Tit for tat

Something came up in a very interesting conversation I had recently which had me thinking. We was discussing the increasing importance of a small dose of philosophy in today's education systems, particularly the significance of the ethic of reciprocity. You know, "do unto others as you would hae others do unto you", or words to similar effect as articulated (and often conveniently ignored) in all the major spiritual traditions on Earth. The interesting bit was this:

How does one reconcile the ethic of reciprocity with the unhappy reality that there are some cultural traditions that other cultures find repulsive?

For instance, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out in her brilliant book, Infidel, that female circumcision* is still practiced in parts of Somalia. To some, particularly the conservative older generation, such practices are age old traditions, not to be questioned. To the rest of us, it's just plain barbarism.

At the time, no answer was forthcoming, and it seemed to me that the ethic of reciprocity had its limits, that it was not a hard and fast rule. "I can have my traditions, but you can't have yours if they offend the sensibilities of the greater part of society," it seemed. So, female circumcision is wrong because the majority says it's wrong? This is not a basis for truth. As great revolutions in science has proven, time and again, belief does not create truth. It may create the illusion of truth, i.e. lies. It may, through sufficient insight, agree with or come close to the truth, i.e. empirically derived truth.

But, after fermenting in my head for a bit, I did hit upon a solution so simple it seemed odd that it didn't occur to me before: Strip away the veneer of tradition and what are you left with? A minority of people in the world, who engage in a practise that brings unnecessary pain and permanent scarring to half their population. Behind the absurd mask of tradition, that is all this so-called "coming of age ritual" is. Tradition masks the ugly truth of this barbaric ritual: It exists simply to perpetuate male dominance. Because of the childish insecurities of one half of the population, the other half must suffer needlessly their whole lives. Perversely enough, many of the women actually buy into the delusion that this tradition is sacred and protects the purity of virgin girls in some way.

And here we come to realize a truth of society: Tradition is a mask, and as society evolves, tradition must be questioned. One must see past the face of it and understand truly what purpose it serves in society. To make progress possible, everything must be subject to the same standards of truth - nothing may be held as sacred.

In this light, such practices as female circumcision (or indeed any form of circumcision, for that matter) serve no constructive purpose in society and have no justification for their continued practice, leading us to the conclusion that they simply shouldn't be carried out. And of course, this says something about the level of ethical and intellectual maturity of the societies that do engage in such meaningless mutilations of their own children. They're arrogant savages, so caught up in misplaced pride for their own traditions, however inane or barbaric, that they cannot see the harsh reality of what their doing.

Perhaps they might argue that such practices are what brings them closer together as a community. Such an argument is nonsensical in light of the fact that there are many, far more agreeable ways to achieve such ends. Exchange of gifts is a good start. As was pointed out by Jared Diamond (in Collapse, I think), there's an old Inuit saying: "The best place to keep a spare fish is in another man's stomach." And so that happy game around which societies are really built, reciprocal altruism, is initiated.

So remember, comrades: Tradition is NOT a valid justification. It's just a pretty word to keep simple minds from asking questions.

* That's the polite term. A more accurate phrase would be female genital mutilation. This link is not for the faint of heart.