Despite being a sociologist, I have no hesitation admitting that culture, especially, the idea that it is venerated, is one of the most overrated things in society. Here, I follow Aristotle’s wisdom passed on via philosopher Martha Nussbaum whose paraphrasing I use here.
It says: “Do not simply follow the ways of your forefathers, do the things that are right.” As we see the epidemic of gunning down people in full view of the cameras in America or read about cruelties of refusing to treat suspected Covid-19 patients in Bangladesh, it is pertinent to bring the issue of culture back to the table.
In America, no one is talking about one of the root problems of American culture -- the absence of gun control laws, or, conversely, easy access to firearms. Yes, racism, economic inequality, and political marginality are important causative factors in American society that account for the high level of gun violence.
But no less important is the “trigger happy culture,” a product of easy availability of guns, which, in turn, is rooted in part in the rugged individualism that is an intrinsic part of American culture. It is the same rugged individualism, ironically, that promoted an individualistic and competitive ethos that fuel capitalism of the American variety. It is time to change all that.
OK, individualism has good points and excessive and rugged individualism has bad points but what about plain cruelty and inhumanity in Bangladesh where patients are denied medical attention on account of either their social status, or nature of ailment, or religion (in India)?
In late May in America, when scores of patriotic Americans showed up in the Michigan State Assembly building with combat grade guns and weapons that you see in action films, no one raised an eyebrow; and the president of the country called them “good people.”
The protesters were using their constitutional right of free speech as guaranteed in the first amendment of the US constitution. They were also combining it with their second amendment right which reads: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be fringed.”
I am no constitutional expert, but my common sense suggests that either we see the second amendment right in the context of the turbulent time or, if you insist on the letters rather than the spirit of the law, then give then the arms of the 18th century, not the modern weaponry of the 21st century about which the framers and shapers of the US constitution had no idea.
The constitution-abiding people of Michigan were protesting the lockdown, isolation, and social distance rules; so far, the only verifiable antidotes against the Covid-19 pandemic. But these rules are quintessentially contrary to the individualistic culture of America.
These patriotic individuals were exercising their rights enshrined in the United States Declaration of Independence: “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” -- an idea borrowed unabashedly from John Locke, a 17th-century English political philosopher. John Locke would cringe at the misuse of his noble idea also shared by the physiocrats and others who promoted the rise of democracy and capitalism.
The man-made (yes, all 39 of the original signatories of the US constitution were men) constitution of the US, is a product of the human mind and not divine words from God. Hence, in view of the present circumstances, the second amendment should be changed or updated accordingly.
The problem is -- the US constitution is no longer a juridical document; it is a venerated part of the American culture assuming a sacrosanct status. The epidemic of violence in the US society makes a mockery of the hallowed phrases of the preamble of the US constitution: “...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide defense, promote the general welfare ...” The problem of culture in Bangladesh is much more complicated.
Despite the image of tranquil, simple-minded nature of our people, despite our caring hospitality, cruelty is deeply embedded in the cultural traditions of Bangladesh. The litany of the police beating of the suspects for extraction of confessions, something also done by the village elders in the rural community to make the suspects confess to their guilt (even though, they may be innocent), or the random beating of suspects to death and lynching. The examples are endless.
Once, I heard a former cabinet minister of Bangladesh comment thus: “In order to survive in Bangladesh, you must have a police officer, a doctor, and a high-level civil servant in the family.” That the vast number of Bangladeshis will remain outside of such a privilege is a truism, but the immediate issue is how to ensure that hospitals have no right to refuse the patients or to mandate that the patients are safely delivered to a hospital earmarked for treating Covid-19 cases.
The absence of the rights of the patients in Bangladesh is appalling and while the responsibility falls on the government to hold the hospitals -- private or public -- accountable, the intelligentsia must examine the problem of cruelty, which is so endemic in Bangladesh.
Habibul Haque Khondker teaches sociology at Zayed University, Abu Dhabi.
