time I hear it. I fact, I'm stewing over it almost a week later. And every time, I come away thinking that perhaps those who hold that perspective simply haven't bothered to apply their own logic for other circumstances. Even though it wouldn't be considered rude for a non-drinker to decline a drink in the company of drinkers, it would be considered very rude for a group of drinkers to expect a non-drinker to drink. (Anyone pressed their friends in recovery or religious abstainers to just do as the romans do lately? Of course not! Or, if you have, you are the one who sucks.) This is a perfect analogy.
Similarly, there are cultural practices around the world that violate major moral tenets by which civilized societies should live. Virtually no one responded to the Taliban's denial of education for girls by saying, "when in Rome!" Few people think that female circumcision or child sex abuse are totally justifiable rites of passage, even for cultures that view the practices are normative. (Why male circumcision is routine and unquestioned, I suppose, is for another day). In the U.S., we don't allow religious or cultural exemptions for failing to provide basic care for your children, perpetrating violence against others, or treating others fairly. We don't, by any means, have perfect systems ensuring perfect equality, but the principles are present and exist to provide a basic level of human rights to everyone.
Food isn't just a cultural universal, but it reveals aspects of our morality as well. The creation and consumption of food reflects yet another system of subjects and objects, oppressor and oppressed, fulfilled and exploited. Animals around the world live in deplorable conditions. Even if the exceedingly cruel system of factory farming isn't found in the developing world, Ugandan cows and Afghan goats and Chinese dogs aren't pooping out rainbows of excitement to live and die the way they do. So when in Rome, and the Romans are denying basic rights or exacting cruelty to others, do as you do instead.
When the figurative Romans cross over from doing/believing "whatever" things to "definitely not okay with me" things, I think about where the balancing point of cultural relativism and universal rights lies. I teach about this subject in my introductory sociology class and spend quite a lot of time guiding students to figure out where they think that point is. Many recent news examples, such as the effort to ban hijabs in France and the ban and Merkel's subsequent protection of circumcision in Germany, provide opportunities to define our "whatevers" and our "definitely not okays."
As as happened countless times before, I was recently in the company of individuals having a conversation about how rude it is to be a vegetarian in a culture that routinely eats meat. (Let's not even dig into the presumption that it's widely accepted to decline meat in our culture! Walk a mile, meat eaters...) Despite my excitement to dine in Afghanistan, rooted in my love for The Helmand and Maiwand Kebab back home, eating vegan in Afghanistan was a bit challenging- not because Afghan people eat meat all the time, but because my midwestern aggie hosts were pretty certain I couldn't eat anything but rice. I get that people have questions about what constitutes a vegan diet, but does it take more than several emails and conversations and a dozen declined offers of yogurt and ice cream to get the major tenets down?
Anyway, I dissect the perspective that declining to eat meat while abroad is offensive every time I hear it. I fact, I'm stewing over it almost a week later. And every time, I come away thinking that perhaps those who hold that perspective simply haven't bothered to apply their own logic for other circumstances. Even though it wouldn't be considered rude for a non-drinker to decline a drink in the company of drinkers, it would be considered very rude for a group of drinkers to expect a non-drinker to drink. (Anyone pressed their friends in recovery or religious abstainers to just do as the romans do lately? Of course not! Or, if you have, you are the one who sucks.) This is a perfect analogy.
Similarly, there are cultural practices around the world that violate major moral tenets by which civilized societies should live. Virtually no one responded to the Taliban's denial of education for girls by saying, "when in Rome!" Few people think that female circumcision or child sex abuse are totally justifiable rites of passage, even for cultures that view the practices are normative. (Why male circumcision is routine and unquestioned, I suppose, is for another day). In the U.S., we don't allow religious or cultural exemptions for failing to provide basic care for your children, perpetrating violence against others, or treating others fairly. We don't, by any means, have perfect systems ensuring perfect equality, but the principles are present and exist to provide a basic level of human rights to everyone.
Food isn't just a cultural universal, but it reveals aspects of our morality as well. The creation and consumption of food reflects yet another system of subjects and objects, oppressor and oppressed, fulfilled and exploited. Animals around the world live in deplorable conditions. Even if the exceedingly cruel system of factory farming isn't found in the developing world, Ugandan cows and Afghan goats and Chinese dogs aren't pooping out rainbows of excitement to live and die the way they do. So when in Rome, and the Romans are denying basic rights or exacting cruelty to others, do as you do instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment