Introduced by: David Camacho
Moderated by: Steve Palmquist
David began by outlining some his experiences and ideas on cultural identity (click here to see the text of his introduction). First he distinguished between Religious Taoism (which involved the worship of deities and included a belief in feng shui) and Philosophical Taoism, based on the Tao Te Ching (a work -- The Way -- purported to have been written by a single Chinese scholar, Lao Tze, over two thousand years ago). He described Philosophical Taoism's stance as being that "the answer is only as relevant as the question." Culture, he went on, is not relevant to a Taoist. Taoism refutes nothing but is non-absolute. He gave a dictionary definition of culture as "a totality of socially transmitted behaviour patterns, characteristic of a people." But from a Taoist perspective, any definition or boundary is an abstraction that is mutually supportive of what it "fences in" as well as what it "fences out." As such, boundaries are essentially imaginary and stifle creativity. He claimed that all philosophers are Taoists in the respect of how they treat boundaries. Another famous Taoist teacher, Chuang Tze, wrote that life itself is undifferentiated; only humankind expresses things in terms of difference. Understanding requires neither agreement nor disagreement.
David went on to give several examples from personal experience of the irony of inter-cultural relations. One such experience was at the border between Pakistan and India where the closing of the frontier gate was marked by a ceremony, on both sides, which had very much in common. Neither side saw this, apparently. He also described a Greek man whose Danish wife also "hated" Turks by association (with her husband), though she had never met a Turk. David also found ironies in the intricacies of Chinese-ness between Mainland Chinese, Hong Kong Chinese and American Chinese. He claimed there is no possibility of a unified human culture, and that civilization destroys culture.
David concluded by summing up Taoism's main points. The Universe is undifferentiated. Dualist positions are the result of human endeavour. Non-Existence and Existence are the same thing. The Tao (the Way) comes before existence. Truth is born out of the womb of matter.
Steve asked if there were any brief questions for clarification. One lady asked if culture and nationality were being used synonymously, to which David replied that they were not. Another person asked how David distinguished between culture and civilization. David opined that the former is still possible without the latter. After these and several other clarifications, Steve dismissed us for a 45-minute small group discussion, asking each group to appoint a spokesperson to give a short summary of the group's ideas when we reconvene.
After the meeting reconvened, Michael Roth volunteered to present the first summary. His group thought the word 'culture' could not really apply to a Nation or a Country but was more applicable at a local level, as in the phrase "corporate culture". They also felt that within cultures there are different layers of "culture." They could not describe common animal behaviors as culture however. His group felt that culture was like the skin of an onion, with layer upon layer. Another idea they can up with was that culture tries to protect behaviors. They agreed with David on the impossibility of a global culture. In summary, they felt there is validity to the concept of cultural identity in the human context. They gave the following four points for us to consider: cultures define boundaries of social behaviour; cultures enable behaviors that promote social interaction; cultures modify behaviors to the benefit of the members; cultures provide a framework of behavior that may be used to avoid conflict.
Helen Li disagreed with both Michael's group and with David. She argued that global culture does exist. She felt, for example, that the current wave of Westernization / Americanization is good, in that it blurs (cultural) distinctions and improves understanding between people from different backgrounds. Steve asked whether this idea is paradoxical, since some people see Westernization / Americanization as a threat. Roy asked whether people felt that in the exposure of one culture to another there is an "erosion" of one's own culture or an "enrichment" with the other's culture. That is, does travel broaden your horizons or reinforce your prejudices?
Steve asked what determines whether a person's exposure to another culture will have a positive or a negative effect. In agreeing with David, Roy maintained that this depends on the individual's values and is contextual and relative. He pointed out that football fans supporting teams from two opposing countries have more in common with each other than either set of fans would have with, say, baseball fans from their own country.
One lady voiced a concern with the so-called Taoist position on culture (later echoed by a number of others), saying that it does not have much to offer, especially since it seems to steer clear of making any value judgments. The discussion intensified as this point was discussed at some length. How can the Taoist position help, if it says judgment is not possible or appropriate? Some people replied that the level or locus of judgments on cultural issues is at a personal level. One lady charged that the position of Michael's group rested on an implicit assumption of Western values. Michael denied this.
Elizabeth Lee said that in her experience teaching cross-cultural management, personal judgment can either be an influence on how members of a group behave or each member's judgment can be dependent on how the group behaves. She quoted the example of the reason many of us come to the HKPC: our common purpose in coming here gives rise to a group culture, even though we all decided to come independently, as individuals.
Several people expressed the view that the evolution of global culture, especially through the internet, is feeding different cultures, while others claimed it is destroying them. Some felt that cultural difference promotes conflict and therefore is not a good thing. Steve suggested looking at the Latin root of the term "conflict" (???-together), but nobody knew what the "-flict" comes from. Dave added that civilizations or cultures, be they primitive or sophisticated, tend to see alternative civilizations or cultures as primitive.
On the basis of what had gone before Roy, concluded that neither the Tao nor Philosophy is practical, if it cannot allow for difference. Philosophy appears to be meaningless to everyday life.
Steve sought to give the Tao some relevance in this respect by reminding everyone that the Taoist ideas arose during a period of China's history when it probably had the most highly developed culture on earth. In this context, the Tao should not be regarded as a retreat into a primitive, distinctionless way of approaching the world, but rather as promoting an advanced standpoint--one that seeks to unify our understanding of competing beliefs, without an outright denial of difference. Chuang Tze began by acknowledging that differences exist, but then urged people to look beyond these, to a standpoint that does not privilege any particular dogma. Dave agreed, adding that Taoism arose in the context of a feudal culture and was a system of thought intended not for avoiding conflict, but for dealing with it. Jeff also agreed with Steve that the Tao is not meant to avoid conflict but aims a more profound recognition that difference is an essential requirement of life. Hot needs cold. High needs Low. Life is, in fact, relational.
One person suggested that an expression used several times during the meeting -- "the Taoist perspective" -- is an oxymoron. There can be no such thing, though the phrase still retains some usefulness in referring to Taoism as a philosophical endeavour. Dave added that it only seeks to build mutual understanding; it does not seek to destroy difference.
Francisco concluded the discussion by pointing out that the whole debate had become sterile. Western Civilization promotes materialism and loneliness. We are in fact much more abstracted from these important issues than we have ever been before. 2,000 years ago people were not concerned with such issues. We have lost our sense of perspective and more importantly our humor. He urged us to learn from other cultures without seeking to destroy them.
+++
As the newly formed HKPC Executive Committee had agreed that meeting topics should henceforth be planned two months in advance, Steve announced that Lene Nielsen will introduce the next HKPC meeting to be held in October on a topic related to the Philosophy of Nature. The following topics were then suggested for the November meeting:-
Eat to Live or Live to Eat
Equality versus Fairness
Capitalism versus Communism
Is Fairness Justice?
Freewill versus Determinism
Are there Absolute Human Rights?
Does Freedom have a Price?
Championships -- What is the Point?
In view of the upcoming Sydney Olympics, Steve noted that the latter would be the most timely topic. However, in view of the large number of people in attendance (over 50), he suggested that it would be too difficult to attempt to reach a "consensus", as in previous meetings. Everyone therefore agreed to leave the choice of topic for the November meeting up to the Executive Committee.
This page was placed on this web site on 14 October 2000.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.