The blog immediately below is based on the three main streams that I have found useful in contemporary thought. The three are relativism (of the Rorty, Fish variety), social thought (of the Mary Douglas variety) and amoral commerce (my own realm.)
*Relativism makes it clear that no ideology including science is universal, we all stand on top of dozens of institutions (language, era, education, geography..) that determine our world view.
*Social Thought determines that all institutions are structured around tent-pole ideas, metaphors and concepts (example: the marketplace is structured around the “invisible hand”).
*Amoral commerce is the view that major human-shaping institutions are amoral including commerce, technology and compassion.
In applying these categories....
In applying these categories of thought to the issue of Arab democracy
I first had to accept the most harsh lesson of anthropology (a strict
Sapir-Whorf, Feyerabend
approach) … the incommensurability of cultures. Second, I had to think
about the variety of institutions that are possible in a democratic
milieu which means throwing out all the standard assumptions about
private property, free press, independent legal system and secular
civil society. Lastly I had to acknowledge that power, whatever it is,
is truly an amoral system.
Given those premises it is easy to see through to the nature of Arab
culture and recognize that democracy would have to take a radically
different form in Arab society. Democracy could work.
I have not dealt with the issue of Arabs creating a worldview that changes to suit the immediate circumstances (sometimes called lying) because I have to assume that (adaptive deception) is part of the system which accommodates power and makes compromise possible.
That is how I bring the three contemporary systems of thought together to help me examine an issue. Boring to many, interesting to a tiny few. My approach will be tested in two Arab countries over the coming years.