book review forward -Reply

[Stephen M. Feldman]

I basically agree with one statement by Mr. Koven:  there is a dominant
culture in (almost) every society.  I am puzzled, however, by his suggestion
that domination is therefore not worth recognizing and discussing.
Stephen M. Feldman

>At 1:59 AM +0500 6/28/97, Stephen M. Feldman wrote:
>
>>I fully
>>understand how and why members of outgroups often just "go along" and avoid
>>confronting "indignities."...In chapter 10, I wrote:
>>"Members of the subcultural [out]group go unheard (and sometimes unseen) by
>>members of the dominant cultural and other subcultural groups.  Indeed, in
>>the face of cultural imperialism, outgroup members sometimes figuratively
>>(and sometimes literally) stop speaking, so that there is nothing to be
>>heard.  In Lynch, for example, the Court supported its conclusion by noting
>>that, prior to that lawsuit, nobody had complained about the cr che even
>>though it had been publicly displayed for forty years.  To the Court, this
>>silence meant that the cr che had not generated dissension--apparently,
>>everybody happily supported the Christmas display.  The Court overlooked the
>>possibility, however, that Christian cultural imperialism had produced the
>>silence of religious outgroup members.  Silence can bespeak domination, not
>>consensus" (at 264-65).
>
>Plainly, Prof. Feldman believes that having a dominant culture in a society
>is a Bad Thing. I suppose therefore that in Israel no Jew should say to a
>stranger on the street on Saturday, "Shabat shalom." Yes, yes, you're going
>to say that Israel is in some sense an officially sanctioned theocracy,
>despite its claims that it respects "Western" norms of civil society. But
>this country wasn't supposed to be an officially secular society, either,
>only one where the government didn't interfere with people's religion or
>irreligion. Of course there is a dominant culture in any society, and good
>thing for it; calling it nasty names like "imperialist" not only doesn't
>advance the discussion, but it confuses cause and effect.
>
>It also occurs to me, based on the above excerpt, that there is an
>epistemological discontinuity between both members of "ingroups" and
>"outgroups" and among members of each, though most pertinently here, among
>members of the outgroups. Silence in the face of demonstrations of the
>dominant group's "dominion" is indeed often taken by members of the ingroup
>as, depending on your point of view, acknowledgment or acquiescence. On the
>the other hand, that may well be what it is for most members of the
>outgroup, who do not share Prof. Feldman's take on how societies work.
>Others, of course, cannot abide being reminded (and are highly sensitive to
>anything that can be taken as a reminder) that they are not the dominant
>group, and are therefore led either to sullen silence or to voice
>grievance. Many just vote with their feet, so to speak, and either coalesce
>in places where they can generate a sub-society in which they are the
>dominant group, or merge into the larger society by adopting its norms and
>not emphasizing the remaining differences, which from my observation is
>what most Jews in America have done. As it happens, over time this method
>seems to have produced, by and large, a general culture more accepting of
>its members' cultural particularities than any other in history. That's not
>to say that Tulsa is going to be like either Brooklyn or Brookline (nor
>should it; they're entitled to their culture, too).
>
>There is something both touching and pointless, however, in expressing a
>grievance with the status quo without any indication of what could be
>changed, fundamentally or even cosmetically, to make things better in a way
>that wouldn't be as destructive to someone else as it is palliative to the
>one with the grievance. Thus my one-word comment earlier in this thread.
>Wishing that Tulsa were more like Brooklyn is rather like Prof. Higgins's
>wishing that women were more like men. And saying that the "dominant story"
>about our culture's basic tenets is partially or even wholly (though I
>don't think it goes that far) a mythological construction doesn't say much,
>either, because myths are essential to the fabric of every culture. A myth
>is true, whether it's factual or not. If religious liberty in America is
>mythical because it contributes to the continuation of the culture that
>created it, then it's doing its job.
>
>
>************************************************************
>*  Vance R. Koven                      phone: 617-482-3852 *
>*  attorney at law                     fax:   617-482-4972 *
>*  20 Park Plaza, Ste. 520      net: vrkoven at world.std.com *
>*  Boston, MA 02116-4303                                   *
>************************************************************
>