Middle East/North African Lit discussion
This topic is about
In the Name of Identity
2019
>
Discussion of IN THE NAME OF IDENTITY: VIOLENCE AND THE NEED TO BELONG by Amin Maalouf
I both agree and disagree with this statement. Like Amin Maalouf, I was born in one country (America) and emigrated to another country (Morocco) where I have actually lived longer than in the place of my roots. Maalouf was born in Lebanon but emigrated to France, so while his move was east to west, mine was in the opposite direction. As he says, for a long time I felt "defined" as an expat. But as I age, I find myself bridling at the chains of this definition. I see things more as Ann Tyler does in her novel, DIGGING TO AMERICA:"You can get in a ... mind-set about these things. You can start to believe that your life is defined by your foreignness. You think everything would be different if only you belonged. 'If only I were back home,' you say, and you forget that you wouldn't belong there either after all these years. It wouldn't be home at all anymore."
I don't fully agree with Tyler either. I accept that both America and Morocco are my home, though I will always "identify" as an American, never as a Moroccan. I am an American immersed in two countries, four languages (English, French, Arabic and Moroccan dialect), and a mix of cultures (American, Italian, Irish, French and Moroccan). Indeed, Morocco is so much a part of my identity that I have felt confident enough to write two novels set there, one of which is narrated by a Moroccan girl.
Further on, Maalouf says:
“Identity can’t be compartmentalized. You can’t divide it up into halves or thirds or any other separate segments. I haven’t got several identities: I’ve got just one, made up of many components in a mixture that is unique to me, just as other people’s identity is unique to them as individuals.”
Here is where I diverge from both Maalouf and Tyler. I think identity is not something fixed and unchangeable. Our identity morphs and shifts depending on our environment and current situation. This does not mean we are all schizophrenic. It simply means that the old adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans,” still applies. For example, as a result of living in Morocco for so many years, I dress more conservatively (no shorts, tank tops), and tend to “dress up” more, even when I’m in the US. But I still love the fact that in New York I can leave Jazzercise in my sweat clothes and run into the supermarket or pick up fast food without feeling self-conscious. Something I would never do in Morocco
Interesting points Eileen. I’ve just started this so I’ll refrain from commenting too much, but based on what you said there is a difference between your move from the US to Morocco and Maalouf’s move from Lebanon to France. And that difference is: Lebanon was under French rule. Many Lebanese speak French. Many of them have to deal with multiple linguistic and cultural identities without ever moving outside Lebanon. And what happens when as a French- speaking Lebanese person you move to France? What are you?! You are Lebanese yes but you speak the same language as the French – where do you fit in? I know this feeling first hand. I come from an English speaking family from South Asia. We’ve been English speaking for several generations because of British colonisation. I grew up reading mainly Anglo Saxon literature (thankfully this is changing in South Asia now - there is a move to recognising literature from our region whether written in English or in translation from various South Asian languages). I don’t have very strong ties to any particular part of South Asia because I’m quite mixed ethically (various South Asian ethnicities) and culturally and we are quite a nomadic family – so of all the identities I could have had, my strongest identity is that I am a English-speaking South Asian. Does that make me English? No. Does that create a slight gap with say a Tamil or Bengali speaking South Asian? Yes. I’ve lived close to half my life in the UK now. I don’t feel particularly anything. I still have to explain to people that I didn’t learn English after I moved to the UK (most people don’t know their own history in this country haha)!
As someone from an ex British colony with a peripatetic childhood (spent all over South Asia) who now lives in the UK, I do agree with Maalouf: I will always feel poised between two regions connected through history, several (SEVERAL) cultural traditions, three languages. And that is my identity.
To quote Salman Rushdie from Midnight’s Children:
“Who what am I? My answer: I am the sum total of everything that went before me, of all I have been seen done, of everything done-to-me. I am everyone everything whose being-in-the-world affected was affected by mine. I am anything that happens after I’ve gone which would not have happened if I had not come. Nor am I particulary exceptional in this matter; each ‘I’, every one of the now-six-hundred-million-plus of us, contains a similar multitude. I repeat for the last time: to understand me, you’ll have to swallow a world.”
On the other hand, had I moved to an unconnected country say Japan (instead of the UK), I’d have felt what you mention about how you feel about the two countries you are connected to. It would have been a completely new experience. My great great grandparents didn’t speak Japanese or study in Japan. My relationship with the UK will always be different because of historical events.
Priyanka Sofia wrote: "Interesting points Eileen. I’ve just started this so I’ll refrain from commenting too much, but based on what you said there is a difference between your move from the US to Morocco and Maalouf’s m..."Yes, I see what you mean. Had I moved to Italy for example where my paternal grandparents were born and where I knew the language already, I would have a very different identity today. Alas, I went to France to study and met my Moroccan husband and the rest is my history.
Love the quote from Rushdie.
On page 79 of the book, Maalouf asks some complicated questions:"How can we modernize ourselves without losing our identity? How can we assimilate Western culture without denying our own? How can we acquire the West's knowledge without leaving ourselves at its mercy?"
Anyone have any thoughts on these questions?
Eileen wrote: "On page 79 of the book, Maalouf asks some complicated questions:"How can we modernize ourselves without losing our identity? How can we assimilate Western culture without denying our own? How can..."
My library doesn't have the book, so I haven't read it. But I have some thoughts on these questions.
I think Maalouf is setting up a false dichotomy. I don't see why "modernization" necessitates losing our identity; or why assimilating what is good in Western culture necessitates denying our own; or why accepting the West's knowledge means we leave ourselves at its mercy.
Historically, each culture has benefitted from the advances of other cultures and absorbed those benefits while maintaining its own identity. Take for example, technology. Each culture can make use of that technology to benefit itself. A car can be used to take you to a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or a temple.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing, either/or. The world is a better place if we utilize the best that each culture has to offer rather than opt for a dominating, monolithic culture--the logical conclusion of Maalouf's questions.
Retention of our cultural identity does not require a rejection of modernization. Our strength lies in diversity and in respecting what is good in our culture as well as in the culture of others.
Exactly. And I think we can learn from all parts of the world,in a sort of mutual exchange ,not just from west.And thats what we must hope to gain from globalisation..rather than focusing or denying a part of our identity or culture.. we must learn to appreciate the diversity...why should only we assimilate Western culture,why cant West learn from the East?Why should everything be the way West has done..always aiming for uniformity ? Rather it should include the best of every culture.
Why all this stress on modernisation,by learning from West...why cant it be a mutual exchange of positive values..rather than one sided assimilation or imitation...
And this mutual exchange will not cause a change in our identity, I think.On the other hand..it may enrich it..
siriusedward wrote: "Exactly. And I think we can learn from all parts of the world,in a sort of mutual exchange ,not just from west.And thats what we must hope to gain from globalisation..rather than focusing or denyi..."
Fantastic! You put it better than I did.
Tamara wrote: "siriusedward wrote: "Exactly. And I think we can learn from all parts of the world,in a sort of mutual exchange ,not just from west.And thats what we must hope to gain from globalisation..rather t..."
I agree with both of you. I think the arguments you present encapsulate perfectly the conflict that Niloo, the heroine of our last read REFUGE, undergoes. By the time we meet Niloo she is totolly Westernized and identifies as an American. She is embarrassed by her parents and the old ways they represent. Then she meets a group of Iranian immigrants in Holland and becomes immersed in their lives. Unfortunately at the end, while rediscovering her roots, she goes to the other extreme and gives up a vital part of her life, feeling the sacrifice is obligatory to regain her identity. I disagreed with that decision big time. Like Tamara says, it doesn't have to be all or nothing, either/or. I hope that Niloo will realize this, listen to her parent's advice and maybe reverse her decision. I felt the author left a tiny bit of hope for that.
One of my resolutions this year is to be more active in this group. I've just picked up a copy of this book from my University library and will be reading it shortly. One of my tendencies is to get started in too many different books and then never finish them. That's going to end this year. I may have two or three going, but that will be the most at one time. I'm missing out on too many really good books that way. I look forward to reading this with you.
Catherine wrote: "One of my resolutions this year is to be more active in this group. I've just picked up a copy of this book from my University library and will be reading it shortly. One of my tendencies is to get..."Welcome to the discussion, Catherine! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Catherine wrote: "One of my resolutions this year is to be more active in this group. I've just picked up a copy of this book from my University library and will be reading it shortly. One of my tendencies is to get..."That sounds great, Catherine!
Reading the fourth chapter.And enjoying it so far...
Also,so far ...I more or less agree with him.
Editing : Not entirely agreeing with him..on the nuances of certain things that he states.
But let us return for a moment to some examples I quoted at the beginning of this book. A man with a Serbian mother and a Croatian father, and who manages to accept his dual affiliation, will never take part in any form of ethnic "cleansing." A man with a Hutu mother and a Tutsi father, if he can accept the two "tributaries" that brought him into the world, will never be a party to butchery or genocide. And neither the Franco-Algerian lad, nor the young man of mixed German and Turkish origin whom I mentioned earlier, will ever be on the side of the fanatics if they succeed in living peacefully in the context of their own complex identity. I agree with this statement. If people can just accept the diversity and start appreciating it ,the world would be a better place.
If I can openly and joyfully acknowledge all parts of my identity..I think that would be something.
I finished the book this afternoon and found it to have been...interesting. I disagree with him on a number of issues, particularly when he says that (view spoiler)
I agree with you on the faith part of identity ,Catherine.Its just another aspect of our multi-faceted identity and sense of belonging.It should not be aleinated..but rather ,all should be accepted.
Rather than denial ,we must learn to accept ours and others beliefs whatever those are.
siriusedward wrote: "I agree with you on the faith part of identity ,Catherine.Its just another aspect of our multi-faceted identity and sense of belonging.It should not be aleinated..but rather ,all should be accepte..."
Yes, I think that our identities will always be multifaceted. Maalouf seems to shrink the number of facets to our identities in order to create a sort of "global human" identity. Not that he eliminates all the other ways we see ourselves - ethnic, language, country, etc. - he seems to completely subsume these these under the overall "global" identity. I don't think that's will work as a way to rid ourselves of violence. Instead, we may want to focus more on acceptance of others' differences.
I've been following this discussion for a while and thought I'd offer my two cents. I read this book a few years ago and remember liking the crux of the argument. The issues Maalouf raised are more urgent today than they were at the time when he'd written the book.Tamara wrote: I think Maalouf is setting up a false dichotomy. I don't see why "modernization" necessitates losing our identity; or why assimilating what is good in Western culture necessitates denying our own; or why accepting the West's knowledge means we leave ourselves at its mercy.
Historically, each culture has benefitted from the advances of other cultures and absorbed those benefits while maintaining its own identity. Take for example, technology. Each culture can make use of that technology to benefit itself. A car can be used to take you to a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or a temple.
I'd like to address a couple of things, with your permission.
I think Maalouf is on to something much more profound here. Modernisation is the biggest disrupter of identity and causes people to react and respond to the new reality in unanticipated ways . We can observe this on a smaller level in the process of urbanisation which is still ongoing in many parts of the developing world. I'm most familiar with South Asia and some parts of the Middle East so I'll stick to those societies. When people from rural background and agrarian lifestyles move to large cities in search of a 'better life,' they sometimes come to inhabit the reality that is far worse than the old one. They trade their open spaces for tiny hovels, their social support networks disappear and they become anonymous bodies in the urban jungle, which leads to loneliness and depression. To survive, they need things they did not need before: motorbikes, cars, washing machines, mobile phones, television, school fees, hospital bills etc, thus exponentially raising the cost of living. Although they earn much more in the city than they did in the village, in real terms they are poorer than before. They don't often have a choice to go back because they have burned their boats and sold what they possessed. We hear about the successful urbanisation and rags-to-riches stories, but what we don't hear is the pain and violence the process of modernisation brings upon countless people. This leads to social tensions, rise in crime, and more often than not political dissent based on identity.
I mentioned the process of urbanisation in detail because exactly the same forces are at play at a bigger level under different labels when it comes to modern migration and the question of integration, assimilation, acceptance, heritage etc. This is not a matter simply of embracing technological innovations or absorbing knowledge or making good choices from a range of choices available to us, to take what is good of the adopted country and stick to what is good from the place of origin etc, but of coming to terms with the new shades of reality whilst contradictory notions and personal issues bear down on us and tear us apart. Faced with this violence it is not uncommon for people to react in extremes (positively or negatively) towards their adopted country or their heritage. I think Maalouf is very cognizant of the fact that the process of 'modernisation' and in turn 'Westernisation' compels people to choose from exclusive and contradictory options where they are forced to jettison a complex idea of identity in favour of a simple and incomplete one.
The other thing I want to address is the issue of cultural exchange which some of the friends commented on earlier.
Maalouf presents his thesis as a larger, all-encompassing phenomenon that applies to all scenarios, but if you read between the lines he is writing in the context of the issues raised by the patterns of postcolonial migration, especially from poorer former colonies to the developed countries that once ruled. So every question of cultural exchange is predicated on the question of power imbalance between societies involved in the exchange. Personally, I love cultural exchanges and have been part of groups that engage in and promote it. I travel the world mainly to take part in those exchanges on a personal level, but I'd argue that cultural exchange is rarely a two-way process with positive results for both parties, especially when one culture thinks of itself as superior and sees the other as a mere curiosity. I'll give an example.
Mark Tully, a BBC journalist, speaking of cultural exchanges between India and Britain in the 1980s writes this in his book, No Full Stops in India:
Cultural exchanges (between unequal parties) are one of the more subtle ways of imposing cultural imperialism. They create the impression that we respect Indian culture, while at the same time giving us the opportunity to exhibit our own superiority, or what we believe is our superiority. Over the last 10 years or so, India has been persuaded to hold a number of festivals in foreign countries - significantly, Britain led the field. The festivals of India undoubtedly increased interest in things Indian but they had no radical effect on life in our countries.
On the other hand, Britain's promotion of its culture in India led to an unreciprocated abundance of knowledge of British TV, music, celebrities, tourism, history etc.
Priyanka Sofia wrote: "Interesting points Eileen. I’ve just started this so I’ll refrain from commenting too much, but based on what you said there is a difference between your move from the US to Morocco and Maalouf’s m..."Excellent post, Priyanka.
I can relate to a lot of what you've said. I've seen the issues you describe at close quarters during my time in Britain, and every case has been a unique and fascinating aspect of complex identities.
Personally, I've never been a migrant and do not hold citizenship of any country other than of my birth - a successor state of British India. But given our history with Britain and the legacy of colonialism, it is impossible to escape from the questions of identity and selfhood regardless of whether or not one is a migrant.
I agree all migration isn't the same and neither does it raise the kind of questions of identity we're discussing here.
For example, when Brits move to Spain and end up spending their entire lives there, or Americans who go to live for example in Thailand for extended periods of time, they are not called 'migrants' but 'expats' and not expected to 'integrate' or 'assimilate.' They aren't even expected to learn the language and not asked to be thankful to the host society for allowing them the opportunity to live and work there. So here migration is a function of power and superiority. None of that applies when people from postcolonial developing countries make a similar move. In spite of the services they render to their adopted countries, they are invested with a duty to appreciate and thank the host society for the opportunities, preferably by excessive display of patriotism and loyalty and by total assimilation into the ways of the host society. This phenomenon is more and more visible in the rise of far right narrative in the West. And this right here is our can of worms, our modern-day crisis of identity.
In case anyone hasn't seen this, I think this write-up by the Turkish-Swedish academic is very relevant to the debate.https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...
Jibran wrote: "Priyanka Sofia wrote: "Interesting points Eileen. I’ve just started this so I’ll refrain from commenting too much, but based on what you said there is a difference between your move from the US to ..."Not all Western emigrants (which is a synonym in the dictionary for expatriate or migrant) are coming from a position of “power and superiority.” All emigrants, whether they are traveling East to West, West to East, North to South or South to North, experience culture shock. This has a direct impact on their identity. All emigrants must make adjustments and try to assimilate or blend into their new culture/home. It is indeed expected that they will learn the language – if they don’t they will have a hard time adjusting and may not “make it” in their new home. I am speaking from the experience of a “Westerner” who emigrated to Morocco and has lived over 30 years here. This experience makes a person more empathetic to the plight of all emigrants and to the phenomenon of immigration in general. (One of my American friends who has lived here over 20 years has established an NGO that helps sub-Saharan migrants settle in Morocco). Whenever these Westerners return to their “home” countries, they bring with them enlightened views towards migrants and immigration which they share and promote. They are part of the solution that Maalouf is proposing. In addition, their offspring, be they second or third culture kids, are unlikely to become involved in ethnic conflicts as they have a very global point of view versus a tribal/nationalistic one, another point that Maalouf makes.
Western emigrants are equally relevant to Maalouf’s discussion and should not be summarily dismissed or condescended to. If Maalouf has excluded them, then he is wrong to do so.
……………
An aside: On page 71, Maalouf says:
“Wherever on the planet one happens to live, all modernization is now Westernization …everything that is newly created – buildings, institutions, aids to knowledge or improvements to lifestyles – all is produced in the image of the West.”
I disagree. There are many examples, especially in architecture, where the model is Eastern not Western. Joan Zimmerman says, “Frank Lloyd Wright’s close integration of building with landscape, uncluttered interiors, and later emphasis on soft, diffused, natural light, reflect Japanese (and Chinese) characteristics.” The Islamic influence on Spanish architecture can still be seen in modern Spanish buildings. Then there is the current popularity of vegetarianism, meditation and yoga, all of which have their roots in Eastern culture. I think this is one case of Maalouf making a gross generalization that suits his argument but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Jibran wrote: "In case anyone hasn't seen this, I think this write-up by the Turkish-Swedish academic is very relevant to the debate.https://www.theguardian.com/commentis......"
That is a very interesting article. Here is a link to an enlightening essay by Dina Nayeri, author of the novel, REFUGE, that is also relevant to this discussion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/201...
Jibran wrote: "I think Maalouf is on to something much more profound here. Modernisation is the biggest disrupter of identity and causes people to react and respond to the new reality in unanticipated ways . We can observe this on a smaller level in the process of urbanisation which is still ongoing in many parts of the developing world..."The process of urbanization you describe is going on all over the world--not just in developing countries. I live in the middle of America--Kansas. I was a professor of English at an urban college for a number of years before retiring. So many of my students came from rural areas. They and their families had moved to the "big city," abandoning the family farm because it was no longer a viable economic option. They, too, had to make adjustments although not to the same degree. And they, too, are beset with the challenges of adjusting.
Jibran wrote: " . . . but I'd argue that cultural exchange is rarely a two-way process with positive results for both parties, especially when one culture thinks of itself as superior and sees the other as a mere curiosity. . .
This may have been true in the past, but I disagree it is true today. I see increasing evidence of the presence of non-Western cultures in the West. And the presence is not perceived as a "curiosity" but as something of value. All you have to do is look around.
I recently returned to London to visit family. It had been 17 years since my last visit. Everywhere I looked, I saw restaurants serving food from different parts of the world--Turkey, Morocco, the Middle East, India, China, Japan, etc. etc. Such restaurants were non-existent in the London of the '60s when I grew up.
And it's not just the food. It's the music, the language, the architecture, as Eileen pointed out. I have a photograph of my grandson (6 years old) standing outside his favorite bookstore in Atlanta. The window displayed the words "Ramadan Mubarak." I asked my son and he said the bookstore always celebrates the world's religious and cultural events by displaying books from that particular culture. I doubt whether any of my school mates in England had even heard of the word "Ramadan" when I was growing up.
Children's books and children's toys educate young people on different cultural traditions--again, something unheard of in the past. My grandson's kindergarten class regularly invites parents to share with the children something about their culture. My sister tells me they do the same thing in her grandson's kindergarten class in London. Children who are raised with an appreciation for other cultures are unlikely to be involved in ethnic conflicts, as Eileen points out.
I'm not suggesting we are where we need to be. But I am saying we are inching forward in the right direction.
Excuse the length of this post, but this is a complex subject that merits serious consideration. Although I didn't agree with some of what you said, I appreciate the time and effort you took in posting your thoughts.
Thank you.
Eileen wrote: "Not all Western emigrants (which is a synonym in the dictionary for expatriate or migrant) are coming from a position of “power and superiority.” All emigrants, whether they are traveling East to West, West to..."Great post, Eileen. Thanks.
Tamara wrote: "Jibran wrote: "I think Maalouf is on to something much more profound here. Modernisation is the biggest disrupter of identity and causes people to react and respond to the new reality in unanticipa..."Eileen wrote: "Jibran wrote: "Priyanka Sofia wrote: "Interesting points Eileen. I’ve just started this so I’ll refrain from commenting too much, but based on what you said there is a difference between your move ..."
Thanks both of you
This gives one hope that people will see the plight of humans worldwide not in terms of religion or culture but as humans..the sad thing is still some people are really discriminated and violayed annd marginalised based on their religion and culture..still there is colonialisation...its harsly post-colonial..in all parts of the world..still there is genocide..
But hope is there..let us hold onto it..
Tamara wrote: "Jibran wrote: "I think Maalouf is on to something much more profound here. Modernisation is the biggest disrupter of identity and causes people to react and respond to the new reality in unanticipa..."Tamara, likewise I appreciate your taking the time to reply. Thank you.
I agree that today people from different communities and cultures are better informed about each other than in the not-so-distant past but I believe this is by no means a universal phenomenon.The cultural exchange you've described is the consequence of the rising migrant numbers in the West from countries in the developing world, and it's natural that this would reflect in food options and shops selling 'ethnic' products. But this type of exchange is very cosmetic and doesn't tell us much about the larger forces that underlie the identity conflicts of our times. This also isn't the same as the cultural exchanges that take place between two or more communities living in their home countries, which is what I meant when I mentioned the example of India and Britain. That type of exchange is in large measure a function of power and resources. For example, the whole world knows about many famous American and British TV series, music and writers. How many Americans or Brits would know about Indian classical dance or about Tagore? This is why I believe cultural exchange is an uneven playing field and does not create the equality of opportunity when it takes place.
But even if we consider the great progress made in many Western countries in terms of cultural exchanges and community/race relations, how do we address the irony of the rise of the neo-nationalistic far-right narrative in almost every country in the West? When leaders like British ex-PM David Cameron take the podium to declare that multiculturalism has 'failed,' many other mainstream leaders and thinkers nod in agreement. Or when Kosher and Halal are set to be outlawed in Belgium, France bans the face veil and Switzerland bans the minarets. What was once a fringe far right narrative is appropriated and adopted by the mainstream parties.
This puts religious and ethnic minorities under extreme pressure to conform to a new nationalist narrative which sets to obliterate any and all vestige of their culture and identity drawn from their heritage. They can only be good citizens when they refashion themselves in the image of the master culture. In other words a total assimilation into what is called 'their way of life' and '[insert country] values." IMHO this is an indication of a new age of soft totalitarianism and cultural imperialism against which Maalouf warned many years ago. If cultural exchanges were working as well as assumed, the opposite of this would be happening.
I believe a huge question mark hangs over the direction in which the countries you mentioned are going.
Tamara wrote: "The process of urbanization you describe is going on all over the world--not just in developing countries...
I'd like to emphasise that the urban-rural divide isn't nearly the same everywhere in the world. The shock and challenges people still face in making a move to often wild urban metropolises with broken or non-existent social support systems and weak law enforcement in the developing countries can't really be equated to a similar process taking place, for example, in the US or France. An anthropological study I'd read some time ago in a journal makes very good points on the nature of urbanisation in the third world. I will post a link if I can find it.
Jibran wrote: "But even if we consider the great progress made in many Western countries in terms of cultural exchanges and community/race relations, how do we address the irony of the rise of the neo-nationalistic far-right narrative in almost every country in the West?. ."I don't see it as irony. I see it as a reaction to the ongoing success of multiculturalism. If neo-nationalists and the far right did not see it as succeeding, they would not be trying to take measures to arrest it.
I would love to continue this conversation. However, I worry that we may have veered too far from the focus of this group. If so, I hope one of the moderators will intervene and get us back on track.
Eileen wrote: "“Wherever on the planet one happens to live, all modernization is now Westernization …everything that is newly created – buildings, institutions, aids to knowledge or improvements to lifestyles – all is produced in the image of the West.”"I completely agree with Maalouf on this. I'm not saying it's bad or good, or how bad or how good, but there is an implicit understanding and acceptance inherent in the discourse of modernisation by which underdeveloped and developing countries all over the world can improve only by adopting the Western model. Anything other than that is bound to fail. This extends to all domains of life: economy, education, culture, institutions, politics and division of power etc. Countries that do not modernise themselves on the Western model get a lot of bad press and sometimes condemned as backward and inferior. We see this happening all the time.
Smart societies progress on their own pace and do not change on the demands of the outsiders. They know where the faultlines lie and, rather than copying the West, work to minimise the damage when things tend to flare up. It is for this reason India banned The Satanic Verses and got condemned by the Western intelligentsia for 'suppressing freedom of speech' even if that move saved lives and maintained community cohesion. (And I'm saying this as someone who disagrees with banning books). Likewise Russia could not become a 'free' country unless it permitted American fast food joints to open shop in post-Soviet years, because not allowing useless junk food joints in Russia went against the principles of an 'open economy.' In Pakistan, the sitting government promised their voters during the election that they would make all schools and college English medium and no subjects would be taught in Urdu, apparently to 'better prepare them for global competition.' So here we have demands of modernisation which are in all their manifestations inseparable from Westernisation.
I think there's nothing new in the fact that societies and cultures accept influences from outsiders in many spheres of life. It's a universal phenomenon and can be observed throughout history. The question is, who has the power to dictate the terms of the debate and penalise the weaker party when they don't do as they are supposed to...
Thanks for linking to the Dina Nayeri article. I will check it out :)
Tamara wrote: "I don't see it as irony. I see it as a reaction to the ongoing success of multiculturalism. If neo-nationalists and the far right did not see it as succeeding, they would not be trying to take measures to arrest it. "That is an interesting take. Even though the sociopolitical trends in many countries appear to be heading the wrong way, I hope the forces of negativity are defeated and multiculturalism and acceptance succeed in years to come. As siriusedward's said, may the humanism triumph.
I'm sorry if this has gone beyond the scope of the group. I'm new here and don't want to antagonise the management and not sure what is permitted and what isn't. I'd appreciate if a mod could clarify. But I do think everything we have discussed so far is relevant to the book in question.
Jibran wrote: "Tamara wrote: "I don't see it as irony. I see it as a reaction to the ongoing success of multiculturalism. If neo-nationalists and the far right did not see it as succeeding, they would not be tryi..."Since I am the discussion leader for this book, I will step in and respond here. I think that most of the comments so far have been on topic. Hopefully other group members will jump in and join the lively discussion.
That said, I do have a few things to say about your posts. I think you are sometimes guilty of making sweeping generalizations and of not being able to concede that there are always two sides to a position.
For example:
- You disparage all cultural exchanges based on some very limited experience. Cultural exchanges have been very successful in schools throughout the United States. I can offer one specific example of a friend who lives in upstate New York and who hosted two Japanese high school students (at different times). The family became life-long friends with both, with my friend and her husband traveling to meet their families. And one of her three sons later went to Japan to teach English and stayed there through a national crisis (the nuclear meltdown), despite his parents wanting him to come home, in a spirit of solidarity with his Japanese students and colleagues. This is just one example, there are countless others.
- You agree with Maalouf’s generalization about Western influence despite all the examples, some of which Tamara cited, of current Eastern influence on language (Chinese and Arabic are the most popular languages at universities in the US), cuisine, art, architecture and music. I can offer yet another example. Yo Yo Ma, the Rolling Stones, Robert Plant and Jimmy Page have all sought inspiration in traditional Moroccan music for their work. Again, only one example.
- You cite the rise of anti-immigration movements in major political parties in the West. Yet you ignore the fact that there are also pro-immigration movements in major political parties countering those. For example, the current government shutdown in the United States, a record-breaker, is all about immigration. The President wants a wall to keep out immigrants. Virulent anti-immigration rhetoric can be heard from some in his Republican Party. But the other major party, the Democrats, refuses to yield in its stance of protecting immigrants (particularly the “Dreamers”) and asylum seekers, saying the symbol of the US is the Statue of Liberty not a wall. There are similar pro-immigration movements in political parties in other Western nations.
Here is where our discussion veers into politics and away from the topic of identity. From your posts, I will venture that perhaps part of your identity is being a pessimist and Tamara, Siriusedward, and I are optimists. Could it be as simple as that?
Eileen, thanks for the follow up.Far be it from me to disparage cultural exchanges or anyone's personal experience. I am only pointing out that it would be a mistake to view cultural exchanges (between individuals, groups or societies) without factoring in the power imbalance, access to resources, and the cultural/political reach of the parties involved in the exchange.
The reason I've made a few generalisations is to bring the point home, not to deny the welcome trends you and Tamara pointed out, which I'm happy to hear and personally know many more. Let's say I'm taking a macro view of the politics of identity, a broader take on the direction in which the major sociopolitical trends of our times are moving. As Mark Tully said bluntly and Maalouf pointed out softly in the book, it is a narrative which is highly skewed in favour of powerful countries of the West that control, command, and compel the others to conform to the 'master culture' whilst taking very little from them in return. In the past this could be obseved on a state level but now the developments of the last decade or so show that it is now happening with greater frequency inside the Western countries.
I've noticed that some (East-to-West) migrants who are success stories don't like to admit this because it questions their own sense of identity and accomplishment in the country they have adopted as their own. And I understand it's a difficult position to operate from. Just like the conflicting sentiments Dina Nayeri's wrote about in the Guardian piece you posted.
Mod
Tamara wrote: "I would love to continue this conversation. However, I worry that we may have veered too far from the focus of this group. If so, I hope one of the moderators will intervene and get us back on track. ..."
Jibran wrote: "I'm sorry if this has gone beyond the scope of the group. I'm new here and don't want to antagonise the management and not sure what is permitted and what isn't. I'd appreciate if a mod could clarify. But I do think everything we have discussed so far is relevant to the book in question...."
Eileen wrote: "Here is where our discussion veers into politics and away from the topic of identity. From your posts, I will venture that perhaps part of your identity is being a pessimist and Tamara, Siriusedward, and I are optimists. Could it be as simple as that?.."
First of all , thank you Eileen so much for what you are doing with us in the group :)
You are all welcome to continue this discussion and I hope all of you will feel comfortable and respected expressing your opinions .Also there is no problem with politics being part of our discussions at all , we discussed even more sensitive subjects over the years and thank god the group survived ! :D . The only rule that concerns us is the following - I see no one broke it .
"Keep in mind that some of our topics will be sensitive. Each member is entitled to his or her own opinion. It is fine to disagree with someone but it is never okay to attack another person's point of view. Just have fun!"
My personal opinion ,
For the idea of comparing Globalization to westernization , I like the positive views I read here , I enjoy feeling such optimism that gives so much hope , cultural exchanges can be indeed a positive tool to provide a platform for communication and understanding , weakening the alienation feelings that feed the violence in the first place , this group is part of this communication . But in general -like Jibran- I do believe if there is ” No power balance” Globalization will mean westernization as it will always lean towards the stronger's culture , not that globalization is a process that anyone can stop , I am just stating how it is seen from my side of the world- for now ?
I read this book several years ago , I do not remember all the details yet I know it was one of the books that pushed me thinking a lot . it was my second read for Maalouf after Samarkand that made see how occupied he is by the relation between East and West and the cultural interaction . I liked the Arabic title "Murderous identities" which made the message delivered by this book clearer -" How defending my identity will turn into a murdering action " , Maalouf thinks the religious feature of identity is the most effective part now and I agree because even if we live in a world where secularism seems to be “ the Zeitgeist” , the religious conflicts remain the bloodiest in our modern world .
When Maalouf noted how modernization is seen as westernization in the east , he was explaining how the dynamic open Muslim society that witnessed creativity , acceptance and forgiveness in the middle ages - compared to Christian Europe in the same era - became this rigid one today controlled by fear , and not only fear but anger that lead to choosing “getting back to tradition” /” Fundamentalism” as the best defense mechanism against the other (the west) who has forced imperialism on him for so long , who is responsible for so much of his problems today , and he is imposing his culture on me as the superior one who brought him modernism .
I think Maalouf was building his theory through the book stage by stage , he was reading from history and examining the present , may be it is unfair to criticize a statement he made without looking at the whole picture he is trying to interpret . just a thought :)
Hmmm..it does sound right ,you know...Its not that everyone is one way or the other or that the cultural exchange does not take place..its still applicable that there is a power imbalance..esp niw..as Maalouf says .. I personally ,at times,on reading all the comments on FB..or the various articles or the dominant narrative thats out there.,I personally feel defensive ,about the faith part of my identity..reactionary response, see...people generally expect you to be like them or you are made to feel different...but,this is only from online and other reading experiences...
I will think on it some more.and post later..
Niledaughter wrote: "... because even if we live in a world where secularism seems to be “ the Zeitgeist” , the religious conflicts remain the bloodiest in our modern world..."I don't think the conflicts in the world can be attributed to religion. I think conflicts are between those who have power and those who have been denied access to power. Unfortunately, in order to rally support for a political cause, religion has been co-opted and politicized into an Us vs. Them.
For example, during the '60s in England, the British news would report on "the troubles" i.e. a reference to the conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland. But the troubles were not about religious differences even though they took on a "religious" garb. They were really about power--who has it and who has been denied it--the Catholics demanding independence from Britain and denied the privileges granted to the Protestants.
There is no reason why people of different faiths cannot live together in harmony. It is already happening in different parts of the world. If you look at any conflict in the world, I think you will see that it is not religion that causes the conflict. It is people appropriating religion for political purposes--as a basis for discriminating against/oppressing a specific group ("the other") to deny them access to power.
Eileen wrote: "Jibran wrote: "Tamara wrote: "I don't see it as irony. I see it as a reaction to the ongoing success of multiculturalism. If neo-nationalists and the far right did not see it as succeeding, they wo..."Just dipping my toe in for a moment, while Jibran is more than capable of speaking for himself on all points, as someone who has read his thoughtful comments and insights over the years in various groups and book threads, I’ve never had the impression that he is a pessimist. I find that perjoratives are unhelpful in considering alternative viewpoints, generally.
I am admittedly far more familiar with the debate and outcomes of industrialization/modernization in the context of Japan. One point that hasn’t yet come out, I don’t think, is the influence on an Eastern culture of Western (broadly generalized) values of the importance of the individual versus the community. Once the primary question of many young persons shifts from what is my obligation to my family, to my town, to my people to what do I want to do, achieve, believe? and personal identity is based on personal choices and achievements rather than being drawn from one’s role in a family or clan, then everything changes. I’m not labeling that change good or bad, but seismic.
Carol wrote: "Eileen wrote: "Jibran wrote: "Tamara wrote: "I don't see it as irony. I see it as a reaction to the ongoing success of multiculturalism. If neo-nationalists and the far right did not see it as succ..."Nicely put, Carol.
Mod
Tamara wrote: "There is no reason why people of different faiths cannot live together in harmony. It is already happening in different parts of the world. If you look at any conflict in the world, I think you will see that it is not religion that causes the conflict. It is people appropriating religion for political purposes--as a basis for discriminating against/oppressing a specific group ("the other") to deny them access to power...."
I totally agree that people of different faiths can live together in harmony and that the struggle is after all is about power .
I do not think we are in disagreement , we are actually talking about different aspects , I need to investigate your example example "the conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland" , why was it reported this way ? what was expected from the receiver ?
I do not think the problem is about what is possible or what is not , it is about a phenomena and I think Maalouf was talking about the individuals , their believes that were addressed to make the move . he is trying to explain how fundamentalism was welcomed .
Mod
:)
Carol wrote: "Once the primary question of many young persons shifts from what is my obligation to my family, to my town, to my people to what do I want to do, achieve, believe? and personal identity is based on personal choices and achievements rather than being drawn from one’s role in a family or clan, then everything changes..."
Very interesting to think about .
Tamara wrote: "Niledaughter wrote: "... because even if we live in a world where secularism seems to be “ the Zeitgeist” , the religious conflicts remain the bloodiest in our modern world..."I don't think the c..."
It usually is not people sincerely following any religion ,non judgey and accepting people ,who are the problem..its usually a problem when it or any other part of our identity(religion ,one thing thats especially used) is used to inflame people(usually for politics or power by power greedy people) ..and make them reactive..or defensive... so ,a person reacts from a place of defensiveness..if that makes sense..and then it becomes a cycle...unfortunately..and this is then picked up by the media and others to exacerbrate it...
Qe need to breakour of the cycle..
Social media ,unfortunaley ,adds fuel to the fire,sometimeswith fake news and such...
But, that applies I think to race,class and ethnicity too..
Carol wrote: "Eileen wrote: "Jibran wrote: "Tamara wrote: "I don't see it as irony. I see it as a reaction to the ongoing success of multiculturalism. If neo-nationalists and the far right did not see it as succ..."When I wondered if Jibran might be a pessimist, I certainly did not mean it in a pejorative way. To me, whether we see the glass as half full or half empty is simply a personality trait, neither good nor bad, simply a trait. Jibran, if you were offended, I apologize. No harm was meant.
Tamara wrote: "Niledaughter wrote: "... because even if we live in a world where secularism seems to be “ the Zeitgeist” , the religious conflicts remain the bloodiest in our modern world..."I don't think the c..."
Tamara, I agree with your view and also don't believe that the conflicts in the world can be attributed to religion. Maalouf says, on page 66:
"What I am objecting to is the habit that people have got into... of classifying everything that happens in a Muslim country as related to Islam, whereas there are many other factors that are much more relevant. You could read a dozen large tomes on the history of Islam... and you would not understand what is going on in Algeria. But read 30 pages on colonialism and decolonisation and then you'll understand quite a lot."
As Tamara and others have said here, it is a question of power and who holds it.
But the above observation does apply in the real world,you know..People ARE so ready to blame everything on Islam..rather than the cultural and regional and other influences...like colonialism and exploitation.
As you see in the media.. if an attacker is a muslim..mostly that part of his identity is what gets highlighted..whereas if he is from any other religion,this is not so...people do question that part of your identity and makes one defensive you know, its hard to accept the hypocrisy and so called one sided secularism..its sometimes rather sad too...
The way it gets repetitive..at times it feels dishaertening and so unfair...
But,being part of such groups as this and other groups on FB and GR is rather encouraging and hopeful.
And these discussions make the days that much more brighter...
Carol wrote: "Just dipping my toe in for a moment, while Jibran is more than capable of speaking for himself.....over the years in various groups and book threads, I’ve never had the impression that he is a pessimist."Thank you, Carol. Good to see you here :)
I did not address the bit about being optimistic or pessimistic because it might have veered the discussion off course & into the personal, which is not a good idea, unless someone wants to talk about themselves as being such and such.
@Eileen: no offence taken. Nothing to worry :)
Carol wrote: I am admittedly far more familiar with the debate and outcomes of industrialization/modernization in the context of Japan. One point that hasn’t yet come out, I don’t think, is the influence on an Eastern culture of Western (broadly generalized) values of the importance of the individual versus the community.
That is a very relevant observation. I don't know much about the changes that have taken place in the Japanese society but the turbo-charged modernisation in South Korea has led to a breakdown of community and a rise in extreme individualism, powered by economic compulsions and the need to maintain a high-standard urban life.
In old days, it was adult children's responsibiluty to take care off elderly parents in all ways, including financial and moral. But the compulsions of modern-day living means that elderly people have been left to fend for themselves. I'll quote a case from the article:
Mdm Yim worked hard to support five children, even sending one of them to university. But they all moved away to other cities once they got married, and three years ago, her husband died, leaving her once again without real family support.
The association was formed to help the elderly who fall through the gaps of government support - such as those who are not eligible for financial help because government records show that they have children, who are assumed to be taking care of them. “In reality, the majority of these elders don’t even have contact with their children,” said Mr Shin.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018...
I'd go so far as to say that even though South Korea is an economic miracle, it is also a social disaster.
North Korea isn't an example one should be citing for good things, but the lack of "open door" modernisation in the north means their traditional community structures are still intact.
For various historical and political reasons, the pace of modernisation in South Asia and Middle Eastern countries has been slow and hasn't led to the same kind of problems as seen in countries which have modernised very fast especially since the World War II.
Zadie Smith's answer to the question of identity reminded me of the ideas Maalouf puts forth in the book. My trouble is I can’t think of community in the singular. Doesn’t everyone exist in a Venn diagram of overlapping allegiances and interests? I’m a black person, also a woman, also a wife and mother, a Brit, a European – for the moment – a Londoner, a New Yorker, a writer, a feminist, a second-generation Jamaican, a member of the African diaspora, a Game of Thrones-er, an academic, a comedy-nerd, a theory-dork, a hip-hop-head and so on.
But the whole debate can fall into a kind of trap. I know the argument: no one calls Don DeLillo the “white American author Don DeLillo”, so why should I put up with being called “the black British author Zadie Smith”? But by that logic, the rhetorical pressure falls on this idea of neutrality, as if to be white is not to possess a race or an identity – is simply to be “the author” – whereas to be black is precisely to have an identity. And then from there you are forced into the corner where you find yourself arguing that to be truly great, truly “the author”, you must have your blackness forgotten, you must aspire to people seeing “beyond” it, “past” it.
It’s a version of that backhanded compliment I sometimes heard as a child: “Honestly, you’re just my mate, I don’t even think about your colour. I’m colour blind!” I think you have to reverse the concept to see how strange it is: “Oh, Don, I don’t even think about you being white any more, I just love your books!” No, I don’t desire this supposed neutrality. I am all the things I am – and also an author. It’s all inseparable, as Don and his whiteness are inseparable.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...
Oh.Thats beautiful.And just what I was thinking...Ighlighting black author or people of color..etc I do not like..it gives feeling of otherness you see..
But then...like Zadie smith ..it does not automatically mean an erasure of all colors...its another extreme.we must strive to be inclusive you need not highlight Black or Color but...you must just accept it as the norm..I mean, you must accept that white, black, brown or yellow ..every skin color is there ,part of the richness.I don't like the use of 'people of color' (for its otherness) neither do I like when one says 'I don't see any color'..its kind of a negation...
I am not able to put into words ,exactly what I feel..
siriusedward wrote: "Oh.Thats beautiful.And just what I was thinking...Ighlighting black author or people of color..etc I do not like..it gives feeling of otherness you see..
But then...like Zadie smith ..it does not ..."
You have explained it very well and I totally agree with you.
It may be well-meant, but not seeing colour is problematic as it means an unwitting denial of an integral part of a person's identity. On the other hand, emphasising it to the point where it becomes a fundamental marker of identity and where a person's whole personality is judged by it is also problematic. Inclusiveness and acceptance has so much more to it than navigating the minefield of colourism and coining politically acceptable terms for it.
I thought I was the only one who saw a problem with the term 'people of colour.' I have an intense dislike for it and I hope in time the mainstream recognises that it is in essence an exclusionary and patrnoising term and should be dispensed with. I much prefer the general term 'non-white' to refer to such communities in countries where they form a minority.
Likewise the ridiculous 'African American' which also irks me (You never see Americans of Irish/Italian/German origin being called 'European Americans,' do you?) But since I'm an outsider I can't speak for people to whom the term refers. But if I were one, I'd prefer to be simply called black American.
Jibran wrote: "siriusedward wrote: "Oh.Thats beautiful.And just what I was thinking...Ighlighting black author or people of color..etc I do not like..it gives feeling of otherness you see..
But then...like Zadie..."
Ah, isn’t that last always the key? Referring to people in the manner they prefer and not what we (non-group-members) think they should prefer? There’s a lot of pertinent history in the US to the cultural preference for African-American, and if it shifts by choice of those persons who possess that identity, respect miilitates in favor of shifting with them as directed. The short version is that they sought a connection to Africa as a place of origin and pride, as opposed to references to skin tone.
Great and spot-on quote from Ms Smith.
'Identity is a pain in the arse': Zadie Smith on political correctness | Books | The Guardianhttps://amp.theguardian.com/books/201...
She conceded that the assertion of a collective identity was sometimes necessary “to demand rights”, but cited the dismay of her husband – the poet and novelist Nick Laird – at finding himself increasingly categorised. “He turned to me and said: ‘I used to be myself and I’m now white guy, white guy.’ I said: ‘Finally, you understand.’ But the lesson of that is that identity is a huge pain in the arse. The strange thing to me is the assumption [of white people] that their identity is the right to freedom.”
Carol wrote: "Ah, isn’t that last always the key? Referring to people in the manner they prefer and not what we (non-group-members) think they should prefer? ."Indeed. It gets difficult when there are differences within the community about the terms they believe are most appropriate. Once being called 'black' was considered derogatory and at best impolite until the black community came forward and embraced it and declared 'Black is Beautiful.' And so it became acceptable. I guess this applies to other terms as well. Criticism of 'African-American' comes from a few black American millennials I know. Perhaps the new generation has a different view of their identity than their parents and grandparents.
The same is true about indigenous communities in the States. Slavoj Zizek, the Slovak philosopher, often tells a joke in his talks. He says his indigenous American friends don't like to be called 'native Americans.' The term is loaded with ideas such as indigenous people are closer to Mother Nature, talk to the mountains, and live natural lives etc etc. If they are native what are others? Cultural Americans? They much prefer to be called 'Indians' because at least this reminds them of the white man's stupidity who thought they had come to India!
As Ms Smith puts it, 'Identity is a pain in the arse.'
Middle East/North African Lit
Books mentioned in this topic
Samarkand (other topics)No Full Stops in India (other topics)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
I am about 3/4 of the way through the book. My local book group discussed it in December and we all found it fascinating, even if we did not agree with everything the author says. Our conversations lasted long into the night - we didn't seem to want to stop talking about it. The discussion leader had us answer several questions about our personal identity and share the responses with the group. As several members are expats and all are world travelers, we all related to the book in a big way. As to how "personal" everyone here would like to get with our discussion, that will be left up to the individual.
I would like to start with a quote from page one of the book:
"What makes me myself rather than anyone else is the very fact that I am poised between two countries, two or three languages and several cultural traditions. It is precisely this that defines my identity."
Comments?