I'm all for finding mutual common ground and agree that it is the only way past conflicts; however, the simple perception of common ground can create the very problems we wish to combat. Take the imperialists for example. (Let's assume that they even had a consideration of mutual benefit in their minds - which they most certainly did not.)
Or maybe we should consider small-pox infested blankets. Imperialists think it's good. The natives think it's good too. Both for the same different reasons. "Hey... dirt for blankets is not a bad deal at all!"
On second thought, let's not use the Imperialists as an example. But nevertheless, we know it is possible for people to be so deluded so as to think they're truly helping others when they are not. Oblivious in the face of their detrimental effects. So then: it seems we can't rely on ourselves to do the norm translating. Who will do it then?
Our context is the only one we know. Others know their own. Even within our own limited circles, context can vary greatly. The people living in the apartment above may think it's okay to harvest organs, while those living down the hall only think of playing organs. Across the street the organ meat is sacred, across the ocean, they grind it up for sausage. Behold the sacred sausage! But to all outside observers, we are of the same culture, living in the same environment, much the same context. Commonality is harder to find than I thought. Dubious.
Lest we become mired in the morass of relativism, let us consider the family below:
They seem like nice people. Sometimes there is just not enough overlap to find common ground. Or maybe the overlapping areas hold no uniting power.
Like you said, to find true understanding we need some form of concentrism - both being born from the same locus. Now, I ask you, how do we find that point?
No comments:
Post a Comment