1602 réponses à ce sujet

[Bad King]

No, but everyone should be willing to give up their traditions, whether elven, dwarven, or human. For anything that they consider a tradition of their culture, first examine it, ask 'what is its purpose?' Does its purpose still apply? Is it something that will make everyone's lives better? If it is then fine, keep it. If not, discard it, never mind whether it comes from the ancient elves, or the fathers of the stone, or Andraste's brother-in-law, or whatever. Those people did things their way for their own reasons, now we should do things our own way, for our own reasons.

 

There is a lot from the past that we can still use, and more importantly, share, but if we let it define us then it can only hold us back, instead of helping us move forward.

 

The problem is that you cannot objectively decide on what's good and what's bad for a society - everyone has different views on what's desirable. For example, you have suggested on this thread that the Dalish way of life is not an improvement over elven life in human settlements (and there are certain characters in the game who would agree with you) and yet many elves (both Dalish and city) do believe strongly that this way of life is better - they value its sense of freedom and egalitarianism that is lacking in human cities (and I'm inclined to agree with them on this). Some people might view certain traditions as irrelevant while others might see them as highly important: it's a very subjective area.

 

Discussions on what aspects of what society are or aren't valuable are rooted in power relations (rather than in objectivity). For instance colonialist societies have historically tended to brand traditions kept by colonised people that deviate from those of their own societies as 'backward' while viewing their own societies and social norms as progressive and objectively superior. When Sera declares a particular elven tradition as backward, it's because the (human) society that she grew up in perpetuated that idea as an objective truth when in fact it is anything but.

[In Exile]

The problem is that you cannot objectively decide on what's good and what's bad for a society - everyone has different views on what's desirable. For example, you have suggested on this thread that the Dalish way of life is not an improvement over elven life in human settlements (and there are certain characters in the game who would agree with you) and yet many elves (both Dalish and city) do believe strongly that this way of life is better - they value its sense of freedom and egalitarianism that is lacking in human cities (and I'm inclined to agree with them on this). Some people might view certain traditions as irrelevant while others might see them as highly important: it's a very subjective area.

Discussions on what aspects of what society are or aren't valuable are rooted in power relations (rather than in objectivity). For instance colonialist societies have historically tended to brand traditions kept by colonised people that deviate from those of their own societies as 'backward' while viewing their own societies and social norms as progressive and objectively superior. When Sera declares a particular elven tradition as backward, it's because the (human) society that she grew up in perpetuated that idea as an objective truth when in fact it is anything but.

The society can certainly decide what's good and bad for itself and members of it are more than entitled to put forward their views. If Sera for whatever reason has adopted an anti-elf view, for example, that's something she's entitled to do. Whether anyone is persuaded by it is a different thing entirely.

[Bad King]

The society can certainly decide what's good and bad for itself and members of it are more than entitled to put forward their views. If Sera for whatever reason has adopted an anti-elf view, for example, that's something she's entitled to do. Whether anyone is persuaded by it is a different thing entirely.

 

I wasn't arguing that people are not entitled to have those views, rather I was arguing that such views tend to be subjective, even if said people believe them to be objective. Sera can choose not to engage in elven culture, but her belief that it is 'backward' is subjective and perpetuated by the society that she grew up in (in which it is portrayed as an objective truth).

[Addai]

You favour segregation?

Distinctiveness.

[Dorrieb]

The problem is that you cannot objectively decide on what's good and what's bad for a society - everyone has different views on what's desirable. For example, you have suggested on this thread that the Dalish way of life is not an improvement over elven life in human settlements (and there are certain characters in the game who would agree with you) and yet many elves (both Dalish and city) do believe strongly that this way of life is better - they value its sense of freedom and egalitarianism that is lacking in human cities (and I'm inclined to agree with them on this). Some people might view certain traditions as irrelevant while others might see them as highly important: it's a very subjective area.

 

Discussions on what aspects of what society are or aren't valuable are rooted in power relations (rather than in objectivity). For instance colonialist societies have historically tended to brand traditions kept by colonised people that deviate from those of their own societies as 'backward' while viewing their own societies and social norms as progressive and objectively superior. When Sera declares a particular elven tradition as backward, it's because the (human) society that she grew up in perpetuated that idea as an objective truth when in fact it is anything but.

 

Can't objectively decide what's good and what's bad for a society? Sure you can. For example, hygiene is good. Open drainage is bad. Abject poverty is bad. Advances in dentistry are good. Aqueducts, housing, balanced nutrition, transportation, tolerance and harmonious living are good. Fear, intolerance, pollution, and malnutrition are bad. Do you find any of those controversial?

 

For the most part, so called 'traditions' are things that used to be done for a reason, and continue to be done after the reason no longer applies out of cultural inertia. Power relations only enter into it when you start arguing whether A's traditions are better than B's, but it's irrelevant, as no one's traditions are anything more than empty ritual. If they were, they wouldn't be traditions, they'd be practical necessities of everyday life.

 

I'm not suggesting that the elves abandon their traditions only to pick up human ones. Humans too should stop doing things just because that's how it was done in the time of Andraste. It's only that the Dalish are the second worst offenders, the absolute worst ones being the dwarves of Orzammar. Those guys need a social reform that would leave them all but unrecognisable, and a very good thing too. Meanwhile, surface dwarfs such as Varric are in the process of integrating quite well into society while still retaining their individuality. I see no reason why elves couldn't as well.

[Addai]

Can't objectively decide what's good and what's bad for a society? Sure you can. For example, hygiene is good. Open drainage is bad. Abject poverty is bad. Advances in dentistry are good. Aqueducts, housing, balanced nutrition, transportation, tolerance and harmonious living are good. Fear, intolerance, pollution, and malnutrition are bad. Do you find any of those controversial?

These things aren't factors of culture but of wealth- sustained, concentrated wealth. It is a part of culture to accumulate wealth and put it towards technological advancement, of course, but generally that's a mercenary kind of society. Empires like the Romans and the Anglo-American power bloc have built their societies on the backs and blood of many, many people. So if you're willing to exploit, sure you can get ahead and create a utopian society. Otherwise you're just going to be out of luck.

[Assassino01]

Can't objectively decide what's good and what's bad for a society? Sure you can. For example, hygiene is good. Open drainage is bad. Abject poverty is bad. Advances in dentistry are good. Aqueducts, housing, balanced nutrition, transportation, tolerance and harmonious living are good. Fear, intolerance, pollution, and malnutrition are bad. Do you find any of those controversial?

 

For the most part, so called 'traditions' are things that used to be done for a reason, and continue to be done after the reason no longer applies out of cultural inertia. Power relations only enter into it when you start arguing whether A's traditions are better than B's, but it's irrelevant, as no one's traditions are anything more than empty ritual. If they were, they wouldn't be traditions, they'd be practical necessities of everyday life.

 

I'm not suggesting that the elves abandon their traditions only to pick up human ones. Humans too should stop doing things just because that's how it was done in the time of Andraste. It's only that the Dalish are the second worst offenders, the absolute worst ones being the dwarves of Orzammar. Those guys need a social reform that would leave them all but unrecognisable, and a very good thing too. Meanwhile, surface dwarfs such as Varric are in the process of integrating quite well into society while still retaining their individuality. I see no reason why elves couldn't as well.

 

I don't agree with much of what you say here, or previously. But even if I did it would not matter. Asking groups that have existed for centuries, and with traditions even older, to somehow view themselves through a completely objective intellectual lens, and then simply decide to lay aside their differences and live side by side in peace, seems as likely as hoping the power of friendship will end all wars.

[Dorrieb]

Distinctiveness.

 

Sorry. It's just that the phrase 'Separate But Equal' has a certain connotation. If you really value distinctiveness, why would you favour defining oneself in terms of one's race? Shouldn't it be up to the individual to define themselves in their own terms?

[Assassino01]

Sorry. It's just that the phrase 'Separate But Equal' has a certain connotation. If you really value distinctiveness, why would you favour defining oneself in terms of one's race? Shouldn't it be up to the individual to define themselves in their own terms?

Because that is how it is, and how it will be?

 

A world where everyone has the same "culture" and nobody has different traditions and views would be a pretty bland place indeed. The elves are, no matter if they want or not, a distinct group. And I think everyone agree that they are likely to remain such for the foreseeable future. They cannot integrate into human society, because human society will not let them, the 700 years since the fall of the Dales is evidence enough of that. 

 

Is it not better for the elves to be separate. Respected on their own terms, rather than to live only as the human elites see fit?

[Wulfram]

People can define themselves how they want, but the culture and beliefs of the people who raise them* is generally going to be important. And they shouldn't have to give all that up to be part of a culture that mistreats them.

* which wouldn't totally correlate with race, but would obviously have a strong correlation. Particularly since elves in thedas can't be mixed race.

[MoonDrummer]

I'm not suggesting that the elves abandon their traditions only to pick up human ones. Humans too should stop doing things just because that's how it was done in the time of Andraste. It's only that the Dalish are the second worst offenders, the absolute worst ones being the dwarves of Orzammar. Those guys need a social reform that would leave them all but unrecognisable, and a very good thing too. Meanwhile, surface dwarfs such as Varric are in the process of integrating quite well into society while still retaining their individuality. I see no reason why elves couldn't as well.

"I suggest we put the matter to a vote."

"And I suggest you have a taste of my family's mace!"

 

Orzammar is flawless.

 

And also you are wrong about surface Dwarves, we see with Bianca's family that they too are embroiled in tradition.

Modifié par MoonDrummer, 07 avril 2015 - 10:42 .

[In Exile]

I wasn't arguing that people are not entitled to have those views, rather I was arguing that such views tend to be subjective, even if said people believe them to be objective. Sera can choose not to engage in elven culture, but her belief that it is 'backward' is subjective and perpetuated by the society that she grew up in (in which it is portrayed as an objective truth).

Oh, yeah, that's fair. But I think that people really over state the difference between objective/subjective views or their value.

[Bad King]

Can't objectively decide what's good and what's bad for a society? Sure you can. For example, hygiene is good. Open drainage is bad. Abject poverty is bad. Advances in dentistry are good. Aqueducts, housing, balanced nutrition, transportation, tolerance and harmonious living are good. Fear, intolerance, pollution, and malnutrition are bad. Do you find any of those controversial?

 

For the most part, so called 'traditions' are things that used to be done for a reason, and continue to be done after the reason no longer applies out of cultural inertia. Power relations only enter into it when you start arguing whether A's traditions are better than B's, but it's irrelevant, as no one's traditions are anything more than empty ritual. If they were, they wouldn't be traditions, they'd be practical necessities of everyday life.

 

I'm not suggesting that the elves abandon their traditions only to pick up human ones. Humans too should stop doing things just because that's how it was done in the time of Andraste. It's only that the Dalish are the second worst offenders, the absolute worst ones being the dwarves of Orzammar. Those guys need a social reform that would leave them all but unrecognisable, and a very good thing too. Meanwhile, surface dwarfs such as Varric are in the process of integrating quite well into society while still retaining their individuality. I see no reason why elves couldn't as well.

 

That's not a good definition of 'tradition'. The Oxford Dictionary defines tradition as:

 

The transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.

 

All societies have their own customs and beliefs which are important to the existence and continuation of said society, and usually judgements on which customs and beliefs are backward and which ones aren't are highly subjective. Sera might view the elven language as backward, but to many it offers a sense of identity and a means of resisting cultural domination - different individuals value it differently. If you plan on blending different societies together, you may think that you're creating some sort of perfect society in which the 'best' elements of every society are selected while the 'backward' ones are dropped, but other people might strongly disagree with what you adopted and what you rejected. And inevitably, most of the aspects that would be dropped in such a 'blending' are those of the groups that hold less power.

[In Exile]

People can define themselves how they want, but the culture and beliefs of the people who raise them* is generally going to be important. And they shouldn't have to give all that up to be part of a culture that mistreats them.

* which wouldn't totally correlate with race, but would obviously have a strong correlation. Particularly since elves in thedas can't be mixed race.

While I am entirely against having the elves integrate into human society given how they are viewed I still think that the Dalish is equally harmful. Improvised fading nomads are not really a future for the elves. They need to find a way to move their race forward in a way that protects them.

[Dorrieb]

These things aren't factors of culture but of wealth- sustained, concentrated wealth. It is a part of culture to accumulate wealth and put it towards technological advancement, of course, but generally that's a mercenary kind of society. Empires like the Romans and the Anglo-American power bloc have built their societies on the backs and blood of many, many people. So if you're willing to exploit, sure you can get ahead and create a utopian society. Otherwise you're just going to be out of luck.

 

Wealth can be acquired through exploitation. Or it can be created through advances in technology, science, social organisation, and mutual aid. Invent a water pump and you improve the health of millions, IF the water pump is given to the millions, and not kept by Orlesian nobles to power fountains in their palaces. The more we work for the benefit of others, the more we benefit ourselves. It is not a zero-sum game.

 

This wouldn't be an 'utopian' society. Just a hard-working, forward-looking people whose basic needs were met, having equal rights under the law, and who would be judged on their own merits rather than their ancestors'. Why should you let the accident of your birth determine who or what you are, or ought to be?

[Bad King]

Oh, yeah, that's fair. But I think that people really over state the difference between objective/subjective views or their value.

 

It depends on what aspect of a society under discussion. Dorrieb made a fair point when s/he stated that most societies value hygiene and personal health, but there are many other facets to human culture that are are far less certain and which provoke more pronounced differences and disagreements. Most of what Sera views as unpleasant regarding elven society is viewed as beneficial by many other people: the value placed on a language for instance is going to vary wildly depending on the individual and his/her experiences and views.

[Wulfram]

While I am entirely against having the elves integrate into human society given how they are viewed I still think that the Dalish is equally harmful. Improvised fading nomads are not really a future for the elves. They need to find a way to move their race forward in a way that protects them.

Thedas seems underpopulated enough that being nomadic can work for a good long while. Being a Cossack seems like it was better than being a serf. And going by my understanding of history it's a good way to maintain military effectiveness from a relatively small population base. Though they'd be better off if they turned into halla-mounted archers.

I mean, ideally they should try to find something of a homeland - I'd suggest they look to offer a beleaguered country their bows in return for being given some (probably not very good) land they could settle autonomously in - but the nomadic thing isn't the worst holding pattern if settling results in people coming to kill them.

[Dorrieb]

That's not a good definition of 'tradition'. The Oxford Dictionary defines tradition as:

 

The transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.

 

All societies have their own customs and beliefs which are important to the existence and continuation of said society, and usually judgements on which customs and beliefs are backward and which ones aren't are highly subjective. Sera might view the elven language as backward, but to many it offers a sense of identity and a means of resisting cultural domination - different individuals value it differently. If you plan on blending different societies together, you may think that you're creating some sort of perfect society in which the 'best' elements of every society are selected while the 'backward' ones are dropped, but other people might strongly disagree with what you adopted and what you rejected. And inevitably, most of the aspects that would be dropped in such a 'blending' are those of the groups that hold less power.

 

Well let's think about that definition. How do traditions get started then? There must have been a time when they weren't traditional. They were things that the ancestors did for an actual practical purpose. Say, for example, that they burned their clothes at the end of every month, because they were lice-ridden. Over time, through repetition, it becomes a custom, passed down the generations, so we still burn our clothes at the end of every month even though the lice problem is long taken care of. In fact, we don't even remember that it had anything to do with lice at all. We don't even know why we do it, except we've been taught to do it and we've always done it. It's a tradition. It's also appallingly stupid. If your great-great-great-etc-grandma came back and saw you do it, she'd say, 'Why the hell are you burning up a perfectly lice-free set of clothes? What are you, nuts? We only did it because we didn't have soap in those days!'

 

It serves no purpose, it's wasteful, and you don't know how it got started in the first place? Then leave it. Binding up your sense of identity in meaningless ritual is pathological, for individuals and societies.

[Wulfram]

Dalish customs don't seem inappropriate to their situation, aside from the religious stuff which is no worse than any other religious stuff.

Of course, that's an illustration of their artificiality - the customs of Arlathan surely wouldn't fit at all.

[Dorrieb]

"I suggest we put the matter to a vote."

"And I suggest you have a taste of my family's mace!"

 

Orzammar is flawless.

 

And also you are wrong about surface Dwarves, we see with Bianca's family that they too are embroiled in tradition.

 

But she isn't, and Varric isn't. They're the future of the dwarves.

[MoonDrummer]

But she isn't, and Varric isn't. They're the future of the dwarves.

Not really, they're surfacers, Orzammar and Kal Sharok barely recognise them as people. They will have no impact on Dwarven culture.

 

But this is the elf thread so enough of that.

[Bad King]

Well let's think about that definition. How do traditions get started then? There must have been a time when they weren't traditional. They were things that the ancestors did for an actual practical purpose. Say, for example, that they burned their clothes at the end of every month, because they were lice-ridden. Over time, through repetition, it becomes a custom, passed down the generations, so we still burn our clothes at the end of every month even though the lice problem is long taken care of. In fact, we don't even remember that it had anything to do with lice at all. We don't even know why we do it, except we've been taught to do it and we've always done it. It's a tradition. It's also appallingly stupid. If your great-great-great-etc-grandma came back and saw you do it, she'd say, 'Why the hell are you burning up a perfectly lice-free set of clothes? What are you, nuts? We only did it because we didn't have soap in those days!'

 

It serves no purpose, it's wasteful, and you don't know how it got started in the first place? Then leave it. Binding up your sense of identity in meaningless ritual is pathological, for individuals and societies.

 

Your argument assumes that cultures and beliefs represent adaptations to particular contexts. This isn't necessarily true - many facets of culture are not simple responses to a particular period or climate, or they may acquire new meaning in a different context, or they may evolve and develop in response to new contexts. Viewing cultures/traditions as static responses to static contexts that are useless when shifted to new contexts is simplistic and rather inaccurate. They are in fact highly dynamic and imbued with diverse and evolving meanings.

 

Even if you personally view a particular cultural practice as useless or irrational, other people (such as many of those who participate in said tradition) may view it as highly meaningful and beneficial to themselves and to their society. 

[Steelcan]

I mean, ideally they should try to find something of a homeland - I'd suggest they look to offer a beleaguered country their bows in return for being given some (probably not very good) land they could settle autonomously in - but the nomadic thing isn't the worst holding pattern if settling results in people coming to kill them.

I'm actually amenable to something like this

 

You'd think someone like Tevinter would jump at the chance to get some Foederati

[Dorrieb]

Your argument assumes that cultures and beliefs represent adaptations to particular contexts. This isn't necessarily true - many facets of culture are not simple responses to a particular period or climate, or they may acquire new meaning in a different context, or they may evolve and develop in response to new contexts. Viewing cultures/traditions as static responses to static contexts that are useless when shifted to new contexts is simplistic and rather inaccurate. They are in fact highly dynamic and imbued with diverse and evolving meanings.

 

Even if you personally view a particular cultural practice as useless or irrational, other people (such as many of those who participate in said tradition) may view it as highly meaningful and beneficial to themselves and to their society. 

 

What is rational or irrational does not depend on how you view it. That's the wonder of the Enlightenment, that it doesn't matter who says what.

[Bad King]

What is rational or irrational does not depend on how you view it. That's the wonder of the Enlightenment, that it doesn't matter who says what.

 

Actually, although the Enlightenment led to many lasting breakthroughs in the natural sciences, applying the same positivist criteria to anthropology (which as a social science tends to be highly subjective and interpretive) is problematic, and many of the ideas of the Enlightenment relating to human cultures were rooted in colonial ideology. For example, French thought at the time was that their society was the epitome of progress while the societies they colonised were at an earlier societal level and needed to be forcibly 'evolved'. But the philosophy underpinning such ideas has always been shoddy, because when it comes to subjective experience and meaning (which is an enormous part of human culture), it's impossible to apply objective criteria to it in the same way we can objectively define things in the natural sciences. For example, your own 'objective' means of deciding whether a cultural behaviour is 'rational' or not seems to rest on whether or not it has a purpose for human survival. This is problematic for a couple of reasons:

 

1). You assume that there is a completely objective means of defining what is good for human survival: some communities might find certain rituals and beliefs as key in maintaining their own well-being and societal cohesion. While you might view a particular behaviour as backward and pointless as an outside observer, the emic perspective might be that such traditions are needed. While you might perceive your own view as being objectively true, on closer inspection you may realise that it in fact is highly subjective and dependent on a number of interpretive criteria that are themselves prioritised over other criteria on subjective grounds.

 

2). Even if from an emic perspective a certain tradition is not necessary for survival, this does not automatically rubbish that idea if it brings meaning and enjoyment to an individual or community. People don't necessarily 'need' tattoos or books or art to survive, but each one brings them a level of enjoyment. Not everyone might get the same level of enjoyment from these things, many might not enjoy them at all (or view them as repulsive), but the fact that such things are not vital to everyone's survival from a purely functional perspective does not make them irrelevant.

 

So in short, what is and isn't 'rational' is very much dependent on the subject when it comes to evaluating many facets of cultural practice. Your own views are not necessarily wrong, but it's dubious to think that they represent an objective means of picking and choosing how everyone should live.