22630: Re: Minn -- Can a culture be "sick"? Re: 22437: Mambo Racine On Criticizing Rape in Haiti (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: pminn@po-box.mcgill.ca


I was concerned that in all of the discussion that followed Kathy Grey's posts
on rape in Haiti, one of her arguments received relatively little attention:

.." Tell me what you will, the situation in the USA, though far, far from
perfect, is not quite so sick.  Yes, I said SICK.  Some cultures are
healthier than others!  Why should we be afraid to acknowledge this simple fact?
 I thought we went over this ground before - healthier, superior cultures
afford their members longer lives, better physical health, a non-violent manner
ofchoosing leaders and spokespeople, equitable economic access, equitable
access to education, promotion of creativity. Sick, inferior cultures afford
their members shorter lives, worse health, violence in connection with
government, restricted economic access, deprivation of information and
education, and little support for
creativity."

(In response to a recent, anonymous post -- Kathy Grey IS indeed using the words
“sick” and “inferior” to describe a culture.)

I find it unfortunate that many people I have spoken with, including Haitians
and friends of Haiti (as well as people who know virtually nothing about the
country) share this point of view.

To begin with, Kathy Grey switches from talking about a "situation" to a
"culture."  This raises an important question -- is "a culture" an integrated
whole?  Can part of a culture be sick?  Would that mean that the rich and
beautiful aspects of life in Haiti (spirituality, language, music, proverbs)
are healthy, while the destructive and harmful aspects (rape, poverty,
exploitation, violence) are sick?  What does this mean for "Haitian culture" on
the whole, if there is such a thing?

Secondly, the use of "sick" as an adjective... To me, sickness represents
disease or malfunction in a living organism.  I can understand how a tree or a
frog or a person can be sick, but I don't think it's a useful way of talking
about a culture.  (This is not to say that there aren't high rates of illness
and disease in Haiti's population.)  It's common to think of a social group in
terms of a living or human body -- the body is an easy metaphor to think with.
But again, I don't find it a particularly useful way of describing social
processes, interactions, social change, etc.

I'm not arguing that certain populations don't have disproportionately high
rates of harmful and destructive behavior.  Among some First Nations
populations in Canada (where I live), the percentage of deaths related to
violence and/or alcohol has at times been as high as 75%. This means that only
25% of the population is dying of disease or old age.  These communities also
experience high rates of sexual violence and suicide.  All of these problems
are socially patterned -- they occur in predictable and repeated forms.  Young
people observe the behavior of adults and older children, and like young people
around the world, repeat many of these behaviors.  Is this part of a group's
culture?  I guess it could be interpreted as such, but it seems that the real
issue (similar to the one in Haiti) is that the rapid and violent social
changes that affected these populations did not happen on their terms.

In many parts of the world, it seems that sexual violence is linked to economic
conditions.  This certainly seems to be part of the problem in Haiti, where
women often remain in violent and abusive relationships out of economic
necessity.  We all know that economic conditions in Haiti are in large part the
result of global systems that extract wealth from poorer countries and leave
their populations worse off.  Is economy a part of Haitian culture?  Most
people would say so when talking about open-air markets and the practice of
using livestock as “banks.”  But are global economic systems a part of Haitian
culture?  This becomes harder to conceptualize.

Some other questions -- Kathy Grey writes that cultures "afford their members"
benefits or disadvantages.  But isn't a culture made up of its members?  Or is
it something that these members collectively produce?  Does a culture reside
within its members or is it imposed on them?  When heinous acts like rape are
committed, to what degree is the individual to be held accountable if the act
is part of a much larger pattern?  None of these are particularly original
questions, nor are they easy or rewarding to try to answer.  Still, I
personally feel more comfortable trying to get new perspectives on them while
working for positive changes in Haiti, rather than claiming that the culture of
over 8 million individuals is "sick," especially since I have not met most of
these people.  (I cherish the contact I have had with thousands of them.)

An increasing number of anthropologists and other social scientists are starting
to leave the concept of culture behind, and are looking for new ways to talk
about social patterns, processes and change.  Hopefully some of these new ways
will be able to help us work through some of the difficulties and complications
I've written about above.

Thanks for reading,
Pierre Minn