GDAT Debate1999-Right to Difference

8/14/2019 GDAT Debate1999-Right to Difference

1/54

Group for Debates in Anthropological Theory

he Right to Difference is aFundamental Human Right

The tenth annual GDAT debate, held in theUniversity of Manchester on 30th October 1999

Stephen CorryRichard WilsonIris Jean-KleinJohn Hutnyk

Edited by Peter Wade


2/54

The right to difference is a fundaental huan rightwas first published in the UK by

Group for ebates in !nthropolo"ical #heoryepart$ent of Social !nthropolo"y

Uni%ersity of &anchester'(ford Road

&anchester &)* +,

. the se%eral contributors/ 0111

IS23 14+5067*64*47

Acknowledgements#he debate was $ade possible thanks to "enerous financial support fro$ the!ssociation of Social !nthropolo"ists/ to which G!# is affiliated8 #he

debate took place as part of &anchester 9++/ an international anthropolo"yconference or"anised by the epart$ent of Social !nthropolo"y of theUni%ersity of &anchester8 #hanks are due to the conference or"anisers fortheir help8 #hanks also to Rosie Read for actin" as a helper durin" the debateand to Chris Hadfield for tape transcription8 #he co%er is based on a desi"n byGa%in Searle8 #he booklet was printed by &aterialise td8/ &anchester8


3/54

I3#R'UC#I'3

!eter "ade

#he $otion debated in )+++ continued G!#9s atte$pts o%er the last few years toen"a"e with issues that are of political as well as analytical i$portance8 !s theri"hts of $inorities are abused with such "ri$ persistence and people arediscri$inated a"ainst on the basis of their difference:whether of reli"ion/ colour/cultural %alues or se(ual orientation8:fro$ their persecutors/ how can anthropolo"ydeal with difference/ a notion which/ in so$e sense/ underlies its %ery e(istence asan enterprise; ! "ut reaction/ and one popular a$on" those of a liberal persuasion/includin" in $y e(perience $any under"raduates/ is that a ri"ht to difference $ust

be defended8 ! sophisticated %ersion of this position is ar"ued by Stephen Corry inthe debate8 ,eople should be able to practice what they see as ri"ht and proper waysof life without dan"er of persecution8 Such $oral relati%is$


4/54

relati%is$8 #he ideas and beha%iour of particular peoples could only be understoodin the conte(t of their culture and each culture:assu$in" that such a =thin"9 e(istedin a si$ple sense:had to be ?ud"ed on its own $erits8 !Bande witchcraft could not

be seen as irrational and unci%ilised/ because it was a way of thinkin" and actin"that worked in the cultural conte(t of the !Bande8 It $i"ht be less efficient at certainthin"s than Western science/ but it had its own rationality8 Underlyin" such $oralrelati%is$ was a clear episte$olo"ical uni%ersalis$ anthropolo"y was able to

pro%ide a $ore or less scientific baseline fro$ which to understand and co$paredifferent cultures8 #he %alues of a culture could be separated fro$ the facts of theirfunctionin" structures> different %alue syste$s were ?ust aspects of the %aried wayshu$ans dealt with the uni%ersal basics of life subsistence/ reproduction/co$$unicatin"/ renderin" the world intelli"ible and so on8 #his $eant that/ for alltheir difference/ cultures were co$$ensurable and could be interpreted andunderstood8

#he anthropolo"y of this period has been widely conde$ned as reifyin" andsacralisin" an essentialist concept of culture/ as an isolated/ bounded entity and/while there was a clear tendency in this direction:althou"h it was a "reat deal lessob%ious a$on" diffusionists):the uni%ersalis$ that also underlay the disciplineshould not be for"otten when anthropolo"y is berated for ha%in" foisted onto aninnocent world a concept of culture that le"iti$ates $utual inco$prehension

between people and inco$$ensurability of cultures8#his/ howe%er/ is where the notion of difference see$ed to end up durin" the

ne(t period of its de%elop$ent in Western thou"ht8 Identity politics took off in thelate )+A1s and )+61s/ principally in the US! and Durope but also in their colonies

and neo-colonies8 Hollin"er ar"ues that the i$pact of four intellectual trends $arkedthis process iE #ho$as Kuhn9s The $tructure of $cientific %evolutionsF)+61E andthe relati%isation of scientific knowled"e> iiE antiracis$ and the attention to ethnic$inorities in US society> iiiE fe$inis$/ fro$ early works such as Kate &illet9s$e&ual !oliticsF)+61E to $ore post-structuralist te(ts such as Judith 2utler9sGender TroubleF)++1E> i%E @oucault and the post-structuralist focus on thediscursi%e construction of knowled"e and the challen"e to essentialist notions ofidentity8 In the US! and elsewhere/ these trends led to an intense concern in $ost ofthe hu$anities and social sciences with "ender/ se(ual and ethnic identities anddifferences80

#his was at the acade$ic/ intellectual le%el/ but there were other forcesdri%in" identity politics as well8 #he dri%e for social e


5/54

colonial:but also neo-colonial:world/ was funda$ental here8 #he "reat=!$erican dile$$a9/ which &yrdal had dissected in the )+1s/ was that the countrywhich prided itself on its adherence to those @rench Republican ideals of liberty ande


6/54

its affir$ation of inco$$ensurability/ clearly ne"ates the whole enterprise ofanthropolo"y8 #he distinction between fact and %alue/ which is co$pletely collapsed

by this episte$olo"ical relati%is$/ does not need to be reinstated in its ar"uablysi$plistic $id-century anthropolo"ical for$8 Clearly there are co$ple(interdependencies between $oral %alues/ theoretical perspecti%es and theinterpretation and e%en perception of =facts9/ but as anthropolo"ists we cannot ad$itthat perception and interpretation are deterinedby $oral order8

Second/ this notion of difference is based on nineteenth-century Ro$anticnationalis$:which/ $any ar"ue/ anthropolo"y $ore or less unwittin"ly took on

board and le"iti$ated5:and as such it reproduces =so$e of the worst aspects of theor"anicist ro$antic conception of identity98AIt is e(clusi%e and di%isi%e8 Itho$o"enises and reifies cultures and identities/ $askin" differences within the$8 Itle"iti$ates nationalis$ and racis$8 !s with the fictions of apartheid and Ji$ Crowabout =separate but e what errida calls diff'rance8 We all ha%e the ri"ht to differ

5 See, for e;am%le, uinelli, The conce%t of culture etween modernit# and

%ostmodernit#!, in 3ras%ing the changing world2 anthro%ological conce%ts in the %ostmodern era,

'ed.) ?. Huinger, @ondon, Routledge, *++1.

6 RaAchman, cited in Hollinger, o%. cit., %. ((/.


7/54

fro$ other people8 In this necessarily relational process/ each person can ar"ue hisor her case8 Wilson allies $oral relati%is$ with the possibility of the pra"$aticne"otiation of contin"ent and chan"eable consensus8 #hat consensus is not defined

by so$e uni%ersalist authority/ but e$er"es in particular conte(ts8 et it has so$elink to basic notions of hu$an di"nity8 #o return to infibulation the answer $ayindeed be that it depends on one9s point of %iew/ but thin"s cannot be left at that8 #odo so assu$es that a =point of %iew9 is:like the %iew of culture held by a defenderof particularist difference:stable and relati%ely ho$o"eneous8 In fact/ points of%iew on infibulation do not di%ide neatly into =!frican9 %ersus =Western9 or =$en9%ersus =wo$en9 or so$e such fra$ework> they differ in $ultiple and perhapsunpredictable ways and they can interact and ar"ue with each other8

#his strikes $e as a useful and producti%e way of "ettin" past the starkopposition between relati%is$ and uni%ersalis$8 ike all pra"$atic hu$an solutionsto such co$$andin" social oppositions/ it is $essy and difficult/ but it holds

pro$ise8 We can "et past a si$ple $oral relati%is$ which sees each $oral order orculture as bounded/ self-definin"/ self-sufficient and abo%e all so%erei"n in the ri"htit "i%es its $e$bers to see thin"s their way8 We can also "et past a si$ple $oraluni%ersalis$ in which so$e 'ly$pian people define what is "ood and bad fore%eryone8 #hese bare alternati%es are replaced with a %ision of people ar"uin"/$oral orders interactin"/ fra"$entin" and $ultiplyin"/ indi%iduals and collecti%eschan"in" their %iews and/ in the process/ perhaps/ so$e a"ree$ent e$er"in" at

particular ti$es/ for particular purposes8 !t the least/ what $ay be defended here isthe basic %alue of people bein" allowed to disa"ree8

In $y %iew/ howe%er/ neither Wilson nor Jean-Klein fully en"a"es with the

proble$ that power ine


8/54

fro$ other people/ is an on"oin" stru""le a"ainst forces which destroy consensus/create destructi%e disa"ree$ent and institute difference of a di%isi%e nature8 Social$o%e$ents:I use the ter$ in the widest possible sense:are therefore an inte"ral

part of dealin" with difference in a producti%e way8 It is/ of course/ no accident/ thatit is precisely in the real$ of =social $o%e$ents that all these issues of differenceand di%ision ha%e been $ade powerfully $anifest8

#he second


9/54

a$enable to the $essy definitions of co$$unity which are ine%itable8In Colo$bia/ a recent Constitutional Court decision which ratified the le"ality

of affir$ati%e action in fa%our of black co$$unities/ used a %ery fle(ible andanthropolo"ical approach to the definition of co$$unity8 ! black acti%ist/ local

president of the national black ri"hts or"anisation/ had protested that/ since therewas a =black co$$unity9 in the city of Santa &arta/ on Colo$bia9s Caribbeancoast/ a representati%e of this co$$unity should sit on the education co$$ittee ofthe local council/ as )++* national le"islation in fa%our of =black co$$unities9allowed8 #he local council/ supported by re"ional courts and ulti$ately the Supre$eCourt/ denied that Santa &arta had a black co$$unity8 ! re"ional court $ade aninspection of certain areas of the city and concluded that a black co$$unity did note(ist8 It based its decision on a rather essentialist and static notion of co$$unity asso$ethin" with a clear boundary and a lon"-standin" institutional e(istence8 #heConstitutional Court took a $ore fle(ible %iew/ in effect acceptin" that a

=co$$unity9 could be fra"$ented and also e$er"ent8 It found in fa%our of the blackacti%ist8#hese are ad$ittedly $ar"inal e(a$ples which do not represent an o%erall

trend within either 2raBil or Colo$bia8 2ut they do indicate that the law $ay beopen to transfor$ation/ althou"h surely not without a stru""le8 It $ay be self-defeatin" to si$ply assu$e that by $akin" difference into a ri"ht/ it is necessarilytransfor$ed into a di%isi%e and particularist tool of oppression8


10/54

PART 1 T!E PRE"E#TAT$%#"

)or the otion F)E

"TEP!E# &%RR'

#he ri"ht to difference is a funda$ental hu$an ri"ht:pro%ided always that suchdifference does not entail the %iolation of anyone9s funda$ental ri"hts8 In otherwords/ and broadly speakin"/ peoples/ societies/ should be able to beha%e how they

want to/ so lon" as they don9t hurt anyone8It see$s to $e that that is statin" the ob%ious8 I9$ afraid that $uch/ $ost/ ofwhat I propose sayin" here is "oin" to be e


11/54

wanted to ensla%e the Dast !fricans/ the 2antu in%aders of southern !frica wantedto kill or ensla%e the =2ush$an9 peoples they found there/ ?ust as the Incas did tothe Indians they found li%in" in the low eastern forests of the !ndes/ and so on andon8 #he %icti$s are always defined in cultural ter$s> they are different and theirdifference $akes the$ persecuted8

#hou"h it9s also true that it9s usually been possible to cross the culturaldi%ide8 Jews con%erted to Christianity in 3aBi Ger$any8 =Dducated9 Indians went toSandhurst and played polo Fwhich the Dn"lish for"ot actually ca$e fro$ the 2alti

peopleE/ and so on8 #hose who succeeded were


12/54


13/54

barbaric than others8 #here9s one aspect to this which has lon" struck $e with itstouchin" and beautiful parado(:and I9$ by no $eans the first to notice it:but in$y e(perience/ the people who are the least cruel/ in $any ways the least barbaric/are those who are the $ost different to oursel%es/ and who are the least concernedwith $aterial possessions or indi%idual status8

In the process of %isitin" so$e 61 different tribal peoples in the course of thelast *1 years or so/ for $e two stand out for their "entle and unassu$in" nobility:those sa$e corny %alues our culture clai$s to hold in such hi"h estee$8 'ne is theno$adic tribe which li%es in the wide "rass plains and "allery forest of the 'rinoco/straddlin" the Colo$bian-eneBuelan border/ and which used to be called theCui%a8 #hese Indians possess %irtually nothin"8 ! few cookin" pots/ a canoe/ so$eold clothes/ a huntin" do"/ bows and arrows/ ha$$ocks and the odd basket/ $aybea flashli"ht:that9s about it8 #hey don9t ha%e houses8 #he $en hunt/ the wo$en"ather/ and e%ery few days they $o%e so$ewhere else8 !n anthropolo"ist once

ti$ed the lapse between so$eone/ anyone/ $entionin"/ =Why don9t we $o%e to theplace between the two bends in the ri%er For so$ewhere elseE;9/ and the entire bandof *141 people bein" in their canoes with all their possessions8 'n a%era"e/ it tookabout four $inutes8 I$a"ine that in the conte(t of the aspirations of ci%ilisation/where we actually define oursel%es by our possessions/ our wealth/ our status and soon8 Cui%a society is about the opposite8 #hey are the only South !$erican IndiansI9%e been with where couples share ha$$ocks8 yin" in you ha$$ock/ chattin"and cuddlin" your fa$ily is what a Cui%a spends $ost of his or her ti$e doin"/unless it9s the season of the hallucino"enic tree bark/ when you spend $ost of theday seein" %isions8

#he other "roup which sprin"s to $ind is the so-called =2ush$en9 of thecentral Kalahari8 #hey ha%e about as little as the Cui%a a donkey or two instead of acanoe/ thou"h they do ha%e rather co$fortable tent-like houses> no flashli"htsthou"h/ and no water neither8 o they want to re$ain different to us; ou bet theydo8 #he $ost i$portant thin" to the$ is their own place8 #o our eyes/ there9sabsolutely nothin" there/ a desert wasteland of endless sand and low scrub8 2ut tothe$ it9s where they belon"/ where their ancestors are buried/ where their roots are8#hey could ha%e been there for as $uch as an astonishin" *1/111 years/ perhapse%en lon"er8

3eedless to say/ both peoples/ Cui%a and 2ush$en/ are worse than harassed

by the surroundin" society Spanish colonial in one case/ datin" fro$ so$e threecenturies a"o> 2antu colonial in the second case and datin" fro$ not that $uchearlier8 Until %ery recently/ both were hunted and killed8 2ush$en today are stilltortured and i$prisoned for huntin" wild $eat8 #he Cui%a ha%e all but disappeared>$y own personal worry when I was with the$ 05 years a"o was bein" shot at bycowboys8

ifficult as it $ay be to swallow/ there are literally $illions/ perhaps


14/54

hundreds of $illions of people in the world today who do not want to beco$e likeus8 !nd yes/ I know that $any will find it difficult to belie%e and think that $y

position is a lot of ro$antic tosh8 =How could people not want the "reat benefits ofindustrialisation;9 #he sa$e


15/54

folk/ our "randfathers and "rand$others/ the respected elders of our co$$unity8 I9$not talkin" about other people here/ I9$ talkin" about the fate which will fall to allof us who ha%e the ="ood fortune9 to li%e that lon"8 #he silent screa$s e$anatin"fro$ our old people9s ho$es:with their ne"lect/ dirt/ incontinence/ lack of respectand "eneral staff e(asperation and bullyin":will always "i%e the lie to anyone whothinks we ha%e created a society which has anythin" worthwhile to teach anyoneelse about how people should treat one another8

#he Uni%ersal eclaration of Hu$an Ri"hts is a deeply flawed te(t8 It waswritten in the after$ath of the Holocaust/ yet it refers not once to the ri"hts of

peoples/ $erely to indi%iduals8 It defines the ri"ht of the indi%idual to all sorts ofthin"s like holidays and social security which are co$pletely $eanin"less for the%ast $a?ority of the world9s population8 So what then are funda$ental hu$anri"hts; #he ri"ht to be treated with respect/ the ri"ht not to be hurt or killed/ theri"ht not to ha%e one9s freedo$ curtailed by others unless perhaps it is for one9s

own safety and in %ery special circu$stances8 #hese should apply as $uch topeoples as to indi%iduals8 3o one li%es up to the$8 2ut that doesn9t di$inish the$8#hey are not a code of le"al definitions rather they are an ideolo"ical fra$eworkwhich lay out our aspirations and our hopes8 In that sense/ they are both endurin"and uni%ersal8 ! Kalahari =2ush$an9/ an !nda$anese Islander/ an !$aBonianIndian/ all would reco"nise the$8 We ha%e the$ for the sa$e reason that we paintour faces and ulti$ately for the sa$e reason that an !$aBon $other buries hertwins at birth:because they $ake us hu$an and show us that we are $ore thanani$als8

3ot only is the ri"ht to be different a funda$ental hu$an ri"ht/ but the %ery

notion that anyone has the ri"ht to foist their own barbarous $odel on otherbarbarians is one of the world9s worst tyrannies and has "i%en rise to a su$ ofhu$an sufferin" which probably e(ceeds that of anythin" else in history8

Cultural tolerance is not a load of petty liberal do-"oodis$8 !s our weaponsha%e beco$e $ore and $ore powerful/ cultural tolerance has beco$e a cornerstone

:the funda$ental cornerstone:of the sur%i%al of hu$an life on this planet8 If wedo not learn this lesson/ and where necessary i$pose it on the youn" thu"s roa$in"about and lookin" for a punch up/ then we are e%entually conde$nin" oursel%es tocertain hell and probable destruction8 We $ay well all be barbarians/ but we arealso/ all of us/ %icti$s as well8


16/54

Against the otion F)E

R$&!ARD W$("%#

ast week in 2ri"hton/ I saw a bu$per sticker on a yellow/ )+61s W 2eetle whichread =Celebrate i%ersity9 on a rainbow back"round8 #his slo"an has beco$e partof the Beit"eist of post )+A1s tolerance and an article of faith for the socially liberal8#his senti$ent is found in the state$ent we are debatin" today which ar"ues that=!ll for$s of life are e


17/54

What follows is not a =keeper of the fla$e9 ar"u$ent/ dedicated to safe"uardin" thepurity of classic hu$an ri"hts8 Instead/ I seek to tread a fine line between$aintainin" a critical understandin" of ri"hts/ while defendin" a li$ited usefulnessfor the$/ if properly concei%ed and i$ple$ented8 #hus I9ll be"in by pointin" outthree i$portant $isunderstandin"s of ri"hts contained in the $otion8

1) !uman rights are not the same as human dignityHu$an ri"hts talk in the )++1s has beco$e the idio$ in which all assertions ofdi"nity are $ade8 In contrast/ I ar"ue that ri"hts are positi%ised rules re"ardin"clai$s/ pri%ile"es and entitle$ents which are "enerally held by indi%iduals8 #hey arenarrow le"al instru$ents8 #hey are not e(tended $oral treatises on the worth ordi"nity of a "roup of persons/ as re


18/54

on the basis of identity and difference8 Ja$es 2rown9s =Sin" it oud/ I9$ 2lack andI9$ ,roud9 is powerful and persuasi%e as a son"/ an assertion of black !$erican

pride and a political rallyin" cry8 It is not %ery useful/ howe%er/ as the basis fordraftin" hu$an ri"hts le"islation8 D(actly why leads us on to the ne(t point8

*) Rights and collecti+e identities are incompatibleIn theorisin" identity for$ation/ there is now a widely accepted anti-essentialis$ inanthropolo"y and beyond8 Collecti%e identities are no lon"er understood in thefashion of the $id-century cultural anthropolo"y of 2oas and 2enedict - as theuncontested products of a sin"le/ bounded/ co$$unal culture8 Social researchersnow understand cultures as historically contin"ent and contested and collecti%eidentities as friable/ i$a"ined and e$er"ent8 #here is no inherent and i$$utable link

between culture and identity:this is accidental and dependent upon historical

circu$stances8In contrast/ law essentialises identity8 aw treats identity as neatly bounded/fi(ed in ti$e and ho$o"enous in cultural content8 When law fi(es identity as

per$anent and unchan"in"/ it ossifies what is constantly chan"in" in the flow ofe%eryday life8 e"al cate"ories deny the blurry ed"es of identity/ since theyfor$ulate ri"id definitions that can stand up in a court of law8 In state le"ality thereis little roo$ for the co$ple(ities that $ake up the identity-for$in" processes ofe%eryday life8 #his does not bother $ost difference $ulticulturalists:they only seehow useful culture can be as an ideolo"ical resource to pursue their a"enda withinstate and transnational institutions8

Ja$es Clifford captured the inco$patibility between law and identity in hisaccount of &ashpee Indians9 atte$pt to "ain title to lands which the US "o%ern$entceded to the$ in a treaty si"ned in the late ei"hteenth century8))&ost &ashpeecross-e(a$ined in court saw their Indian identity as contin"ent and chan"in"/ and ase$bedded in e%eryday practices/ $any of which were not ethnically $arked8 #heirhistory was characterised by co$ple( population $o%e$ents:i$$i"rations offor$er sla%es and cyclical $i"rations to and fro$ urban centres8 #he law/ howe%er/re


19/54

ad?udicated a"ainst the land clai$ because &ashpee liti"ants could not present abounded and continuous case for their own identity8 !ny ri"ht to difference alwaysre


20/54

,ra"$atist political philosophy "i%es us "ood reasons for supportin" hu$anri"hts based upon e


21/54

$yths of ethno-nationalists/ speakin" of a ho$o"enous =-ueblo aya9 F&ayapeopleE who are =direct descendants of ancient &ayas98 #he !"ree$ent presents anundifferentiated &aya people who were concei%ed in the distant $ists of the pre-colonial period and it shows no awareness that indi"enous identity has beencontinually rein%ented/ $ost recently in relation to the hu$an ri"hts talk of theUnited 3ations8 #he !"ree$ent is a charter for ethno-nationalists/ reproducin" their$yths:that co$$unities are discrete and internally ho$o"enous/ and that theyshare a co$$on ori"in/ a co$$on unbroken history/ and a co$$on future8 ittle ofthis is the case8

#hat the !"ree$ent i"nores the fluid nature of identity raises all kinds of


22/54

transfor$ed by a %icious counter-insur"ency war8 #he le"acy of the $ilitarisation ofsociety is now apparent in the wa%e of %i"ilante actions e%ident in the hi"hlandssince about )++8 D%en thou"h there are relati%ely low le%els of cri$e in hi"hland%illa"es/ there ha%e been nu$erous "risly acts of popular authoritarianis$8 'n are"ular basis/ petty thie%es are bein" hauled out of ?ails and burned ali%e by the

populace8 ast Sunday/ three $en were hun" for alle"edly stealin" buildin"$aterials fro$ a school8 #hey were doused in petrol and were ?ust about to be setali"ht when the police arri%ed and cut the$ down:they are now in intensi%e care ina local hospital8)6

#o "rant $ore power to local le"al institutions when they are in the "rip of awa%e of %i"ilantis$ and when there is a co$plete lack of respect for the ri"hts ofcri$inal suspects/ see$s to be a dan"erous way of pro$otin" hu$an ri"hts8 In theconte(t of state terror/ popular authoritarianis$ and historically weak le"alinstitutions/ it see$s safer to support ethnically un$arked de$ands for e


23/54

2y the late )+71s/ it inhabited position of =resi"ned spectatorship9/ which Rortydescribes as =Gothic9 in its reliance on $a"ical transfor$ations in analysis and

politics8#he resi"ned eft builds its %ocabulary around a notion of sin the

co$$ission of acts by the US! Fe8"8/ slau"hter of 3ati%e !$ericans andensla%e$ent of !fricansE $eans that the country was concei%ed in sin and istherefore irredee$able8 Rorty wryly obser%es that the ubi


24/54

ou"ht to ask how $i"ht we construct "o%ern$ental institutions which do nothu$iliate citiBens8 #he answer does not rely upon $oral uni%ersalis$ or anho$o"eneous %alue syste$8 3eo-pra"$atist political philosophy allows us to $o%eaway fro$ the foundationalist lan"ua"e of $ainstrea$ liberalis$/ as it states thattruths are produced by an intersub?ecti%e consensus between persons/ not fro$ theaccurate representation of a reality de%oid of sub?ecti%ity8 Since citiBens will nodoubt ha%e different needs/ they will probably disa"ree about political truths8 #herecan only be one ade


25/54

)or the otionF0E

$R$" /EA#0(E$#

In )++/ a%id owenthal and ,enelope Har%ey proposed the G!# $otion/ =#hepast is a forei"n country89 #hey were ?ustified in notin" a si"nificant differencebetween the $otion debated that year and those debated pre%iously the no%elty layin the fact that they were ha%in" to consider the %alidity of a eta-hor8 !"ain today/we ha%e before us a rather e(traordinary type of proposition8 #his ti$e/ it asks us asanthropolo"ists not/ as is co$$only the case/ to apply our di%erse e(periences andcurrent understandin"s to probe so$e $ethodolo"ical or theoretical proble$atic of

burnin" interest $ostly Fif not e(clusi%elyE to $e$bers of the discipline and theacade$e8 Instead/ it asks us to i$a"ine a situation/ as yet unrealised but $uchfantasised about/ in which we are asked to ad?udicate points of debate which are

part of a political discourse that e(tends across the "lobe8 !s $y distin"uishedcollea"ue Richard Wilson/ who speaks a"ainst the $otion today/ has written/ =thelan"ua"e of hu$an ri"hts has $o%ed in to fill the %acuu$ left by the de$ise of "rand

political narrati%es980*

#oday we ha%e the opportunity to rehearse what it $i"ht be like if we addedour %oice to such public discourses/ see$in"ly speakin" the he"e$onic =lan"ua"e9Fof =ri"hts9E/ but actually slippin" into the debates out there our own/ sub%ersi%e

perspecti%es> that is to say/ installin" a safe-"uardin" $echanis$ a"ainst the o%er-deter$ination of persons/ of identities and/ $ost of all/ of knowled"e8

istenin" to Dlisabeth Colson9s deli"htful after-dinner speech last ni"ht> andto the %ote of thanks proposed on the sa$e occasion by the Head of epart$ent at&anchester/ John Gledhill/ to the or"anisers of this $ar%ellous conference> and to$any %oices in the %arious panels/ it beco$es clear to $e that there was a ti$e:atleast/ we ha%e now be"un to =re$e$ber9 our history in this constructi%e way:whenanthropolo"y as an acade$ic discipline pursued a %ision of itself as bein" of use toand $akin" a real difference in the world8 It beco$es clear to $e too that this is a

goodthin"80#his %ision has been stifled these past two decades in bouts of self-

doubt and disciplinary/&istenangst8 #his was necessary and producti%e/ to be

23 Introduction!, in Human rights, culture, and conte;t2 anthro%ological %ers%ecti9es, 'ed.) R.

ilson, @ondon, =luto =ress, *++/.

24


26/54

sure/ and let us not for"et that in the interi$ one could afford to do so8 3o lon"erSuch a %ision is currently bein" recalled/ like a lost lo%er/ and eyed up with a %iewto repossess/ and this ti$e keep8 =We should be $ore arro"ant8 et us declareoursel%es9/ John Gledhill ad$onished in his speech last ni"ht FI paraphrase andad$it that $y recall of his words $i"ht ha%e been clouded by wineE8

What/ howe%er/ would it be that we as anthropolo"ists:such a di%erse/disa"reein"/ but also healthily debatin" F%ery occasionally bickerin"E co$$unity:could possibly a"ree collecti%ely to contribute to the world/ and not re"ret later8&any ha%e re"retted aidin" the circulation of a half-baked/ o%erly static/ essentialist/unified/ closed/ deter$inate and "eneralisin" concept of =culture9805Such a conceptwas soon to be echoed by nationalist politicians and totalitarian re"i$es Fwhich will

precisely not tolerate =difference9E to ?ustify heinous policies and actions to theoutside world/ and to defend the$sel%es a"ainst national Fnot/ I e$phasise/=cultural9E interference and the application of =hu$an ri"hts9 codes to the$8 #he

recent =War a"ainst Wo$en9 which the #aliban $o%e$ent in !f"hanistan has beenconductin" Fand I ha%e no proble$s concei%in" of the e%ents in these ter$sE/ in thena$e of a pure =Isla$ic9 culture/ $ust send shi%ers down our spines #hese arehi"hly calculated and cynical political in%entions of =culture9/ and their in%entors Fasalso their %icti$sE no#the$ to be so8

We chastise oursel%es that anthropolo"ists deli%ered the notion of =culture9 topolitical cri$inals such as these and/ in the sense that our transactions with theconcept reified and sacralised it/ this is true8 !nthropolo"ists and other scholars inthe business of representin" =Isla$ic9 &iddle Dastern societies in particular ha%eonly recently broken away fro$ a tradition of scholarship which was in the habit of

i-osingon Isla$icist =offenders a"ainst hu$an ri"hts9 a certain entrap$ent in the$oral econo$y of =particularis$980AHistorically speakin"/ particularis$ isanthropolo"y9s funda$ental understandin" of =cultural difference9 and it do$inateshu$an ri"hts considerations of =difference9 too8 I speak for =difference9/ but nottherefore for the particularis$-%ersus-uni%ersalis$ distinction8 #his point/ thatdistinction/ are critical to $y ar"u$ent8

Isla$ic "o%ern$ents Fas well as non-"o%ern$ental or"anisationsE in the&iddle Dast notoriously clai$ for the$sel%es a =distincti%e9 position in relation tointernational Hu$an Ri"hts discourse Fa position shared partly with third world

25 See ". S%encer riting within2 anthro%olog#, nationalism, and culture in Sri @anka,!


27/54

countries/ but linked by these "o%ern$ents9 spokespersons $ore specifically to the=Isla$ic9 character of their societiesE806It is also true/ on the other hand/ that innotoriously accusin" &iddle Dastern "o%ern$ents-cu$-societies of "ross hu$anri"hts %iolations based on Isla$ic law/ the discourse of the =international9co$$unity continuously co-constructs what it decries as a particularly deter$inate/inescapable/ i$$utable and inco$$ensurable syste$ of belief and social action807

!nd it underhandedly $aintains a proble$atic di%ision between =particularistic9 and=uni%ersalistic9 societies8 #he proble$ is the series of polar opposites that "etscoupled with this opposition and with an understandin" of =difference9 in theseter$s8 !propos the Isla$ic &iddle Dast/ it tri""ers an opposition betweenethnicLreli"ious %ersus secularL$ainstrea$> irrational %ersus rational> intolerant ofdifference %ersus tolerant> and ulti$ately/ between co$$unities which are tar"ets ofhu$an ri"hts pro?ects and those which define and launch the$8

3ot only $ali"nant politicians and political re"i$es Fand/ inad%ertently or

not/ so$eti$es scholars alon" with the$E/ but also well-$eanin" political/ le"al andphilosophical considerations of =hu$an ri"hts9 ha%e for so$e ti$e taken areco"nition of so$ethin" like =culture9 and =cultural di%ersity9 as a startin" point fortheir "lobalisin" pro?ect80+#he ontolo"y of =culture9 which is put to use in thesee(ercises/ alas/ is the one the discipline has painstakin"ly rethou"ht and would

prefer now to ha%e pulled out of circulation8 Unfortunately/ concepts tra%el:unlike?ackets which lea%e the asse$bly lines with faulty Bippers/ when $anufacturers arein a position to issue a product recall and little har$ is done e%en where the recallfails to reach all users8 Still/ we need not be so thorou"hly resi"ned to thespectators9 seats as our discarded understandin"s cruise the world9s $ore influential

discourses8 !fter all/ we can i$a"ine we once had a trenchant i$pact8 Where theold understandin" of =culture9 is concerned/ we credit oursel%es with rather a lot ofinfluence> could we not ha%e it a"ain/ and a"ain; We could/ that is to say/ set outdeliberately to unsettle o%erly secure and deter$inate uses of =culture9:or of

27 See F. Hallida#, Relati9ism and uni9ersalism in human rights2 the case of the Islamic

Middle East!, =olitical Studies(,*&0*1/, *++&. On nongo9ernmental organisations, see D.


28/54

=difference9 for that $atter:in the public foru$s of this world/ as we declare ouranthropolo"ically Fthat $ust $ean/ ethno"raphicallyE infor$ed opinions on publicissues8

2ack to our $ost of all/ in $y %iew/ because it has

30 $fter Henrietta Moores monogra%h '*++) of the same title.

31 See, for e;am%le, @. $u@ughod, riting womenLs worlds2 Fedouin stories, erkele#,

ni9ersit# of


29/54

resisted efforts to pin one particular $eanin" down8 It is likely that it will ha%e thesa$e power in the real world/ once let loose on people and their daily stru""les8 Infact/ we already know it does> our ethno"raphies tell us so Dthno"raphy instructs us

:the &elanesian ethno"raphy of &8 Strathern/ $ost co$pellin"ly so:that/ while itis not always pointed out in so $any words/ doin" =difference9 is a funda$ental

principle of hu$an =producti%ity9 in all its senses aesthetic/ sy$bolic/ intellectual/econo$ic/ political8*0F2y =producti%ity9 I $ean no $ore here than =ha%in"si"nificant effect9> it is not a state$ent on how %arious sub?ects in%ol%ed in andaffected by it $ay e(perience it8E ifference is the stuff of which =orders9/ allorders/ are fashioned8**!nd all orders also li$it the kind of =differences9 they areattuned to/ tolerate and necessitate8 'ne of the li$its of the hu$an ri"hts pro?ect9stolerance for =difference9/ which is thrown into relief when =international hu$anri"hts9 concerns are pitted a"ainst =Isla$ic societies9/ as I noted earlier/ is that

between =particularistic9:e*

as well as e%er only32 N4ot all moral orders 6culturesG7 we know of 9enerate and celerate difference! as we

do...as an endless %rocess of fragmentation and instailit#L 'R. ilson, o%.cit.).

33 It was %rinci%all# "ac>ues Derrida who re9ealed NdifferenceL as a force, i.e., a mo9ement of

distinction and o%%osition which is the fundamental %rinci%le of facilitation in the %roduction

'etter thought of as instantiation) of %henomena >ua %resence, or of knowledge >ua truth. See


30/54

bein" $o$entary8*5FSi$ultaneously/ one would of course ossify an historicallyparticular ontolo"y of difference8E #hus/ I a$ ad%ocatin" =difference9 as connotin"social dyna$is$/ acti%ity/ process/ tension:and ar"u$entation:as one/ if not the/funda$ental hu$an ri"htLrite8 !lthou"h a noun/ in it inhere the properties of a %erb%erbal and e$bodied acti%ity8 F#o echo a thou"ht e(pressed by our collea"ueRichard Werbner durin" his Gluck$an lecture/ =e and thus $ake a difference in the world8

@inally/ let $e put to you another aspect of =difference9 as I ad%ocate it here/which renders it pre"nant with possibilities to ha%e cross-cultural Fyes/ $ycollea"ues still ha%e need for and help the$sel%es to this notionE resonance/rele%ance and appeal8 #hose who ha%e spent $ore ti$e and intellectual effort than$yself thinkin" about the possibility of the hu$an ri"hts pro?ect crossin" boundariesof =cultures9 Fthe currently correct ter$s are =$oral orders9 or =settin"s9E/ ha%e

obser%ed what is by now a truis$ that the conception of =hu$an9/ the cate"ory ofthe indi%idual and the e$phasis on indi%idual autono$y/ freedo$/ self-control andself-"ratification/ all of which are funda$ental to hu$an ri"hts rhetoric if notassociated practices/ are not uni%ersally reco"nised or $eanin"ful8*AIn raisin" thisissue I a$ $o%in" on to address the i$portant


31/54

would e(pect $etropolitan social scientists to call upE lea%es the sub?ect or =owner9of such a ri"ht unspecified8 2ut it speaks considerably a"ainst it bein" transfi(ed as=the indi%idual98*6!fter all/ and despite he"e$onic western ideolo"ies ofindi%idualis$/ =difference9 is not so$ethin" Fnot e%en =in the west9E that one alone/the sin"ular sub?ect/ can actually do/ let alone =be98 It is an effect or propertye$er"in" out of relationships/ of social interaction/ and if it be an acti%ity instated inlaw it $ust hold people-in-relationships ?ointly responsible For accountable/ as thecase $ay beE8*7I do not i$a"ine the relational $akin" of =differences9 which areconsidered necessary and producti%e and the concurrent suppression of differencesnot Fno lon"erE thou"ht of that way by the %arious participants/ is intrinsically ahar$onious and a"reeable enterprise8 Dthno"raphy shows it can entail tension/$anipulation/ persuasion borderin" on coercion/ and in this sense e(traction8&elanesian "enderFin"E practices de$onstrate this8 So do "ender practicesconcentrated in the &iddle Dast and north-east !frica/ which entail sur"ical

inter%ention to socially =co$plete9 what nature For rather/ GodE left unfinished8 #he$ost widely known and talked-about case of this is fe$ale circu$cision andinfibulation8*+2ut to en"a"e in such =tu"s of war9 o%er which differences need andneed not to be $ade/ and in what fashion/ is as funda$ental a hu$an riteLri"ht asdoin" =difference9> it is a critical aspect of all practices of =difference9 known to us8I a"ree with Drnesto aclau when he says/ =the ontolo"ical possibility for clashesand une%enness are what also "i%e us "round to speak of freedo$981

#he fe$inist pro?ect Fanother hybrid political-cu$-scholarly pro?ect to which

37 The indi9idual figures as the Nnatural ownerL of human rights in the %ragmatic and

indi9idualistic %hiloso%h# of Richard Rort# 'e.g., OAecti9it#, relati9ism, and truth,


32/54

the current hu$an ri"hts enterprise $i"ht be fruitfully co$paredE has also had too%erco$e and resol%e the e(cesses of the liberal hu$anitarian spirit bent on ru""edindi%idualis$8 isten to these words of a collea"ue in the field of "ender studies in&iddle Dastern ethno"raphy who I $uch respect/ in the course of her e(ploration of

points of intersection/ dialo"ue and conflict between discourses that e$anate fro$distinct socio-historical locations:tracin" the i$pact and reception not of thehu$an ri"hts discourse/ but of western =fe$inist9 discourses

! percei%ed e$phasis Min all western brands of fe$inis$N on the pri$acy ofindi%idual autono$y and "ratification/ includin" se(ual liberation/ and thedenunciation of $en as the $ain ene$y Mall of which characterises =radicalfe$inis$9 only/ the author points outN/ could easily "o a"ainst the cultural"rain in societies where both $en and wo$en are ti"htly en$eshed infa$ilistic networks and $utual ri"hts and obli"ations/ where both se(es $ay

be labourin" under $uch harsher for$s of econo$ic and political oppression/and where different possibilities e(ist for cross-"ender coalition Mwhich we$i"ht not understand or e%en percei%eN8)

If =doin" ri"ht9 is what =the world9 For rather/ currently do$inant actors in itE is benton doin" at this particular historical ?uncture/ then let us not stand by idly8 et usensure that it is a principle/ the %aried stren"ths of which we reco"nise on the basisof our %arious ethno"raphic e(periences and collecti%e theorisin" efforts durin" thelast two decades:such a funda$ental and producti%e hu$an profession> such aslippery/ indeter$inate and non-co$$ittal or"anisin" de%ice as diff'rance:that is

reified in law8 I thus ur"e you to %ote for =difference98

41 D. andi#oti,


33/54

Against the otionF0E

/%!# !T#'0

$t all sounds good. difference2 who could be against it3@or appro%al9s sake/ for the lo%e of popularity/ for =$akin" nice9/ it would be ?ust"reat to be =for9 difference8 2ut difference is a deceit/ a trick/ a $ind candy we aresold to placate us/ to $ake us feel "ood in =$ulticulti9 ways8 It does not/ and cannot/lead us to anythin" like freedo$8 Who in all seriousness could be a"ainst differencein this ti$e when we are witness to the al$ost uni%ersal e(tension of thee(ploitati%e econo$ic and cultural syste$ known as "lobal capitalis$; I will be8

#he bi" bo"ey here is $onoculture/ that ho$o"enisin" force that tra%els withcapital and turns all culture into the sa$e8 #his is O%i-Strauss la$entin" the loss ofrituals and custo$s as the $uck of the West was thrown in his face where%er hewent80&onoculture is the antithesis of difference and $onoculture is bad8 !"ainstit/ anthropolo"y can be concei%ed as a sal%a"e $ission8 #hat is/ if we assu$ecapitalis$ is e%erywhere the sa$e8

!ow far ha+e we come today3Is the new enthusias$ for discussion of difference all that new; I ha%e in $ind a

debate held under the auspices of the Dthnolo"ical Society whose $e$bers ar"ueda"ainst the newly for$ed !nthropolo"ical Society in )76) in a s


34/54

=different98 !nd there will be as $uch internal differentiation within a "roup asbetween "roups8

et/ anthropolo"ists ha%e always found fa$e and ?ustification in bein" thead%ocates of difference8 et us e(a$ine this with a bit of scatter-"un historynineteenth-century e%olutionist anthropolo"ists first arrayed difference o%er ade%elop$ental cycle of =pro"ress98 #he old routine fro$ barbaris$ on to the bo$b8#his $indset "a%e way to relati%is$ difference was arrayed across culture and"eo"raphy/ $appin" and shadin" and the colour pink on which the sun ne%er setwas fra"$ented and e%er so sli"htly rearran"ed8 !nd then today/ when post$odernconfusion pre%ails as capitalist transition further e(tends its cannibalisin" reache%erywhere/ the ra$pant celebration of difference as e(otica and fascinatin"=incon"ruous detail9 Fthink of Ja$es Clifford $es$erised before the Wa"hiE lea%eshistorical and continuin" ine


35/54

Sla%o? QiBek writes of =the $ulticulturalist9s respect for the 'ther9sspecificity MasN the %ery for$ of assertin" one9s own superiority98 QiBek9s ar"u$entis that a $entality that =tolerates the 'ther in so far as it is not the real 'ther/ but theaseptic 'ther of pre$odern ecolo"ical wisdo$/ fascinatin" rites/ and so on9 has

been one that we can so$eti$es reco"nise in anthropolo"y9s history8Is it reallythe case that the best that can be offered is the reco"nition of Fa ri"ht toE difference;#olerance is not $uch if we start fro$ a de"ree of ine


36/54

leads to apartheid and the camps2 4ortress Europe and the ghetto)!t that $eetin" of the Dthnolo"ical Society and the !nthropolo"ical Society o%er acentury a"o/ the


37/54

dissent8 ! suppression ar$ed with Harrier ?ets and weaponry $anufactured ri"hthere in the UK8 !s the trade $issions facilitate the super-e(traction of profit %iathird world direct in%est$ent/ the Go%ern$ent diplo$atic co$$issars/ no doubtwith cultural eti


38/54

interested in a faked %entrilo


39/54

rallies or anti-racist anthropolo"y has pre%ented one racist $urder on the estates ofDn"land; et alone the on"oin" ad$inistration of racis$ in the undocu$ented =restof the world98 Who would be a"ainst culture; 3ot $e8 Howe%er/ culturalistar"u$ents and sy$pathies are not the sufficient ar$a$ents of an anti-capitalist

politics8

Ambi+alence2 contradiction!s Richard Wilson has ar"ued/ difference is an incoherent ter$ if reified as a ri"ht8 Ithink it is not $uch $ore than a ?ob creation pro"ra$$e for cultural co$$issars8 Iha%e/ howe%er/ so$e further doubts and a$bi%alences8 ifference is of course arelational ter$/ you can only be different fro$ so$eone or so$ethin" else8 #he

proble$ with this is that western or Duro-!$erican he"e$ony is nearly alwaystaken as the nor$ati%e/ and silently central/ ter$ in this relation/ fro$ which others

are different8

+

ifference is a relational ter$ that is une%en/ that necessarily positsthe co$parati%e ori"in as nor$ati%e and une(a$ined8 ifference reified as a ri"htthen conde$ns those thus declared as different to the second class8

et us try to think of this in other ways8 ,erhaps the ri"ht to co$$unicate $ydifference would precede that difference in i$portance/ as without a capacity toco$$unicate difference I cannot be different8 ifference is a relational ter$ thati$plies a lar"er code8 It is e$bedded8 !s a part of a code of relations/ difference is akind of $ystical cate"ory8 It can ne%er be na$ed as such/ but can only be endlesslydeferred in iteration Fdifferin" fro$ Mthe nor$NE8 It is an infernal $achine thatarticulates no content and no stability/ only shiftin" conte(ts and relations8 #hus it

$akes any political dia"nostic rather fra"ile8So when I ar"ue that difference is pri$arily a ?ob creation pro"ra$$e/ I ha%e

in $ind the %iew that without the $ystic and fetishised reification of difference therewould be no 'ther to study/ and or e(ploit8 !nd %entriloue of MadonnaLs trading in cultural difference, see ?. alra and ". Hutn#k,

rimful of agitation, authenticit# and a%%ro%riation2 MadonnaLs N$sian koolL!, =ostcolonial

Studies*'(), ((+(&1, *++:.

49 See S. 4ugent,$maKonian caoclo societ#2 an essa# on in9isiilit# and %easant econom#,

O;ford, erg, *++(, %. &.


40/54

blinkered thinkin"8 It is:to underline a key word in the $otion:a $ode offunda$entalis$8

#he declaration of a ri"ht to be different is the re%erse of any ri"ht to e


41/54

pra(is8 #he point is to chan"e it/ as ='ld 2eardo9 Uncle Karl ar"ued8 et us notstand by idly8

'f course we ha%e all learnt by now that anthropolo"ists are not "oin" tochan"e the world all by the$sel%es/ and they do not e%en ha%e $uch prospect of

bein" the %an"uard of anythin" $uch/ but surely8888 It is ti$e now to lea%en that self-obsession of )+71s anthro-te(tuality with so$e practical politics8 So$e will call thisidealist/ of course8 It9s late/ let $e say it anyway8

#hose people who are at the front end of transition/ facin" cultural/ econo$icand political incursions fro$ lar"er/ ra%enous/ capitalist plunder/ of course re


42/54

reference to hu$an ri"hts is happy to acco$$odate the status


43/54

PART * T!E DE9ATE

:icaela Di (eonardo 6#orthwestern ni+ersity7 I would like to speak in supportof the opposition/ but with a couple of ca%eats8 I ha%e four points to stress8 #he firstwas $ade by the two opposition speakers and that is the necessity of thehistoricisation of the rise of hu$an ri"hts lan"ua"e:a lan"ua"e of difference:inthe conte(t of colonialis$/ neo-colonialis$/ capitalist "rowth/ he"e$ony of neo-liberalis$8 #hat MpointN was %ery well $ade8 Second point:a"ain/ %ery well $ade

:therefore the inherent class e%asions of $ulticultural ideolo"y8 In $ulticulturalis$it is ob%ious/ certainly do$estically in wealthy states/ the way in which race "ets

collapsed into class8 In less wealthy states/ we see the ways in which there is afocus on the indi"enous to the detri$ent of the so-called inauthentic shantytownpoor who do not ha%e so$e particular e(otic credentials82ut/ third point/ I disa"ree with Richard because I think we really should ofnecessity accept/ at least contin"ently/ ele$ents of the Dnli"hten$ent pro?ect forliberty/ egalit' and ha%e hopes for fraternity and sorority/ and thus I do dissent fro$his e$phasis on Rorty and anti-foundationalis$8

@ourth point/ and I think this is really rather i$portant/ I would clai$ there isa non-parallelis$ with "ender8 Issues of race/ culture/ nationality are really not at allthe sa$e as "ender:and I $i"ht note that se(ual orientation has not been

$entioned at all8 In the !$erican conte(t/ se(ual orientation is inherently a part ofdiscussions of difference8 Usually this is wron"ly so/ and that is the ar"u$ent I a$"oin" to $ake that "ender and se(uality or "ender and se(ual difference are not atall the sa$e/ lo"ically speakin" or socially speakin"/ as race/ national identity andcultural difference8 Gender/ se(uality and se(ual orientation are always intra-

population/ they are always present within any one population/ and therefore I think:althou"h we are always drawn to these e(traordinary cases/ as in the case of"enital $utilation:that they should not be a part of the sa$e debate8 It is anartefact of the "rowth of identity politics to assu$e that these differences are of thesa$e sort $erely because we "loss the$ today as difference8 #hey are part of an

i$portant debate/ but not this one8 #hank you8

:ichael 9ra+o 6ni+ersity of :anchester7 I would ha%e hoped to ha%e heard$ore about the nature of what is a ri"ht8 2ecause it see$s to $e the $otion dependson that %ery concept and/ in defendin" a ri"ht/ one then/ accordin" to one school ofthou"ht/ has to e(plain what one $eans by a %irtue and what kinds of obli"ations


44/54

ri"hts entail8 So I would like to su""est that I suppose a ri"ht has to be so$ethin"that you defend whether it produces "ood or bad8 'r one has to be prepared that itcan produce "ood as well as bad8 In which case it see$s to $e that instru$entalar"u$ents which say that ri"ht of difference $ay be producti%e and produce either"ood or bad ulti$ately cannot shed $uch li"ht on the case as to whether differenceis a funda$ental ri"ht8 ,recisely because "ood or bad is not "oin" to ?ustify orne"ate the %alue of a ri"ht8

/eanette Edwards 6ni+ersity of :anchester7 I would like to push the opposersof this $otion a little further on two theorists who$ they $entioned 2rian #urnerand Rorty:who are/ I ha%e to say/ $y least fa%ourite theorists for different reasons82rian #urner was used to support an ar"u$ent that there is a di%ersity ofe(periences of $odernity and this $ay well be the case/ but people are ne%ertheless

positioned differently and une


45/54

is a product of relations of force and if you are "oin" to break it down you ha%e toattack the whole structure of the relations of force that produce it/ which in%ol%esaddressin" people who cannot "i%e the$sel%es an identity8 !nd that $eans thate%ery case is a


46/54

ti$e and perhaps later8 I thou"ht that John Hutnyk displayed that kind ofar"u$ent %ery well because we know that so$eti$es we respond to ar"u$ents withforce8 !nd he in%oked the tank for us/ and in that sense I think he tricked hi$self/ asI a$ not certain that anyone who has co$$itted the$sel%es to listenin" to anar"u$ent $ade differently is "oin" to i$$ediately pull back and e(pect that thear"u$ent $ade in ter$s of force or e$otion would not be heard8 3ow/ we are allhearin" that in a for$ where we can set so$e barriers upon it and consider it in alon"-ter$ reasoned way8 !nd I really want to set forth the clai$ that the ri"ht todifference is a funda$ental hu$an ri"ht8 If only because it $akes it necessary tocontinue to deliberate what is "oin" on8 !nd we know how dan"erous it is to $akedecisions based on force $uch too


47/54

le"al institutions and schools in this society already i$pose a particular identity andposition and that is not looked at8 It is seen as neutral and it is not neutral8 ,eopleshould ha%e the ri"ht to be different and should be able to self-identify8 #hat shouldthen infiltrate into the institutions and that actually does not e%er happen8

Penny !ar+ey 6ni+ersity of :anchester7 I started off bein" in a"ree$ent withJohn because I really like his point about capital celebratin" hybridity and this "reatability of capital to absorb criti


48/54

"arah Green 6ni+ersity of :anchester7 #here see$s to be an i$plication/ onthe one hand/ that a lot of this has to do with the ways in which laws operate or failto operate8 #he underlyin" i$plication of one side of the debate is that the powersthat be do %ery unpleasant thin"s to people who are different> therefore they need to

be stopped8 #here ou"ht to be a law to stop the$ fro$ doin" it8 'r/ the powers thatbe do %ery nasty thin"s to people who are different/ and they also control the laws:so there is no point ha%in" a law a"ainst it8 #hat debate is %ery fa$iliar to $e fro$the debates that were "oin" on in the late )+61s about porno"raphy and censorship8#hat is one point8

#he other point/ to add to &icaela/ is that it is true that "ender and se(ualityare different cate"ories of thin"8 2ut the reason why they "et blended in to"ether is

precisely because of the kinds of co$$entaries that we ha%e been hearin" here thatoccasionally include wo$en8 So it needs to be reco"nised that these thin"s are

different/ e%en if perhaps they need to be discussed to"ether precisely because thesedifferences are treated as the sa$e8

0oen "troeken 6&atholic ni+ersity of (eu+en2 9elgium7 I do not know who Ia$ addressin"/ nor on which side I find $yself/ but I noted a few thin"s down8 #he


49/54

culture8 What people ha%e not brou"ht up is that there are plenty of wo$en within aculture who refuse to support the practice of fe$ale infanticide:or whate%er thedreadful word is8 @or a @reudian reason I ha%e e%en for"otten what the word is atthis $o$ent8 2ut you know what I $ean

Peter Wade I will now "i%e each of the speakers three or four $inutes to $akeresponses or su$$arise their position8

"tephen &orry Unlike/ I suspect/ $ost people in this roo$/ I a$ not ananthropolo"ist or e%en a scholar and I a$ not concerned with the de%elop$ent ofanthropolo"ical theory8 &y concern is/ and has been/ e(clusi%ely with whatthreatened tribal peoples are the$sel%es actually sayin"8 I do not $ean the people

who necessarily $ake it to Gene%a and who are unelected representati%es:orwhate%er you would like to call the$:but the people who are actually in the fieldold people/ youn" people/ wo$en/ $en:the whole lot of the$8 #here is actually


50/54

they were allowed to "row up8

Richard Wilson. I want to confront so$e of the historical re%isionis$ which hadbeen "oin" on/ particularly the idea that the 3aBis killed for ho$o"eneity andunifor$ity and thereby for uni%ersal %alues and ci%ilisation8 #he 3aBis killed for

particularis$8 #here are two traditions here there is Ger$an ro$anticis$ upholdin"difference and there are @rench and !$erican uni%ersal %alues based on e


51/54

difference8

$ris /ean0lein I will be"in by thankin" #i$ In"old for so concisely andelo but no-one9s "i%in" $e any8

!nd ?ust a $inor ethno"raphic detail/ but I think it is i$portant8 Infibulation isthe word for fe$ale circu$cision:and indi"enous ter$s prefer e(cision8 #o $akewo$en hu$an; 3o/ it is to $ake hu$ans wo$en/ and $en8 #hey are also

procedures to $ake $en that we do not focus on %ery often8 !ll hu$ans need to beworked on in this particular $oral order:to use a ter$ Richard Wilson uses in his


52/54

writin"s:in order to produce "ender and it takes "ender differences to beproducti%e on $any le%els8

I would like to respond to Judith 'kley8 #here are these days/ certainly/disa"ree$ents fro$ within/ as we say wo$en who ob?ect to this practice8 3otably adebate is ra"in" in @rance/ where the practice of infibulation has been le"islateda"ainst8 It is sub%ersi%ely carried out by older wo$en of particular cultural ethnic

back"rounds and youn" wo$en now turn to the law to actually ha%e their ownparents restrained and not ha%e it done to the$8 I would say the ri"ht to differenceprecisely includes that sort of differin" and includes the pri%ile"e of reconsiderin"cultural:or whate%er we call the$:%alues/ ways of beco$in" $en and wo$en/and opt for other thin"s8 2ut I would like to side with 2ir"it &cCon%ille/ who wroteabout infibulation in The 2nde-endentin )++6851She %isited and spoke to wo$enwho insisted on ha%in" it done to the$/ or else they would not be wo$en/ would not

be fertile and so on8 #hese were youn"er wo$en li%in" outside/ in @rance in a

Duropean conte(t/ ha%in" been e(posed to other ways of beco$in" wo$en and soon8 She said =It beca$e clear to $e that e(cision will only chan"e and cease when!frican wo$en want it to chan"e/ and $o%e for it89 I would also like to correct the$isconception that infibulation is a $ale conspiracy and that wo$en are the onlyones who suffer8 Dthno"raphy a"ain:and I ha%e in $ind S$adar a%ie9sethno"raphy of &Bani 2edouins which is sensiti%e about listin" the i$plications for$en of all this:shows us that both $en and wo$en suffer fro$ it/ but would not doaway with it and dee$ it necessary85)&en these days are "oin" into therapy to dealwith the trau$a it is for the$ to atte$pt to ha%e se(ual intercourse with aninfibulated wo$an8 It is not easy for $en either8 It could be a $ale conspiracy/ but

one has to ask oneself who is "ainin"; !nd certain ar"u$ents for and a"ainstdifference do not pose that sort of


53/54

underlinin"/ the word =class98 !nd for raisin" the issue of the ri"ht to ha%e property8!t present it is ob%iously only so$e who are pri%ile"ed to ha%e access to property/and people who ha%e property are ob%iously $arked in a particular class way in ourculture8 #his is not necessarily a situation with which we would always want toabide8 !nd that would be the burden of $y ar"u$ent that we ha%e to do so$ethin"$ore than describe and analyse thin"s8

I will try and answer so$e of the specific


54/54

ethics of difference is "oin" to be ade

Documents

GDAT Debate1999-Right to Difference