Norms are so subjective at times. If I had been in Central Asia I would have stood and given up the seat. If I were a bit older, or my beard perhaps a bit longer or greyER they would have risen for me. Age and location are often so intrinsic to the applied norm, that it seems rather difficult to impute or expect those actions/reactions to someone else in another place and to someone of a different age or circumstance. That times change means that norms change and therefore respect among generations evolves inevitably to charges of "insolent" or "thoughtless" for the young and "quaint" and "outdated" for the elderly, and these even amongst people of the same place and general history.
It is difficult to respect other norms. We have our own beauty, our own preferred flavors, our sensibilities in social interactions. How then do we go from isolationism in one century to exporting and enforcing our norms in the next? Moreover, how are our norms perceived or developed and adopted? How do we adopt others? Which norms are sui generis, generated from some mutual experience or grand suffering and perceived as obvious?
I don't think norms are universal. The reasons for norms to be different across borders, physical and political, are self-evident at times and understandable by reference to the social and economic pressures at others.
So, a few questions:
1. Why do we abhor child soldiers? We wish to fight for something when we're young. We feel strongly and resolutely in our vision of right and wrong. Of course youth clouds our judgment from inexperience, but this does not lesson the desire to make "things right." If my family had been tortured or my sister raped or my father de-handed or my brother forcibly conscripted, I would want to fight back. Why should I be barred from the opportunity to redeem myself and family?
2. Why not create a missile shield that will shoot missiles down regardless of target and without respect to origin? We claim a need for safety, but withhold that safety net to others. Self-preservation it is termed, where "preservation" is understood and "self" becomes the allies du jour.
Of course there are other such questions. What we expect of others, we fail to live up to. What we expect of ourselves, we desire of others first. So are norms what we do or what we expect? Are they what we want or what we hope for? IN every circumstance, the norm is different somewhere else. And yet, we hold the world to a single standard in love and war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In regards to your first question regarding child soldiers, the opposition toward them comes as an issue of consent. As with many other issues, there is a common perception that someone under 18 cannot adequately make the decision to enlist in a military and engage in warfare. While some of the limitations may be arbitrary, others are in place due to an understanding about cognitive development. Sure, a child might seek revenge for wrongs such as those you listed. However, cognitive development and maturity might impair the ability of the child to truly understand the nature of revenge. Additionally, there is the problem of whether a child can handle the trauma of war. A major problem with child soldiers is rehabilitation. The psychological effects are immense. This should be no surprise as even those over 18 have a hard time dealing with the realities of warfare as evidenced by the high rates of suicide and violent crime by returning vets (the news has had numerous reports of the problems that our vets are having upon return from Iraq).
There is also a problem of the means used to recruit child soldiers. Oftentimes the children are preyed upon and their 'choice' to join is seen as a function of their immaturity and inability to say no to an adult. In places like Sierra Leone it was common for children to be recruited through manipulative means--older siblings might pressure them to join in order to be 'cool' or to ensure the affection of the sibling. Sometimes such manipulation was done more coercively: children were faced with a decision to join or die. In yet other circumstances, children were kept under the constant influence of drugs, thus severely limiting their ability to make decisions.
In some ways this norm might be bound to a certain time and space (opinions of age of consent for example), yet in others it is rooted in a fairly universal norm about protecting children.
Regarding your second question on the issue of a wider missile shield: First of all, you argue that this shield should not take origin into account – you seem to be advocating for a universal missile shield. If this is the case, then there are many implications to consider. I would argue that this could functionally create an arms race to create weapons that evade the shield. More likely than that, the tactics of “evil doers” would likely shift to a strategy that would subsume the efficacy of the shield.
On the other hand, it is possible that a universal missile shield could make nuclear weapons obsolete – not merely because the norm against their use would persist, but also because they would functionally become useless in world where a shield indiscriminately targets missiles.
I’d like to think we can progress to a way of life that makes not only nuclear weapons, but war a thing of the past. Perhaps the best way to do this is to neutralize the horrific effects of these weapons with a global shield. The pessimistic side of me thinks that no nuclear power is going to relinquish the power they get from having the edge in nuclear arsenals. From a foreign policy perspective, it’s just not in their immediate interests.
The very definition of norms signifies that they are not, as you observe, universal. Norms are collective understandings of the appropriate behavior of actors with a given identity (Katzenstein). When thinking about what norms are for a given situation, you also have to consider who are all the actors and if they all share a certain identity that would adhere them to that norm. Norms are very subjective. Norms in the US are not the same as norms in other parts of the world because the actors involved are different; they identify themselves differently. However there are norms that most people in the world (or most states) would identify with. You won't understand why a certain norm exists (or followed or violated) unless you also have an understanding of the actors involved. That in my mind is what makes traveling and living in different cultures so interesting. In answer to some of your other questions, there's quite a bit of literature on how norms evolve and develop, why some exist and others don't, and why some are complied with and others aren't. Some scholars to check out are: Finnemore, Sikkink, Checkel, Cortell, Legro. Also another distinction about norms is that they can influence and guide behavior, but they don't necessarily dictate behavior and that's why norms aren't completely complied with all the time.
I agree with what Gort said about child soldiers. Oh some level it is true that childhood is a socially created construct but also, there is truth in the fact that children are not as mentally developed as adults. Their abilities to wholly understand their decisions is limited, hence different ages for being a minor or an adult. The impressionability of children is another factor (although having said that, 18 year olds are pretty damn impressionable as well). I think the fact that some child soldiers have written about their lack of choice in regards to joining a group also highlights the importance of having norms for this issue.
Post a Comment