> If the majority of the country feels this way, why should you push your Western Values on them.
While social permissiveness is distinctly a phenomenon of the west, I wouldn’t characterize “western values” by that single phase. For most of the history of the American Republic, it was taken for granted the government could regulate morality as an aspect of the public welfare. Regulation of businesses believed to be morally harmful, such as strip clubs and pornographic magazines, was deemed within the scope of government power into the mid-20th century, until anti-democratic Supreme Court decisions interpreted constitutional provisions in ways that would have shocked the people who wrote them.
While social permissiveness is distinctly a phenomenon of the west
How about Japan or Taiwan? Reminder: Taiwan legalised gay marriage in 2019!
I don't like to use the term "Western" too much. It's more clear to say "modern". Example: Japan is not at all Westernized, nor Taiwan, nor South Korea, but they are definitely modern.
-- Edit --
As a counterpoint, I would say that India (in my limited experience on-the-ground) is way more social conservative than Sri Lanka. I was genuinely surprised by the social permissiveness in Sri Lanka. It was a world apart from India. Thus, I would say Sri Lanka is on-the-cusp of being considered modern (in my eyes).
Everybody in the entire world alive today is in the present. Nobody is more modern than anybody else. An Amish farmer is no less of a modern man than a San Francisco web developer. You are crossing your wires, using temporal language to pass subjective judgment against other ways of life. People who don't live live styles similar to your own aren't living in the past, they are in the present with everybody else.
You're essentially calling everybody else backwards. That's judgemental and subjective, not objective. It's a mentality of cultural imperialism, only one step away from calling for people to be "brought up to speed", e.g. forced into your way of life.
I think we're talking about culturally Western here, not geopolitically Western. I can't see even a (sane) cynic call these 3 countries culturally Western unless you think being a liberal democracy automatically makes you culturally Western. And Japan is one of the countries said to have "Westernized"!
The world is being westernized thanks to the influence of western media and culture. So in that sense, it can seem like “westernization” and “modernity” are the same thing. But the Japanese and Taiwanese also wear western-style business suits, wear jeans, drink coffee, etc. We wouldn’t say that jeans are “modern” rather than being a western influence. Moreover, in other parts of the world you have a resurgent, fundamentalist Islam. In the 1950s, Egyptian women didn’t wear headscarves. Today, most do. That’s also “modern.”
Same-sex marriage also isn’t a good example to gauge whether a culture is socially permissive, because sexual orientation is biologically determined. The scientific fact of that has been critical in acceptance of that in the East: http://olivia.thechiongs.com/2015/03/28/a-purely-practical-v.... It’s more of a social accommodation for a biologically defined group, rather than permissiveness as to individual behavior. That makes it quite distinct from western liberal culture, which I think would say that it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s a choice or not.
Indeed, as the classical and Christian notions of freedom, as opposed to the liberal variety, entails self-discipline, self-denial, and the restraint, disciplining, and purification of the appetites through things like fasting and abstinence.
Would a native Hawaiian, consider themselves free, that they live under Western Laws. They have western freedoms, and democracy, and all the shiny trinkets. But now also lack autonomy, and the real control over their native land. Democracy is kind of useless to a Native Hawaiian, when they'll be outvoted by outsiders every time.
I think plenty of them would just want their land back. And Westerners can shove it.
I think "contemporary western values" is just a feel good saying, a pretty wrapper, on economic expansionist policy ... globalism.
And there are plenty of taboo topics in the West too, and it's enforced as well. Celebrities have handlers, FBI goes around planting informants and extorting dissenters for political gain. People get canceled, fired from jobs for saying dissenting opinions. And its done in the name of "social harmony" and greater good here as well.
"Contemporary western values" is not a statement that means everyone in the west has the same values, nor it is an endorsement. It is referring to the generally predominant mainstream consensus.
I agree. This is a virtually meaningless term. Just look at New York State or Washington State (in US). The largest city (NYC and Seattle) are extremely liberal. However, the country side is much more conservative. Do they share the same "contemporary western values"? Hmmm...
I do believe what they do share is "contemporary Western values". I think both sides would agree with at least some form of the rule of law, freedom of religion, gender equality and support for liberal democracy. Don't you think they would look at most any form of governance pre-1850 and agree it's bad?
I suppose they could console themselves with knowledge that it was never their land. The monarch of the island, and later islands, or local chief had control over it. The very concept of people, or citizens, controlling their land is a concept that was imported.
I'd argue only some alcohol control laws exist for religious reasons. Some of those old puritanical laws are still on the books, but stick around today because they are useful for regulatory capture.
I think in this case (liquor stores being closed exclusively on Sunday morning in Texas), you'd need extraordinary evidence to assume that it's not because of the facade of puritanical ideals.
Perhaps that's not the case in Northern New Jersey (which, crazily, also has similar rules) though.
I was thinking along the lines of alcohol control laws which limit licensing, distribution, sales, etc. Those groups with preferential treatment have become special interest groups in many places that want to perpetuate those limits because it prevents competitors. Somewhere around a quarter of states have mandated some form of monopoly in regards to alcohol, and others have limited licensing schemes that are highly politicized.
While social permissiveness is distinctly a phenomenon of the west, I wouldn’t characterize “western values” by that single phase. For most of the history of the American Republic, it was taken for granted the government could regulate morality as an aspect of the public welfare. Regulation of businesses believed to be morally harmful, such as strip clubs and pornographic magazines, was deemed within the scope of government power into the mid-20th century, until anti-democratic Supreme Court decisions interpreted constitutional provisions in ways that would have shocked the people who wrote them.