Values? What values?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Since we're about political populism this month, let's talk about values a little bit. This term which is most often used in the plural, and is being so overused in recent times for all sorts of occasions and purposes: from political debates to the regular Sunday sermon, from TV talk-shows to newspaper headlines. Some prefer to put some adjectives in front of it, like Christian, or Western, etc. But most people use them to mean "our" values - you know, the ones we are supposed to defend, now that they're supposedly under attack.

So what are these Western values that everyone keeps blabbering about? We've been talking about them all the time, and yet almost never do we specify what they actually mean.

Let's first attempt looking at those values as if they're to mean Christian values. Although the more apt term would be messages, principles, rules, or goals. Not values. If we assume that in his Sermon on the Mountain, Jesus touched a bit on that issue in the part where he spoke of loving thy enemy, then the message must be that Christians are supposed to love their foes (something that most Christians seem to have forgotten these days, by the way). Or if we attempt to deconstruct what the term "fraternity" means, during the French Revolution, the solidarity between people got secularized, in other words the secular society appropriated the initial theological meaning of the term.

In time, the Western values evolved. The studybooks tell us that the Christian values do not vary from one religious community to another, but they do tend to change over time. However, if you've looked for a precise definition of this process, you might've come to a dead end - and for a reason.

The same is valid for the Western values. For instance, these include the principle of the separation of powers and the human rights. Except, the latter have existed in several versions: one was according to the 1789 French national assembly, another was according go the 1946 United Nations assembly, and yet another one according to the 1949 German Constitution. To name but a few.

Well, there are some differences in the exact interpretation of this principle, and in the behavior of the respective school of thought on human rights, if I may call it that way. This is probably most evident in the actions of the American Founding Fathers: we do know they were slave-holders, which means they institutionalized the violation of a fundamental human right. And don't get me started on the vast variety of definitions and interpretations of human rights from Heinrich Rickert to Max Scheler to Max Weber, etc.

In some European countries for example, the major political parties have special commitees attached to them, whose only task is to uphold the "core values". This probably wouldn't be the case if there was unanimity on the question which the main values are, and which other values (apart from the "core" ones) exist, and how they are supposed to be denoted and treated. "Additional values", perhaps? Or maybe "secondary" values?

By the same token, shouldn't consumerism be also included in those Western values that ought to be... well, valued? It is a fact that almost nothing comes for free, i.e. everything has a certain value. Literally. Further, even if we forget for a while that the word "value" bears some financial and commercial connotations (as in value in money), then do human rights actually have a fiscal value? Doesn't this dilemma mean that the meaning of the term "value" tends to change, depending on whether we talk of values of the separate individual, of social groups, or of society as a whole (which are subject to an objective or a purely subjective assessment)?

By using the term "values", aren't we actually trying to describe our habits and customs in life? Because when we're speaking of individual rights or of ideological pluralism, of solidarity or hedonism, of tolerance, religious diversity and secularism, aren't we actually speaking of our habits, traditions and customs, of rights and rules that we've agreed to follow - or is it truly our social ideals that we're talking about? Which is it?

In a nutshell, when we say "Western values" we mostly mean our Western way of life. And we do have the full right to want to defend that lifestyle and that specific type of behavior that we've inherited and developed along with our societal tradition. But why do we need to denote all this with the term "values"? Could it be that we we want it to look more valuable? If we look into the meaning of the term "values" a bit more closely, it could turn out to be just a verbal shell - pompous and largely useless. In this sense, maybe its overusage is better avoided.

Comments

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

But, but, I believe in the modern liberal values! Or at least I'm required to! Otherwise I'd be considered a bigot/hater/caveman/Nazi.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Technically, Nazism and fascism are a Western invention. As is communism.

[garote]

What forms of government do you not consider "western inventions"?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Absolute monarchy. Theocracy. Hell, even multiethnic empire is not a Western invention.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

When touting our modern day values, it's always interesting how we seem to forget that humankind has existed for a million years or more, even if we only have records of what we'd call "civilization" existing for several thousand. In all that time, are we really going to claim that no one ever dared to suggest that freedom, self-determination, freedom of thought or speech, of conscience, were good things? I mean, the practice of philosophical thought didn't just pop into existence fully-formed in 1650. We are so quick to forget the complex and advanced civilizations of the American continents that existed before the coming of Europeans, which we are only now realizing derived many of the same "western" values all on their own. (And to hear some of the arguments insisting that such advances must have been the work of heretofore undiscovered earlier European or Asian contacts, or even alien visitation, shows just how uncomfortable some folks are at the idea that non-white people might have been every bit as qualified to come up with the vaunted "WESTERN VALUES" that we hold up to be the highest achievement of civilization.)

I'd argue that even the representative democracy we hold so dear isn't really a Western Value, since it was practiced (in its own way) back during the Roman Republic (and while that region might nowadays be called part of "The West," so-called "western values" always seems to be a code-word for "Enlightenment Values," and the Romans were a bit before the Enlightenment, after all. ;)

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Well, what's being called Western civilisation did not suddenly pop out of a vacuum. There's a continuum that includes the ancient Greek and Roman societies, from which Western civilisation claims to originate.

You're right about other civilisations preceding the Western one and actually being the first to invent some of the models and principles that it now has the audacity to consider its own creation.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Plus, it didn't come from Japan, Peru, or even Egypt.

[garote]

One of these days, scientists will invent the one-way time-viewing lens Arthur C Clarke wrote about, and scholars will scan back through time, and discover to their chagrin that democracy has been "invented" at least ten thousand separate times in ten thousand different places all over the globe...

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

DailyQuoted.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

So what are these Western values that everyone keeps blabbering about?

Rule of Law (This is the bedrock. In my opinion. If you have a stable judicial system that can be trusted to act predictably and with consistency you are more than half way to being "Western." )
Individualism
Limited Government (A corollary to #'s 1 and 2)
Free Markets/Enterprise (This is the engine. In my opinion.)
Religious Tolerance/Secularism
Intellectual Freedom/Free Inquiry
Science/Technology/Industry
Affluence/Leisure
Military Power/.Aggression

There are probably more, but if you are talking about the values that define, in the broadest terms, what has become "The West" I think my list is at least a start. They are, for lack of a better term, Enlightenment Values. The application of each has been uneven over history, of course, and each has developed or matured over time at different rates, and some have ever been more honored in the breach, but if you want a snap shot of what sort of knits together and distinguishes "The West" from other global cultures I think this comes close. Not that any of these are unique or confined to "The West," but the more of them you embrace as a culture the more "Western" your culture looks from the outside, (cf. South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong).

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Limited Government

How limited? Like in the US, or like in the UK, or like in France? Or like in Sweden? Or maybe like in Singapore?

Military Power/.Aggression

Like in Russia?

Ps. You omitted "political correctness", "moral high horse" and "hypocrisy".

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

How limited?

It's a sliding scale. They all are. The more limited, the better, in my opinion, but the essence is that government is not totalitarian, it allows civil life to exist outside the scope of the state. There are places in civil life where the state has no cause or let.

Like in Russia?

Sure. I never said these were universal goods, or values that could not be turned to foolish or evil ends. Of course, I also said none of these were confined to the "West," so since Russia is failing currently to live up to any number of the other values I've mentioned, perhaps they are falling outside the parameters of the discussion.

"political correctness", "moral high horse" and "hypocrisy".

I admitted there are probably more. Although I think you could put those down to "Affluence" combining with "Toleration" and "Intellectual Freedom." Hypocrisy is a value found only in places where there are homo sapiens.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

The more limited, the better, in my opinion

Most of Europe would beg to differ. As would Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and so on and so forth.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

That's why they make chocolate and vanilla. As I said, it is a sliding scale and it is also a "Western value" that people should be able organize society according to their own best judgment. Nevertheless, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all have limited governments, even if they are less limited than I might propose. Of course, in my opinion the US government would be better were it more limited, as well.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Isn't every society organized exactly the way it has meant for itself to be organized? It has been said here several times that every society gets exactly the rulers that it deserves. Including totalitarian and autocratic societies.

What I'm trying to achieve with these questions is to discern something that distinguishes "Westernness" from the "non-Westernness". At least in your mind.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Yes. And ones that organize themselves according to these principles, among others, will more likely be "Western" in our modern sense, than not. Remember, Fascism, Monarchy, Communism... these were all "Western" ways to organize society. But in our modern sense, they did not embrace all what I've said distinguish "Western Values." They are, as it were, dead branches on the tree of civilization.

If you look at the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, to varying degrees they all have societies that exhibit those "values" each in their own way and with their own emphasis. This isn't physics or chemistry. You aren't going to get hard and fast rules or laws here.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Yes, but why "values"?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I don't know. Because the word means, "principles or standards of behavior; one’s judgment of what is important in life?"

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Then why not "principles" or "standards"? "Way of life"? Why choose a term that bears materialist connotations (as in something whose value could be measured in money)?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I don't think "values" in this context has a materialist connotation. This may just be a native English speaker's insight, but when I say, "he was raised with good values" it is not the same as "this washing machine is a good value." I think this is a question of the English language being slippery.

[Edit: You can use "principles" but that tends to connote a set of ideas that are more rigid. So, some parts of your "values" are "principles," but other things can also be included in "values", but be more negotiable. You can also use "standards" but that tends to seem prescriptive, "my principles lead me to maintain certain "standards", for example. "Way of Life" is clumsy, in my opinion and it also includes too much, it embraces all parts of a society and clouds the issue.]

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

That's the thing with language. It could get fuzzy. Which makes the whole perpetual PC effort all the more futile.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Three words. White. Christian. Capitalist.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Dunno, Japan and Taiwan are pretty Western these days and neither are the first two. Russia kinda meets all three, with enough corruption thrown in to warrant a third "C" but it certainly isn't Western.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Russia is a democracy? Who knew.

The Western model was imposed onto Japan, and was imported into Taiwan. Guess from where?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

White skin is accidental.

I do think that the West needed the ethical and philosophical foundation established in large part by Christianity, but I don't see that Christianity itself makes much difference to Western culture any more. It is baked in the cultural cake, certainly, but like vanilla, what it adds is subtle and hard to distinguish from Enlightenment, Pragmatism, Existentialism, or any number of other important intellectual movements.

I don't think capitalism, per se, is as important as free markets and competition. In any case, the only reason they work is the Rule of Law and the protection of private property. Without that, all that hard work and innovation is for nothing.

[garote]

I agree that "rule of law" is the bedrock, with two qualifications:

1. The laws are NOT divinely inspired. (For example, clerics adjudicating Sharia law are not Western, no matter how stable or consistent their judgements are.)
2. If laws are not justifiably fair, there is little hesitation to change or even discard them, from the smallest local club all the way up to the largest federal institution.

So, while "rule of law" is bedrock, the details of law can easily drift over time, based on bedrock principles (mostly other things on your list).

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Rule of law is just a theory. Especially as relates to the American or French Revolutions. Revolution actually shits on Rule of Law and replaced it with rule of Dakka.

Limited government is a standard US selectively applied understanding. Government is limited purely by melanin count. For black people or Native Americans, there is no such thing as limited government.

Communism and Fascism are equally Western and both reject the Free Market. So did Throne and Altar absolutism. So did the Confederacy.

That raises the question of why secular conservatives don't exist in the West. It seems like the Le Pens and Hagees want Christendom instead.

Intellectual freedom until people use it in ways conservatives despised, you mean.

Chinese dynastic states invented most of the technology we use. Not the West, which built on a Chinese foundation.

The last two are universal. By that standard Toyotomi Hideyoshi was Western..

[ivankon.livejournal.com]

Values - a valuable habits, rules and customs in contrast to the habits, from which it is easy to give up.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

"In a nutshell, when we say "Western values" we mostly mean our Western way of life."

In practice, this is certainly what those who do most of the talking about defending Western values want folks to think about. Of course, it's very useful to be vague about what those values are. After all, there is much more agreement that Western Values should be defended than there is about what Western Values actually are. It also makes it easier to just talk about defending those values without actually doing much, which is what we find in politicians as opposed to leaders.

There are a few core things that I expect we can all agree on that are Western, that the individual is the basis of society, has natural rights, and that everyone is equal under the law. While this does go against such things as fascism, it's safe to say that fascism isn't what most of those talking about Western Values want their audiences to think about while they're talking. Singapore takes a different view, placing the family as the basic building block of society. While they can teach the world lessons on limited government, religious tolerance, and free market capitalism, whenever individual rights run up against communal harmony, individual rights will lose without question. This gives somewhat of an un-Western feel to the place and leads to a lot of WTF moments, some small (you will can get a ticket if you fail to flush a public toilet after using it, which is a great way to teach your kids BTW), some pretty major (Muslim women have different (and fewer) rights to divorce than non-Muslim women). Singapore is also really run by a family, not an individual. China is an even more extreme example. While it may seem a fundamental violation of someone's rights to tell them how many kids they can have, society's needs outweigh an individual's rights. It's of course a slam dunk since an individual doesn't really have any rights other than those the government gives them.

Of course, Western governments have never done a perfect job of implementing our values, but I'd say we've gotten better over time. While Western governments certainly had slavery, this didn't make us unique. What did make Western societies unique is that we have taken steps to outlaw slavery worldwide. Over the past few centuries, Western societies have gotten better at implementing our values. Still not perfect, but if you look even over the past few decades, we are certainly moving in what I'd consider to be the right direction. Of course, many of those who talk about supporting our values mean something different than making further progress at treating everyone equally before the law, which gives a distorted perception about what Western Values really are, but then another Western belief is that people are fundamentally flawed.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Judging by what the West actually does it's a culture of death glorying in pious hypocrisy about freedom even as it in reality is a bunch of parasitical gangsters. The West was born in the bloodbath of the French Reign of Terror and adopts highly selective amnesia because the 20th Century taught Europeans how the White Man's Burden looks applied to them. They are very good at tolerating nonexistent minorities. The USA of course is just a more successful Mexico/Brazil complete with racial castes and now with over fondness for the soldiers.