After reading story upon story, editorial upon editorial and all forms of recounting and retracing the events, reasoning and dynamics of writer Salman Rushdie’s knighthood, I have to say the aftertaste is similar to that of tapioca -- bland, tepid and homogenous. As I waded through every column as objectively and dispassionately as I possibly could, I couldn’t help but notice a common trend. Despite whatever side of the fence the writer chose, the approach of each was downright formulaic.
Every article, from Qatar to London to New York, began the same way -- with a short summary followed by the reasoning and reaction of both sides, good old fashioned “fair and balanced” (sorry Fox News) reporting, the concluded with the author’s opinion and solution, all very well-written, well-researched and quite eloquent. And why should I expect any less? Why should any of us?
These articles were obviously the contribution of someone educated, moreover, someone with access and the financial means for education. Their rationalization and cold detachment to the matter at hand is an easy translation to a Western audience, largely schooled and economically developed. However, in that translation, no matter how well documented or eloquently phrased, we are lost.
We still only have one side of the issue. While Rushdie’s knighthood has been chided as a tactless political move -- a poorly timed reaffirmation of Western free speech at the expense of Middle Eastern sensitivities -- what it represents, in fact, is the depth of cultural and socio-economic misunderstanding between the developed and the developing world. Anthropology 101 tells us there is a direct correlation between a group’s education, individuality and socio-economic status and its degree of religious adherence.
It should therefore come as no surprise that Western society, being largely more individualistic, educated and economically robust, favors secular institutions to theocratic ones. Now picture yourself immersed in a society experiencing high growth- where a high birth rate is kept in check by a relatively high mortality rate- the average age is 15, formal education is next to nonexistent and subsistence is the standard of living. The only organization, the only stability you know comes from your family and a standardized religious doctrine.
According to renowned sociologist David Riesman, you would likely fall under the tradition-directed cultural umbrella, and the bulk of your experience would be garnered from your observation and interaction with both your family and your faith. It is this concept that Westerners largely fail to grasp. Remember Bush’s talk of the differences between fact-based and faith-based reality?
Now remove literacy, privacy and disposable income from the mix. Your concern is not with your own personal endeavors but with the stability of the group, and any affront on that stability is an affront to you. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that whole groups are raising their voices in protest to what they perceive as an affront by a gathering of individuals.
While we see Rushdie’s acclaim as the champion of individual liberty, they see it as a blanket insult. And all the while, schooled writers across the globe are delivering concise, articulate copy that, despite their tenor or allegiance, ultimately fails to express the collectivist, tradition-directed voice of the Islamic developing world. Then, for the sake of closure, who is to blame?
Ignorance and globalization. While we are more than willing to extend our reach to the far ends of the globe for commercial means (oil), we pay little more than lip service to cross-cultural communication despite our ever-shrinking proximity. When was the last time Farsi or Pashto was offered in a high school foreign language track along with its Romantic counterparts?
And just how many American families vacation in Yemen of Djibouti? Let’s face it Western society is quite comfortable within its Western bubble. Straddling both cultural spheres, Rushdie is both a catalyst for cross-cultural communication and living proof of its breakdown.
When his 1988 publication of The Satanic Verses prompted Ayatollah Khomeini to put a price on his head, Rushdie quickly became a household name both in the United States and in Europe, where he fled to London. Yet how much of his renown is the product of controversy rather than of literary merit? How many people actually read Verses before placing its author upon the free-speech pedestal?
As with the Danish Muhammad cartoons, Rushdie’s knighthood just further illustrates (and one could argue widens) the cultural rift between the West and the Middle East; between the developed world and the developing one; and between the individualist and the tradition-directed collectivist. The reactions on either side are no more than ethnocentric self-affirmations under the guise of open discourse. Sadly, however, until each camp is willing to factor differing cultural dynamics into cross-cultural communication, this type of head butting is the most we can expect of a dialogue.
Leave Comments(1) | Email to a Friend | Print Article I hope you'll be drinking a starbucks frappachinno when you have your next cross-cultural communication sit down. Something you might want to factor in next time is the guy wearing the mask who would arguably have no problem with a Muslim woman having her clit cut off or being beaten to death in an honor killing. You can be for peace, you can be for change, you can be for universal socialism but one hellacious day everyone will come to understand the extremists do not want any part of your way of life.
They don't want to share the world with you. This is not about poverty, ignorance, or oil. It is about beliefs.
It's about the jihad. This is about the jihad. And it's not going to stop.
Opinion Pages: Don Siegelman and the Karl Rove Controversy Editorial writers weigh in on the political implications and aftermath of the Don Siegelman federal corruption case Pine Endorsement: Drew Carey as New Host of Price is Right! We tackle this big issue so you don't have to! After reading story upon story, editorial upon editorial and all forms of recounting and retracing the events, reasoning and dynamics of writer Salman Rushdie’s knighthood, I have to say the aftertaste is similar to that of tapioca -- bland, tepid and homogenous.
News RSS