So the show lasts longer?
He was my Governor. The two other branches of the MA govāt were not unlike a filling with by bullet ants and a burying of him in an anthill, metaphorically speaking.
Heās a good sport, that Mittens.
1 Like
Wanna start a meme? I hear Serano Genomics can stand to get taken down a peg XD
Itās definitely cruel, and (at the (miminal) risk of being accused of brutal ethnocentric cultural imperialism) Iād be inclined to say that āethically fucked upā may also apply; but Iād actually be interested to know if āstupidā applies or not.
Some cultural things are, indeed, stupid. No particular benefits, persist only because āThis is what has always been doneā, etc. However, some cultural things(while probably not the most efficient implementation), do serve some sort of purpose.
In this case, Iād be curious to know if there is some logistical constraint being served: Are there things that being a fully-adultified-male requires that are in short supply (atrociously high mortality in childbirth leading to a lack of eligible partners would be my default guess, possibly along with resource constraints that make raising children a problem)? Does the society have some use for the loser-men who canāt hack it, and use the initiation process as a means for social stratification in absence of levels of accumulated property that would support stratification based on wealth?
This is not to say that people donāt do dumb stuff just because dumb stuff has always been done since time immemorial; but it never hurts to at least keep the possibility of an essentially economic purpose being served by something visible as a cultural practice.
(And no, I definitely encountered no historians and social scientists with nontrivial sympathies for marxist interpretations of culture in college. Why do you ask?)
I wonder if itās a hazing/unit cohesion/boot camp type conditioning thing, designed to create people capable of, and dependably able to, endure high levels of adversity, or if itās the equivalent of the weeder courses that keep less motivated candidates away from med school?
1 Like
Reading YouTube comments is the mental equivalent of these ant mitts.
5 Likes
Iāve always thought it was from George MacDonaldās The Princess and Curdie (1883):
Curdie dared not stop to think. It was much too terrible to think about. He rushed to the fire, and thrust both of his hands right into the middle of the heap of flaming roses, and his arms halfway up to the elbows. And it did hurt! But he did not draw them back. He held the pain as if it were a thing that would kill him if he let it go - as indeed it would have done. He was in terrible fear lest it should conquer him.
But when it had risen to the pitch that he thought he could bear it no longer, it began to fall again, and went on growing less and less until by contrast with its former severity it had become rather pleasant. At last it ceased altogether, and Curdie thought his hands must be burned to cinders if not ashes, for he did not feel them at all.
So, some good comes from it? Iām not so sure.
I donāt know one way or the other; but I am willing to consider the possibility that an (otherwise deeply pointless and probably costly) practice exists because it produces some advantages (not necessarily āsomething goodā; but something advantageous).
Iād say itās a type of boot camp conditioning rather than hazing - the difference for me would be that boot camp and this ritual are about strengthening the group through hardship, which is a taste of the kind of thing they will be expected to accept regularly in the future for the benefit of the group. By proving their ability, initiates both prove themselves to be capable of mastering themselves and become able to master themselves. In contrast, hazing seems to be about ridicule and establishing a hierarchy through humiliation. In this case, while everyone is aware that this is a difficult experience, they do not mock the initiate but instead support them in this ordeal. By focusing on the group, the initiate learns to bear the pain and becomes part of the group. By supporting the initiate when he is weakest, the group forms a bond with him that will be needed when the group faces real danger together. In an environment like the rainforest, Iād say this kind of ritual could be useful in training a child that to become a man, you need to face some pretty dangerous and unpleasant experiences without showing fear; if a groupās members choose their own comfort over membership in the group, this is a bad sign for the group as a whole. I donāt think there will be that many boys who donāt pass this test eventually (as it seems to be more about the learned skill of self-mastery rather than pain tolerance or physical strength), but they probably wouldnāt throw someone out if they didnāt make it at first. Most (all?) of us would probably fail miserably at this kind of test, so I think itās less about weeding out weak boys and more about training them to withstand this kind of test.
As far as the ethics of this are concerned, it is probably problematic in a number of ways. However, I canāt agree with this:
Presumably heās alluding to female genital mutilation, which would be quite different both due to its long term and serious effects on a womanās body and because of the underlying philosophy of control over womenās sexuality. Even if I did disagree with the ordeal by ants, while not encouraging it I would not consider myself to be in a position to criticise it much. Itās interesting to compare these approaches to improving the rights of Maasai women in Kenya. A response to the first:
Ultimately, Masai women are fighting their own battles for the rights that are important to them. By stealing the spotlight Budgor undermines this work. Dr Kakenya Ntaiyaās essay, āWarriorās Spirit: The Stories of Four Women from Kenyaās Enduring Tribeā provides us with narratives of such women. There is also further evidence that Budgorās portrayal of patriarchy amongst the Masai exaggerates the extent of gender inequality. According to the Masai Association, both women and men fight for specific cultural rituals. In fact, all over pre-colonial Africa women were priests, queens, leaders, teachers, doctors and warriors.
And a statement from the Kenyan woman running the V-Day safe house:
Pareyio stated, āEve and V-DAY started by donating a jeep that has enabled me to reach my people - the Maasi - who are deeply rooted by their traditional cultures and who still hold their beliefs that girls can not be a woman without the cut. With the opening of the Safe House, girls who have escaped the cut can undergo an alternative ritual which I hope my people will grow to understand and adopt.ā
The second approach sees the cultural value of ritual as a way to cement a community, and seeks to remove the objectionable elements in a culturally sensitive way from within the culture. The first misses the whole point of these rituals and sees it as a personal challenge divorced of its actual purpose.
You do seem pretty willing to find the good, while assuming there is no consequence for failing. Would failing a test in a survival based culture really lead to more chances? Or would it lead to expulsion from the tribe/group/unit? You donāt know. Neither do I. Occams razor says expulsion / humiliation.
Iād say that your view might be sound IF all of your maybes and probablys are true, and even then it would still be outmoded and cruel.
I believe that failure leads to being cast out, and this to be a āritualā where the group āāsupports youāā by abusing you, and that itās pretty much sociopathic behavior. Maybe itās good for society? But itās not good for all individuals. Maybe sociopathic is the wrong word? Maybe itās just gratuitous and not sociopathic?
It is not unlike the football team pinning you to digitally rape you, after which youāre in, so long as you rape other boys, with your finger, later! I do see a valid comparison here, and coercion too.Thatās for the good of the societyā¦ of football playersā¦ at least if you ask them it is!
Your arguments about how its not hazing are identical to the arguments hazers make. As someone who was in a fraternity I can tell you that the pledging process is consciously designed to weed out people who lack commitment and to make those who do make it through better bonded to the group. It may surprise you but fraternities have officers who have actually difficult jobs. Not every undergrad can correctly manage a $50k a year budget. Part of the pledge process is making sure the recruits are both quality and loyal to perpetuate the organization.
The underlying mechanisms of āhazingā and its congeners are identical. Abusing military recruits, sports team rookies, fraternity pledges, etc. are all the same process. I will say though that the evidence points to this not only being horrible, but very effective.
And no, Iām not talking about female genital mutilation, donāt redirect my argument. My point is that we commonly (and arbitrarily) accept some horrible cultural practices while demonizing others. This is usually depends on whether the cultral practice is something we have familiarity with in our own context. One being ok because it doesnāt cause permanent damage is irrelevant (and is often a defense of non-maiming torture). If this was Boko Haram requiring girls to stick their hands in a bag of scorpions to prove their are good enough for child rearing, youād be up in arms.
For instance, you seem to think this instance of child torture is acceptable (probably because you were never a kid forced to put their hand in a mitten of bullet ants). What about the Sambia people who require their boys to drink the semen of their elders (because of some absurd views about manly power)?
You seem to accept the moral relativism of these processes, I do not. The point of putting people through a ritual to cement a cultural process in this way serves only to perputuate the cultureās ideals through fear and torture.
Iām actually fairly stunned that you would defend the practice of forcing children to undergo intense pain to satisfy the absurd desires of their elders.
Iām not saying that itās good or even that it should be continued, just that as members of a society that is based on individualism, we are often not able to appreciate the value of this ritual as part of a very different culture where group cohesion is seen as vital to survival. Outmoded is an odd word, as in some senses their whole way of life is outmoded: the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is inefficient and not sustainable for a larger population or where many species are already endangered. The social structure formed in these kinds of communities is often far from equal and is very role-based. The violence that is a part of their lives is hardly optimal to their well-being. The tribalism that supports their society leads to isolationism and lack of access to resources such as education, medical care, legal representation etc. Maybe cultures like this will have to change a lot about their lifestyle in order to survive, but as a representative of a civilization that has done a lot to make that lifestyle unsustainable, Iām not going to be the first to point out faults in their culture. Individualism might work better in our society, but in an environment where (for example) the ability to kill a wild animal with simple tools or overcome extreme discomfort is seen as necessary for survival, this process at least has a function in training children to be able to cope. If you compare the reactions of these children to that of the grown man in the video, itās clear that they would be much better equipped to support the community than he would be.
In some ways you could put both down to a sort of tribal instinct, but there are significant differences between them. For example, it is highly debatable that the example you gave has any benefit to the person or even any relation to the stated goal. Rather than being constructive in any way, the aim is to humiliate the subject and probably to morally compromise them (especially if the goal is to make them more aggressive toward outsiders or the other team). There does seem to be a spectrum though and you will have stuff like this or the kind of processes used to recruit child soldiers on the one end, with something pretty mundane like giving a speech or making a quilt on the other end. In most cases, there seems to be a focus on embedding the values of the group into a young mind and teaching them to demonstrate loyalty, courage, judgement, skill and other necessary traits. This would be twisted in the case of child soldiers or using rape as initiation, but itās probably a similar mechanism - a shared ordeal is a very effective blunt instrument that can teach a number of values that are prized in more conservative and corporate societies. The SaterĆ©-MawĆ© example is interesting as it would be completely disproportionate and abusive in a western context (even if this involved SaterĆ©-MawĆ© people who had emigrated to America), but it has a particular purpose in their community and seems to work very well in producing people who are able to serve the society where violent death, starvation and other catastrophes are a very real threat.
I guess my main point is along the lines of Jonathan Haidtās book The Righteous Mind. While I donāt agree with a lot of what he says* and I donāt really approve of this practice, I can see how the ritual works as part of the system, how it is intended as more than merely abuse and how the participants believe that this is for the benefit of everyone. I am not trying to defend it by saying that it is right or justified, just that thereās a difference between bringing someone through an ordeal in order to teach them to overcome it and digitally raping someone in order to satisfy your desires. It is problematic though, as both traditional initiations and hazing often include quite a bit of coercion and shame and can be agents of aggressive forms of patriarchy (as @clayton_coffman pointed out).
You didnāt specify, so I guessed you were talking about the initiation rite that is possibly the most widely accepted as a negative practice and is a problem in Iran.
*For example, I can understand the rationale behind why something is done and the appeal to values that I donāt emphasise as strongly without feeling that my moral system is therefore lacking in these values.
I used that example to make that very point to you, about the notion of useful or productive abuse.
13 year old kids can out-tough a healthy grown man when it comes to coping with pain. This improves their ability to survive in their environment and helps the group dynamic, which is vital to their way of life. It may not the best of all possible systems and there are some big flaws, but a ritualised group ordeal is a powerful tool in a group-orientated society and not just abuse for abuseās sake.
1 Like
been through one?
Nothing nearly that ritualised or extreme, no. Still, the attempt to instil a more group-orientated mindset is fairly common and would probably include things like organised sports, school examinations or baptism that I have gone through (the third at 12 as my church believed that we had to be old enough to make our own decision; I was baptised in a river in public, which was quite embarrassing). This is obviously a completely different level, but if all boys are expected to show extreme levels of bravery from a young age, the test is at least relevant to the requirements of being an adult in that culture. Personally, I would probably take quite a bit of physical pain over having to live through middle and high school again.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
