A Stable Culture

Sen argues for a redefinition of development as the expansion of freedoms for the affected people. Early on in his argument, he discusses how this development may sometimes conflict with the traditions and cultures of established societies. He recognizes that many have objected to development, as it often comes at the expense of native people and the preservation of their culture. Those who dismiss this objection justify the loss of culture with the claim that the rise in income and GNP will make up for any cultural loss. Sen rejects such a black-and-white solution, and instead argues that everyone in the society must have a voice in deciding whether to keep the tradition or pursue their own development. The conflict, as Sen sees it, is between the value that the people must decide which traditions they wish to value and between the insistence (by authorities or by others in the community) that all traditions must be valued. He argues that the decision to keep or discard the tradition must come down to the decision of the people, as long as the tradition does not suppress any particular freedom.

The problem arises when one recognizes that in many societies, this is not as easy as it seems. I see four possible problems with Sen’s solution. One, the tradition may be specifically excluding a certain group of people, such as the old Indian caste system, and the lower members of the system would hardly be welcomed in voicing their objections about their caste. Second, the tradition may have religious significance, causing its retention to be not only a cultural conflict, but a deeply moral one. This could result in people being absurdly protective of a tradition that may have little value or even negative value. Thirdly, leaders of the community, be they religious or political leaders, may have a vested interest in keeping the tradition alive, and will attempt to force their people to keep it even if the people would ordinarily prefer development. Lastly, people could be in such an impoverished state that they would agree to practically anything to change their situation for the better.

I recognize that Sen does not attempt in his book to provide a step-by-step guide on how to change tradition. However, such an issue is pressing in current events, and I think that, if not evaluated, it could pose a significant threat to Sen’s theory. As we’ve read in Lebron and Harris, traditions often become embedded in our culture and become an implicit bias that affects everyone in a society. Even in our democratic society, where people work constantly to change outdated modes of thinking and open up freedoms to oppressed people, traditions are incredibly difficult to overturn. If one looks to a less democratic society, or one in which traditions are inextricably intertwined with morality, the reversal of tradition is nigh impossible. The issue that struck me particularly while reading this section was the case in Afghanistan of the woman accused of burning a Quran. For those who don’t know, last year a woman in Afghanistan was falsely accused of burning a Quran and was murdered by a mob. This concerns issues both of religious traditions and of oppression of a certain group, in this case women. While many in the country were upset over this hideous act, few people were actually penalized, and the negligent police were hardly punished at all. Such a situation leads me to wonder how realistic Sen’s solution is, that tradition must be evaluated by everyone in a society. While I agree with him in principle, I think his conception seriously misses the point of tradition, which is that it is deeply ingrained in the psyche of a society, and to change the tradition is to change, at least to some degree, the people. Every tradition is emotionally charged and deeply rooted historically. It is not as simple as simply taking a democratic vote on whether or not to continue a certain cultural expression.