|
Culture (Part - One)
by Anwar Shaikh |
Culture represents the
cosmic tendency of self-improvement; the rise of atoms to cells and eventually
to man signifies this fact. Man, basically, is endowed with a potential of
development; if he does not cultivate his potential, he remains a savage but if
he does, he becomes cultured. Thus, culture represents the refinement which
results from the cultivation of one's self. Therefore, culture is the ambassador
of man's destiny. Whether he shall become a saint or satan, depends upon the
magnitude of his cultural achievement.
Dignity, the elevation of mind and character, is thus
the chief trait of a human-being. Just looking dignified is not culture.
Sincerity is its kernel because this is what imbues his conduct with moral
excellence which is the core of culture. The apparent culture, that is, nice
manners based on hypocrisy as a convenient mode of living is not culture but
regression to primitiveness; a savage is what he is; he is not sophisticated
enough to be dexterous; he is a savage because he has not yet cultivated his
potential. He is superior to a hypocrite who has developed his potential
negatively for lack of sincerity. Stated differently, culture is synonymous with
morality.
Morality refers to human behaviour which may be good or
bad: man has a natural repugnance to evil, and this fact becomes evident when
someone hurts us. Thus morality comes to be associated with the consciousness of
good deeds. It has a psychological basis, that is, we do not like done to us
what we may do to others. For this reason, we maintain the difference betvveen
right and wrong. Thus morality means the righteous as opposed to the evil.
Man does not live a vegetative life; he is mobile and
must live actively. Fear of pain and expectation of pleasures are the two agents
which control his behaviour. As a general rule he prefers pleasure to pain,
though pain suffered voluntarily in the execution of a goal or duty, also counts
as pleasure. However, the course of action pursued rightly for pleasure or
happiness, is considered a moral one because it does not involve the backlash of
conscience whereas the wrong actions count as evil for fear of retribution and
remorse.
That morality is an integral rart of human nature is
proved by the fact that even the primitive cultures had moral precepts and rules
of behaviour. They did have words meaning good and bad, right and wrong and true
and false. This is quite natural because the human state of mind can be
expressed only by the use of antonyms i.e. the words having opposite meanings
such as dark and bright and wrong and right. Experience shows that aggression
arouses retaliation, and forgiveness may lead to pacification. If I hit you, it
is likely that you will hit me back back but if I respect your rights, it is
possible that you will respect mine. However, concepts and standards of right
and wrong may vary from tribe to tribe. Yet they existed among the savages
because they did have respect for marriage ties, concern for relationships and
orderliness of family life, regard for industry, honesty and probity. In sexual
practices they varied but never exercised hypocrisy as in modern times the
followers of certain religions proclaim the sanctity of marriage, yet consider
it right to have concubines for carnal pleasures. They were crude but practical;
in delivering judgements, they did not concern themselves with the intention of
the doer; it was the effect of the action that counted. In our time, though
intention of the actor does count but it may be used as a means for the
miscarriage of justice, thus nullifying the concept or culture.
One effect of the cultural advancement is to create a
social order through a broad process ot uniformity without crushing individual
choice. This is the manifestation of free will, which denotes man's free choice.
As all humans have their choices but the means of fulfilling them are limited,
they are likely to lead to collision unless people voluntarily check some of
them and adopt a mutually acceptable mode of attaining them. Thus, the basic
rule of free will is to respect the legitimate rights of other people by
accepting a voluntary restraint on one's behaviour. Free will is the ambassador
of moral discipline because it cannot operate in a state of anarchy. Driving
provides a good example of this fact; the motorists have to agree to certain
rules of the highway code regarding direction of driving, parking and starting
and stopping; if they do not, driving becomes hazardous, and eventually
impossible.
Custom is an offshoot of morality, and the major source
of the broad social uniformity of a group. Custom is a habitual way of doing
things by a group of people though it may vary from locality to locality. This
is the reason that people who deal with the same bank habitually are called its
customers. In its plural sense, this word is used for a regular tax or levy
imposed on goods at the time of importation.
When a custom, that is, a usual way of doing something
gains general acceptance of the locality, it ranks as the customary law. If it
is ignored, it provokes communal dislike and even retribution. It has been
customary in most parts of the world that a brother and a sister should not
marry, cohabit or indulge in carnal relationship. This custom has usually been
respected, but when flouted, it has resulted in sad consequences for the actors.
When we look into the composition of custom, it
transpires that it is the mother of all institutions. Marriage is one instance.
The English or Common Law may be cited as another one. The English law treats a
custom as an ancient rule of law for a certain 1ocality. In fact, the Common Law
itself was based on what had become customary in the country at large. It is not
to say that the pleadings of lawyers and interpretations of judges did not make
their contributions to the rational development of Common Law. As the authority
of Common Law expanded, the meaning of custom shrank to become associated with a
locality.
A custom can be a source of mischief as is the custom
of dowry seen on the Indian subcontinent. It is a big financial burden on the
parents to provide their daughters with dowry at the time of marriage. If
parents cannot observe this custom, their daughters are persecuted by the
in-laws for the rest of their days. As a result in South India, some parents
kill their baby girls for fear of providing dowry.
This is where the authority of law is required to check
the force of evil customs. The Common Law, therefore, prescribed principal
requirements for a valid custom. One of them was the demand that a custom had
been enjoyed as of right since ancient time peaceably, continuously and
uninterruptedly. Again, it must t.e held reasonable, certain and abligatory, and
not optional. Finally, it had to be confined to a definite locality. However, a
usage is not a custom which need not have existed from time immemorial; it does
not apply to a locality but to a trade, business, profession or occupation.
Concurrence of a set of customs when begins to rank as
the customary law of a locality, it engenders, to some extent a uniformity in
thinking, acting, manners, do's and dont's, thus leading to a communal sense
which acts as the fountain of culture. Of course, an individual can be called
'cultured" or "uncultured" but culture represents the group
morality regulated by its laws. It means that a person, basically, receives his
culture from the group he belongs to, though individuals of extraordinary
stature do renovate the existing cultures and may provide a new direction for
its further development: men like Moses and Muhammad come within this categary
for shaping the destinies of their own nations who rose to modify the cultures
of the peoples of the world.
A culture is a historically derived way of life; it is
likely to be shared by the members of a group which may possess the same
language, customs, laws, traditions and institutions, and may thus produce a
broad sense of uniformity by way of believing, thinking, acting and feeling
without destroying one's characteristics of individuality. Thus members of a
group are more easily motivated by certain types of ideas, beliefs and values,
and feel repugnant to what is contrary to their cultural practices.
A cultural group is not a racial group though race may
form a part of it. It is a way of life common to the same or several groups of
people. For example, the British culture is common to the Anglo-Saxons and the
Celts of the British Isles, and on a larger scale, European culture is common to
all peoples of Europe who have different racial origins. A culture whether large
or small is always subject to local variations.
Though sex, economics and geography, among other
things, are the three major factors which contribute to the formation of a
culture, the operation of free will is equally important and may rank as the
fourth ingredient.
1. Sex is a human need but arbitrarily stated, it is a
desire and has an emotional character, chiefly influenced by aesthetic appeal.
To start with, it is the founlain of life which comes graded according to the
degree of blood- relationships: two strangers meet as spouses or casual partners
and become parents, and their children emerge as uncles, aunts, brothers,
sisters, cousins, etc. As their blood is diluted through further procreation,
they become tribes which may constitute a much larger racial group called a
nation. It is this relationship of the individuals which creates a sense af
unity, and their basie life-style which they learn from one another through
mulual influence, that constitute as the building blocks of culture.
However, this trait ceases to remain purely racial
owing to intermarriages and intermingling. What lends them a national identity
is, chiefly, the cultural inheritance though without destroyirg the sense of
blood-ties. The intermingling of races also denotes the intermixture of
cultures. While every culture nfluences other cultures, it is the dominant
culture which determines the national proclivities. In Britain, it is the
English culture which holds the overtone though the Celtic culture has also
exerted its influence on the English culture. One great benefit of an advanced
culture is that it reduces racial rensions for two reasons: firstly, the
cultural refinement enables people to think more in human terms and less with
reference to national bigotry, thus helping the concept of civil liberties and
human rights. Secondly, people practising the same culture hold similar values,
and thus find it easier to live together, and are usually tolerant of racial
origins.
Since sex means desire and art is more a child of man's
desire or emotional dream, it comes to play a major role in the development of
culture. The intensity of desire is directly linked with the aesthetic appeal.
The more beautiful a thing the more appealing it becomes. The beauty of harmful
things such as a cobra is an exception. These remarks can be equally extended to
immoral concepts which are pernicious. In general terms, what is pleasing is
beautiful, and art is the manifestation of the human sense of beauty, both moral
and material.
However, I ought to point out that my idea of art is
somewhat different from that of the experts in this field. Generally, art is
anything that is man-made. It applies not only to paintings and sculptures but
also to furniture, motor- cars, including the lay-outs of the rubbish tips and
postures of love-making. Again, distinction is drawn between fine and useful
art. Fine arts means, the works designed to produce an aesthetic respcnse such
as paintings, poetry, sculptures, musical compositions, dance, drama and
architecture. Useful art, on the other hand, may have an aesthetic appeal but it
is primarily utilitarian, that is, it has been produced to serve a purpose. The
tomb, called the Taj Mahal is an example to this effect; this splendid piece of
architecture was produced to glorify the love of an emperor for his wife.
However, as my main concern here is not art itself but
how art represents the cultural attainment, I shall not go into further details
of this subject, and confine the discussion to sex or the emotional desire of
man as the source of art. Beauty cannot be appreciated without sensual
intensity, and an art is not art unless it is beautiful, but the display of its
beauty must not transgress the bounds of decency, though an artist ought to be
allowed considerable expression of freedom. Having said that I must add that a
picture showing a couple making love openly in a public park is not an
expression of art but of vulgarity.
In fact, art represents man's quest for perfection
mingled with joviality. Take poetry for instance. It is a development from
confusing sounds. I am referring to that primitive stage when man had not
developed a language as yet and communicated through sounds. In due course,
these sounds developed into wcrds which gradually assumed the forms of sentences
through a natural process of syntax and synesis. Man's speech is the culmination
of the basic sounds, which distinguish him from the rest of mammals. It led to
the invention of alphabet, writing and its principles. Thus prose came into
being leading the way to poetry, the most effective and highest form of
speech-in-writing owing to its rhythmic expression. This is an example of the
perfection of the confused human sounds. The same rernarks apply to the other
arts such as painting, dance, drama, sculpture, architecture, music, etc.
However, this search for perfection through arts is directly related to the
cultural advancement and is the offshoot of man's sexual instinct, which is
direclly connected with beauty. This is why all fine arts are expressions of
man's aesthetic sense.
2. Economics, as already mentioned, is another fountain
of culture. Man can reproduce himself through sexual activity but his survival
depends on the fulfilment of economic needs which usually consist of food,
drink, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc.
A peculiarity of economics is that natural resources to
meet human needs are limited though they can be expanded considerably through
ingenuity and hard work. These two factors affect a nation's culture.
Economic needs constitute a major spring of human
psychology. If everything was plentiful and available as desired, one could not
imagine the humans as active beings; they would be inclined to live a mechanical
life for not needing planning and effort. The comparative scarcity of means of
satisfaclion not only makes them active and go- getters but also places a value
on utilities i.e. the things which satisfy needs.
The fulfilment of needs has a special bearing on human
culture for two reasons: firstly, the personal satisfaction, chiefly, depends
upon satisfaction of one's needs, and secondly, the needs, as a general rule,
are insatiable. Of course, there are people who have little needs or may be
contented by nature, but such people are in a small minority, and even they have
the basic needs of food, shelter, education, medicine and a social system of
justice. People have to work for what they need. Then there are ways of
satisfying, needs according to one's abililies and ambitions. Some do not mind
staying at the lowest rung of the social ladder and thus live as ordinary
workers whereas others climb higher to become professionals. This creates
division of labour and social strata, giving rise to what is called "haves
and have-nots" thus creating class war which determines people's cultural
attitudes. In our times, the Marxist thinking which attributes the entire
economic productivity to labour only and ignores the productive role of other
factors of production such as capital, land and interest, has made the human
race walk on a knife's edge. Through the theory of dialectical materialism, it
seeks to establish that social tension or the class-war between the high and
low, the haves and have-nots and the possessing and the dispossessed is the
motivating spirit of the society and must be kept alive. This is a social
explanation of fulfilling everyday's needs, but the insatiable needs influence
the human culture quite differently.
An insatiable need may appear a kind of greed to others
but the person who has such a need may look at it quite differently, and quite
rightly. He is someone whose individuality is rather different from other
people. When other people may be satisfied with beer or a car, he needs
champagne or an aeroplane to satisfy himself. No matter how high and unusual,
such needs are legitimate provided their means of acquisition are lawful and
morally right. If such a person has the talent to realise his needs, which may
be termed as ambitions, he is likely to become a useful member of the society;
for example, if he wants to be rich, as an entrepreneur he creates wealth
through his enterprising spirit, which is good for employment and affluence of
the nation as a whole.
A country which has a proportionately greater number of
ambitious and economically inspired people. usually exerts a greater cultural
influence on international atfairs. It was the economic strength of Great
Britain which enabled her institutions to influence the world, and now the
United States of America is doing the same thing through her economic might.
An insatiable economic need becomes a source of terror,
injustice and usurpation when it acts as the tool of power for a person or a
group of people. Wealth is power and power is wealth; a rich person usually
commands and a poor person usually obeys. However, there are two ways of
becoming rich through ingenuity and through wickedness. As an example of
ingenuity, one can quote some great rich houses of international repute such as
Rockefeller of the United States of America or Krupps of Germany. As wickedness,
it emerges as colonialism which instigates a person and his followers to invade
other countries for pillaging them and taking over their administration and
means of production, reducing them to the status of slaves. This is the basis of
tax-gathering; the conqueror becomes the tax-gatherer and the conquered, the
taxpayer. Thus, the former satisfies his urge of dominance by humiliating the
latter through controlling and pillaging the economic means.
There is yet anothe aspect of economic needs, which may
seem peculiar but is real. Possibly, it is negative in character because it
concerns the unsatisfied needs whose fulfilment is expected to take place in the
world-to-come. In fact, this is an exploitation of human frustration arising out
of people's failure to satisfy their economic needs and secure social justice.
The clever men who have the burning desire to dominate other people with a view
to be worshipped by them, project themselves to be messiahs, prophets, gurus and
even God-incarnate for this purpose. But their appeal is directed towards
people's economic frustration. They tell such people that there is a paradise
awaiting them which has beautiful homes, canals of milk and honey, springs of
wine, unlimited food of the choicest quality to be served by the most beautiiul
women, and where there is no death, disease or toil and everything is available
gratis according to one's desire.
This is the most devastating aspect of economic needs
and forms one of the cultural pillars of humanity. Islam, which is said to have
a following of 1,000,000,000 people provides a good example of this fact. The
Moslem nations, which regrettably are not affluent during these times, are
addicted to the notion that all their economic frustrations shall be fulfilled
wken they enter paradise, which they believe has been guaranteed by their faith.
This is the reason that they have become fundamentalists and pay no respect to
human rights. In the Moslem lands, the non-Moslems have hardly any civil rights,
but in the non-Moslem lands, the Moslems claim human rights. What an illogical
situation it is, and it is being created by their hopes of pcstponed
satisfaction of economic needs.
3. The fulfilment of economic needs is also governed by
the geography of a country; the nature of climate, fertility of land, terrain,
the mountains, the rivers, the rain and the winds, all have a bearing on the
availability of the means of satisfaction, and the behaviour pattern of the
people.
Of course, sexual desire, economic needs, and geography
are the hidden springs of culture but free will also plays a considerable role
in its make-up, and especially in its survival. Free will means man's power to
choose and refuse; this is the main source of man's freedom and independence,
which is the greatest human value, and thus acts as the psychological motivator
under normal circumstances because man wants to maintain his freedom of choice
and action. Culture, which is a way of life, represents a group's behaviour by
vvay of choices and rejections, likes and dislikes, preferences and aversions,
including the factors which may stimulate them or arouse their disapprovals.
Thus culture is an expression of free will-in-practice.
Taken from another angle, free will being free choice
is the fountain of morality which represents man's conduct, independent of
external coercion. Thus morality and law become the integral part of culture. A
considerable debate has been going on, since antiquity, about the nature of law
and morality as well as their mutual relationship. As moraiity concerns human
behaviour, it is reasonable to assume that rules of morality are a part of human
nature. It indicates that humans have a good deal in comnnon despite
considerable individual variations. Without this fact, it is difficult to see
how society could come into being. As a result of this truth, it is considered
as the chief desideratum of a good social order that the law be brought into
harmony with those moral demands that can be established.
Though Free Will means the power to choose or refuse,
it certainly does not mean the power to act according to one's choice. Being a
human, I cannot choose to fly like a bird; my natural choice will be between
walking or running. However, if my will is strong enough, I may invent an
aeroplane to fly in it. It indicates the relationship between man's free will
and his magnitude of behaviour. Since morality refers to one's spontaneous
behaviour, free from external coercion, it is not possible without the
recognition of free will. Stated differently, morality is the expression of free
will.
Contrary to free will is the doctrine of determinism,
which holds that all our actions are the result of the predetermined causes.
Though it has some truth in it, unfortunately, it has been grossly exaggerated.
To explain this point, I may add that my walk is governed by the Newtonian law
of action and reaction, but this law cannot dictate my destination; I am free to
go to a rose-garden or a race-course. The exaggeration of this view has been
used as a justification for despotism, totalitarianism, and even slavery. And
those who talk of legislating public morality, actually dream of a deterministic
society ccnforming to a central norm. A flagrant example of this facts a Marxist
state based on the economic theory of Karl Marx. It states all economic
utilities are created by labour only, and other factors of production such as
capital, land, interest, etc., play no part at all. This is the reason that the
Marxist theory does not recognise the validity of profit which is considered as
the exploitation of labour's reward. Since everyhody works for reward, and this
theory rejects this principle, it cannot be operated voluntarily, and the state
takes everything into its ownership and exercises a formidable control over the
behaviour of the workers. Since such a society is organised on the suppression
of free will, it needs more and more laws to create a behaviour pattern
indicative of uniformity which is akin to public morality. This creates a
situation resembling law versus morality, which is obviously a false notion.
Whereas morality is subjective and addresses the inner
conscience of a person, law is objective. It concerns people's external actions
which are enforced by formal sanctions. Morality concerns "what is right
and good," but it is the individual himself, who under ordinary
circumstances, is the judge of what is good. Though ordinarily, good is what
suits his purpose, he has a fair idea what really good is. As even an evil
person pretends to be engaged in the pursuit of good, morality is understood to
mean good actions. Thus morality comes to posses a great deal in common with law
which claims to be a check on crime and seeks the introduction of a fair social
order by a measure of coercion, if necessary.
Because of this similarity between law and morality, it
is considered undesirable to draw a sharp distinction between the two. Yet it is
wrong to legislate morality because being the expression of free will, it
entitles every human to exercise hislher right to be free. Legislating morality
means depriving humans of their birth-right to be free. This in fact, has been
the attitude of the theocrats who advocated determinism for ruling their
fellow-men despotically in the name of God, who is pleased only when man does
what he is told by the Almighty. The religious zealots have always opposed the
exercise of free will and this fact is clearly reflected in the Divine Law
whether its source be the Bible, the Koran or the Vedas. Again, any suggestion
of enacting morality is against the spirit of the law itself. It is the champion
of human liberties, and does not punish anyone odiously but only when a person
has injured someone else's legitimate rights.
Morality springs up spontaneously over a period in
response to people's exercise of free will. Possibly, at the primitive stage,
such responses were haphazard and even wild, but as the experience grows, people
begin to find out that living is a relative process and therefore A's liberties
are safe only if he respects B's rights. This arouses the sense of mutual
responsibility, giving rise to discipline and a social order. If selfishness
could be checked without external agencies, the need for law might not arise at
all but this is wishful thinking because demands of the ego can be so wild that
a person may put on a lamb's clothing to act as a wolf. Social wrongs whether
intentional or inadvertent, set up precedents of wrong-doings leading to evil
customs and traditions which affect the fabric of the society until it reaches
the point when moral codes fail to perform their reformative role, and in fact,
become the source of hypocrisy because people do evil in the guise of good. This
is what necessitates the emergence of law, which must remain distinguished from
the rules of morality. Law whether enacted or judicial is deliberate in
character whereas the rules of morality are spontaneous. Again, law has to the
backing of an enforcing power, usually the state. It must be made honestly,
wisely and promulgated actively. Law has a purpose, a noble purpose, that is,
the correction of failed morality. This fact was well illustrated by Sir Edward
Coke in 1585. In order to interpret a new statute, we must ask "what
mischief and defect" it was designed to correct and "what remedy the
Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the
Commonwealth."
Coke's remarks beautifully express the role of law and
its relationship with morality. However, one must bear in mind that law is not a
command of the ruler to the ruled or of the strong to the weak. It is the
representation of fairness, determination to assure justice, the will to destroy
tyranny. Even the rules of law can be manipulative, and can become a source of
evil in themselves. Take for example, "the burden of proof." A person
is cansidered innocent until proven guilty but a taxpayer is presumed guilty
until he proves his innocence. One cannot call it law; it is against the spirit
of innocence.
There is yet another point to be considered in relation
to morality and law. Those laws which are imposed by brute force do not
represent anything but a state of jungle where the might is right. Law is law
only when its acceptance is spontaneous, which is a moral concept, and means
that morality precedes law. It happens in a democratic system where verdict of
the majority is acceptable to all on a moral understanding. This consent can
also be seen in a despotic system such as kingship where generation after
generation follows the law of the ruling dynasty. Such laws draw their validity
from the fact that either they are good in themselves or considered good
religiously or politically.
This discussicn of morality and law leads us to the
core of culture, which may be stated as the rise of social conditions from a
state of rightlessness to the state of rightfulness. Stated differently, culture
points to the social transition where the principle: "might is right"
becomes "the right is might." This truth is well explained by the
doctrine of natural rights which states that an individual enjoys certain claims
against others and against the state by virtue of the laws of nature. According
to John Lock, it means the right of men "to order their actions and dispose
of their person and possessions as they think fit within the bounds of the law
of nature." The American Declaration of Independence (1776) makes it even
clearer, as the "unalienable" rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness including people's right to alter government and impeach the head
of the state. The French National Assembly made a similar assertion in the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen L (1789). These human rights
which came to be established two centuries ago in a few Western countries, have
now achieved universal recognition in the 20th century as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations in 1948.
Law is a set of formal rules devised by the state and
are enforceable by coercion. Law is objective by nature whereas morality is
subjective. Moral rules must not be enacted because they negate the operation of
free will. Yet they are the source of customs which come to be accepted as
customary laws as distinct from positive law, and carry considerable social
sanctions which help to mould the spirit of a cuiture.
Having already described the nature of customs, now I
may discuss tradition, which is composed of a group's customs, beliefs,
superstitions, legends, rituals, modes of performance and especially the
distinctive traits of habits by way of likes and dislikes and preferences and
rejections. The special role of a tradition is that it is handed down from
generation to generation, and thus acts as the mainstay of a culture. Since free
will, the mode of choosing and refusing, is the fountain of a tradition, a
group's character and identity come to be associated with it. Thus culture
usually forms an ingredient of nationhood though not a part of nationalism
(racism).
Every group protects its identity by defending its way
of life which consists of a language, specific tastes, customs, dresses,
fashions, etc. However, a group may change its cultural attitudes voluntarily or
thorough necessity by coming in contact with another group except those which
form the pillars of its identification. But these remarks apply to the advanced
and free-thinking nations only which usually look for the best and readily adopt
it when they find it irrespective of where it comes from. However, the nations
which are regressive and addicted to a culture dictated by religious sanctions,
myths and legends and thus suffer from an inferiority complex, stay rigid in
tlheir outlook and their attitudes, may pose a threat to other groups simply
because they want to maintain their cultura values irrespective of how
pernicious they may be to themselves or to the other people.
|
Index
