PHILOSOPHIE - Association internationale des professeurs de ...

AIPPh Documentation Leusden 2009
naked Abu Graib prisoners. It can be seen clearly that there must be very controversial
intracultural discussions on film and television pictures in traditionally aniconic cultures:
What are they allowed to show and if so, how are they allowed to do it? (Valentin 2002,
155).
Not only religion seems to play a role: Among Bollywood film producers are many Indian
Muslims, and of course we must distinguish Shia, Sunnya, Alevites and others in this
question (Sen 2006, 59). If we want to improve our understanding of the cosmos of
Muslim thinking, we have to know a lot more about their cultural values. (Whose
cosmos, which cosmopolitics? asks Latour, and from this point of view Stephen Toulmins
“Cosmopolis” is hopelessly “Western”.)
3. There is no grammatical subject in Japanese and Chinese languages, and in Japanese
questions have to be answered from the point of view of the asking person, which
involves a very early exercise of not only thinking from one’s own perspective.This
corresponds to an attitude in traditional Japanese subcultures, that each self-assertion is
extremely shameful. Modesty, even humbleness against guests have to be
demonstrated, for instance when introducing family members. (Takayama 1994, 394f)
“Japan” is often called synonymously “land of harmony” by the Japanese, and there are
strong communitarian trends in society obliging everybody to be part of the community.
(Though Takayama reports that there are arising different “modern” attitudes as well,
especially in economy.) But it is cleary understood that cultures with a moral obligation
not to assert or articulate one’s own selves cannot easily play their part in rational
discourse, as Habermas and Apel would imagine normal for each member of the rational
community.
From this point of view Apel’s idea of a “planetary macroethics” by rational discourse
with the purpose of final consent seems somewhat naive, especially if we consider that
there are other cultures that may not have the means or do not wish to articulate
themselves in the “rational language” of discourse (which is, for instance from the
standpoint of Muslim mysticism no way to approach the truth.) Instead, the diagnosis of
Lyotard seems to be fitting: The “Western” concept of rational discourse seems to be
excluding too many possible participants. (Lyotard 1989,33) and cannot be applied
universally.
These examples may show that we are very often inclined to take for granted and even
for universal what is normal and common in our own cultures. We apply our own habits
and interpretation schemes to other cultures and thereby grossly misunderstand what is
important to them. In the view of Lévinas the claim to understand and interpret foreign
cultures by means and habits of one’s own can even mean violence: Some sort of mental
imperialism colonizes the foreign by claimig universal interpretations without real
understanding. ( Lévinas 1983). For Said this is postcolonialism. (Said 1994) What could
be done about this?
30