THE developing world is aware of the history of its domination by Western imperialists, and the negative heritage of that domination and underdevelopment.
Drawing on Magdoff and Harrison, Western imperialism had its genesis in the late 15th century; it wore three unique outfits: (1) the profit motive and the individual pursuit of wealth were the catalysts for Western imperialism; (2)the rise of capitalism and the diffusion of industrialization brought forth new demands; for this reason, the European imperialists reorganized the traditional economies and cultures of their conquests, the colonies; and (3) cultural imperialism was the Europeans’ ‘in-thing’ where they displayed cultural arrogance, through cultural assimilation and ethnocentrism.
Naipaul rejects the imperialist’s perceptions that see the local people as having no distinctive identities; and where the imperialists compartmentalize them into one cultural non-distinguishing brownish mass; Naipaul argues that these perceptions allow humanity, allow a past, a distinctiveness, and a dignity, solely to the imperialist group; but rejecting them for the locals.
The European imperialists believed their beliefs, values, norms, rules, laws, language, etc., were innately superior to the local cultural format; many locals in the colonies surrendered to, and assimilated the imperialist definitions and concepts. And the way to rise in social mobility was through recognition and acceptance of the imperialist culture; modernity, a target to which many people aspire, is akin to taking on a ‘Western look’. Thus, the local culture is subject to a dual marginalization – Western imperialists’ subordination of the locals’ culture, and the locals themselves subordinating their own culture to the imperialists’ way of life.
For these reasons, people in the developing world have to be cognizant that the Western definitions and concepts do not supersede those of their own; generally, people from all walks of life should accept what is good and discard what is evil; but should not throw out the baby with the bath water.
The President of Guyana in a recent reference to child abuse attempted to sensitize people generally not to becoming credulous to Western thinking. It is reasonable to posit that where Western thinking has utility value, use it, and where it infringes the cultural norms on the local scene, or inimical to child protection and child development, then we need to be cautious. The point is that we need to contextualize our definitions and concepts of child abuse within the parameters of child protection and child development.
This is a reasonable position that any President or others should take in the interest of sustaining their cultures. And so, Mr. Vidyartha Kissoon may need to rethink his position as outlined in his letter of April 13, 2010 in Stabroek News.
Abuse of children is not new, but it is the perception of the child abuse issue that is novel. I think the society must provide protection for the child from harm; nonetheless, at the same time, we need to offer the most appropriate environment for the child’s development.
And there is a view here that the Western thinking on the definition of child abuse is what the Guyanese people need to assimilate and practice. There is a problem of definition even within Western thinking. There is no one definition of child abuse; as an example, each State in the U.S. presents its own definition of child abuse and distinctive reporting requirements and investigation; nonetheless, notwithstanding this variance, there is general acceptance that ‘child abuse’ refers to both physical abuse and neglect.
Professionals in the field agree on some general categories as constituting child abuse; even so, there are disagreements over specific behaviors appropriate to a category; here are some of these categories (Giovannoni and Becerra): physical abuse; sexual abuse; fostering delinquency; supervision; emotional mistreatment; drug/alcohol; failure to provide; educational neglect; parental sexual mores.
Look, not everything is as black and white as some people try to portray; there are nuances and intricacies to every culture and one should never take them all and lump them together as a whole in any circumstance, even when it comes to defining child abuse; there is always a social context. We need to contextualize our definitions and concepts within the parameters of protecting children from harm and providing the best environment for their development. This is the way to go.