Charles Taylor Politics of Difference

3. The Importance of Understanding Mr. Charles
Taylor's Concept of"Genuine" Recognition for
Different Human Cultures and Individuals.
Delicious Digg Facebook Reddit Stumble Upon
Technorati Mixx Sphinn Twitter SphereIt
Propeller Gmarks Newsvine Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal Blinklist E-mail
Share
The purpose ofthis essay, is to reveal the
importance ofunderstanding Mr. Charles
Taylor's concept of"genuine respect" in
contemporary society. Before we can begin to
understand the importance ofthis concept, we
first must realize, that all individuals and
cultures, in relationship to one another, are very
different and distinct from one another. To
surrender oneselfto this first idea, that all
human individuals and cultural groups are not
the same, is the first step in understanding the
importance ofthis concept of"genuine respect".
It is only after we are convinced,that all human
beings and cultures have different idea's of"the
good", that are not inferior to one another in
status, that we can then proceed, to understand
Mr. Charles Taylor's concept ofrecognizing
other human beings and cultures with a
"genuine respect".Nowthat we are convinced
of this first idea, we can now go on to
conceptualize the definition Mr. Charles Taylor
gives to the word "respect". To Mr. Charles
Taylor, there are two types of"respect".One is
considered a "genuine respect"; while the other
is a façade of "genuine respect". The latter, is in
direct opposition to the first. In this sense, Mr.
Charles Taylor is distinguishing the first type of
respect as being a beneficial type ofrespect in
relationship to the latter. This second idea, that
these two types ofrespect, are in direct
opposition to each other, is the second crucial
idea that we must believe in order to proceed

4. any further in obtaining an understanding of
the original concept of"genuine respect". Now
that we have accepted this second supposition,
we can then go on to realize, that there are some
people who actively want to obtain not only this
concept of"genuine respect", but also, that
these same people would benefit from this
obtaining this "genuine respect". So let us go on
to define what exactly the idea of"genuine
respect" is now. To the people who want to
obtain "genuine respect", "genuine respect" to
them means that they do not want to receive any
respect in a patronizing sense, or even, in a
sense because they are demanding respect.
To them, simply demanding respect from
another individual or culture, and receiving this
respect only because the other individual or
culture feels coerced into giving the demanders
any respect at all, is not the act of"genuine
respect". This would be an act, in Mr. Charles
Taylor's words," No one can really mean it as a
genuine act ofrespect.It is more in the nature
of a pretend act ofrespect given on the
insistence ofits supposed beneficiary.
Objectively, such an act involves contempt for
the latter's intelligence"(Taylor:1994:70).
Further, Taylor states," Moreover, even ifone
could demand it of them, the last thing one
wants at this stage from Eurocentered
intellectuals is positive judgements ofthe worth
of cultures that they have not intensively studied
(Taylor:1994:70).Before going further, I think
that it is important to understand exactly who
these people are that not only are demanding
this "genuine respect", but who also would
benefit from obtaining this "genuine respect".
Although, in the above paragraph Taylor refers
to "Eurocentered intellectuals", as persons who
can give only this second type ofrespect
connected with an ill-will, to the persons that
want "genuine respect", these "Eurocentered
intellectuals" do have the potential to give

5. "genuine respect" to the people that want it.
But this is only possible,after they have studied
the culture that is different and foreign to them,
that they were judging prematurely with "ill-
will". Only then, are they able to make a true
judgement ofthe worth about the cultures of
others with "genuine respect." Ifwe all are
different individuals and different cultures, it
would seem that in applying Taylor's concept of
"The Politics ofDifference",that since we are
all distinct in some way or another way, that
every individual or culture can benefit from a
"genuine respect".After all, we must consider
that even the "Eurocentered intellectuals"
referred to, in order to justify the concept of
"genuine respect",is rested on the
understanding that all individuals and cultures
not only have equal worth, but also that they all
have something equally important to say, share,
and that we can learn from, This means that
even the "Eurocentered intellectuals", should be
understood an respected as a different culture
in this sense.
Taylor explains this in saying," Just as all must
have equal civil rights, and enjoy equal voting
rights, regardlessofrace or culture, so all
should enjoy the presumption that their
traditional culture has value" (Taylor:1994:68).
So what value might the "Eurocentered
intellectuals" have we might ask? They have
made us at least cognizant ofthe fact, that we
might be receiving the type ofrespect that is a
façade to "genuine respect". So then we can
understand that even they, have something that
is equally important to learn from for us. Taylor
does say that although this demand for
"genuine respect",is most beneficial to the
individuals and cultures that have been
deprived this "genuine respect" in the past by
what Taylor refers to as "the colonizers",
Particularly those colonizer's from western

6. Europe, that imposed depreciating selfimages
on those people that they subjugated.Who are
these people that have would benefit from this
"genuine respect",and, who are these people
and cultures whom have internalized these
depreciating self-images, in addition to have
been subjugated by the ethnocentricity ofthose
western European colonizers? Taylor says that
these people are, "women, and for people of
non-European races and cultures…for pupils in
mainly black schools" (Taylor:1994:65) to
mention those at the fore.Taylor speaks ofnot
only understanding the importance "that we all
recognize the equal value ofdifferent cultures;
that we not only let them survive,but
acknowledge their worth" (Taylor:1994:64).But
also, that in order for these people and cultures,
which were once subjugated, "in order to free,
must purge themselves ofthese depreciating
self-images…that there is a
struggle"(Taylor:1994:65) for this type of
purging as well. This attempt and struggle to
free oneselfofdepreciating and distorted self-
images, placed on them by those ethnocentric
colonizers,is a violent internal struggle for
freedom. To recover from these distorted self-
images, is to return to one's "authenticity" and
to be able to be free in the sense that we can
return to the hearing and expressing ofour own
inner voice, which tells us our own "idea ofthe
good." This is the concept Taylor refers to as
"being true to ourselves".This,according to
Taylor. is the only way that we can fulfill our
lives as Taylor explains it," We are asked to step
outside the dimension ofhuman life, in which
reputations are sought, gained, and unmade.
Howyou appear in public space should not be
important to you (Taylor:1994:46). In other
words, Taylor explains this idea by stating, "
We might speak ofan individualized identity,
one that is particular to me, and that I discover
in myself(Taylor:1994:28). In referring to this

7. particular identity, this is a particular identity
that we developed in a distinct culture, in a
dialogue between ourselves,and our significant
others within our own culture." In order to
recover from our distorted image ofourselves in
not an easy task, after many years ofhearing
external voiceswhich have demeaned us.
Therefore,it is important that other people, in
particular the majority culture which has
imposed its norms and demeaning labels on us
for so long, begin to recognize that we are not
second class citizens,nor are we equal by
receiving equal civil rights by our majority
governing polity and their governing principles
alone, such as those in the constitutions ofa
liberal democratic society such as in the United
States i.e., Bill ofRights.This is not considered
"genuine respect" by the people demanding it
either. That is the false respect that they do not
want. They want the majority to understand
that for us to be genuinely respected is not
continue to demean us or label us i.e., the "Zulu
Tolstoy" example. Nor is "genuine respect"
based on making judgements ofworth, of
individuals, or of cultures that are foreign to us
on the basis ofour own culture. This too is also
considered to be an ill-will. Why is this? While
one might think at first thought, that one is
giving a "genuine respect" for the practices of
the "languages" i.e., as art. love, music, and of
even the literature ofa minority culture , or that
of an individual that has ways very foreign to us
simply by liking the sound ofthe music, or
saying "I really like that", they are still not
understanding the importance ofwhat "genuine
respect" really is, or why this type offalse
respect is contemptible. It is contemptible, and
understood as ill will because," it implies that
we already have the standards to make such
judgements.The standards we have however,
are those ofNorth American civilization."
(Taylor:1994:71).

8. This is why the example ofthe "Zulu Tolstoy" is
so demeaning. In judging the works or another
culture in such a manner, we would be saying
that , "they have to produce our kind of
excellence", so the judgement oflike or dislike is
made by our own standards, and that of our
own culture, which," By simplicity invoking our
standards to judge all civilization and cultures,
the politics ofdifference can end up making
everyone the same…The moral and political
thrust of the complaint concerns unjustified
judgements ofinferior status allegedly made of
nonhegemonic cultures.We are not demanding
to "Include these because they're ours, even
thought they may be inferior" (Taylor:1994:68-
71. The demand that we seek in others,called
"genuine respect" is this," For real judgements
of worth suppose a fused horizon ofstandards,
as we have seen; they suppose that we have
transformed by the study ofthe other, so that
we are not simply judging by our original
familiar standards." Taylor:1994:70). So then,
in order to give a true and valid judgment of the
works ofanother culture that is not our own, we
must study the culture," because for a
sufficiently different culture, the very
understanding ofwhat it is to be ofworth will
be strange and unfamiliar to us…We learn to
move in a broader horizon, within which what
we have formerly taken for granted as the
background to valuation can be situated as one
possibility alongside the different background of
the unfamiliar culture"(Taylor:1994:67). So
then, whether we like Hindu music or not is not
the point, it is alright to not like it, only if we
respect Hindu music as having an "equal
footing" in worth and that it is one ofequally
different cultural "languages" and works that
we may or may not enjoy or like, but that we
approach each varying culture and their works
with the idea that ,"true judgements ofvalue of
different works would place all cultures more or
less on the same footing",that ofequally

9. possibly having something we might like
because they are different from our own
culture, but yet, that they are not inferior to our
own culture"(Taylor:1994:66).
This is "genuine respect" the way that it is
demanded by its proponents. In closing in Mr.
Charles Taylor's words, "Perhaps one could put
it another way: it would take supreme
arrogance to discount this possibility."
(Taylor:1994:73).So that if we cannot approach
a judgment of a work, with the idea that it has
an equal and non-inferior status to that ofour
own culture, this would mean that we are
ethnocentric and we have failed morally in our
own arrogance, and this is the viewas seen by
the advocated ofthe politics ofdifference.
Jill Starr Chapman

10. Č
đ
Add files
Comments

11. Recent Site Activity|Report Abuse|Print Page|Remove Access|Powered By Google Sites