Ian attended McGill University in Montreal from 2005-2008 and received his Bachelor of Commerce with a major in International Management. In 2009 he attended the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication and participated in the New Interculturalist program. He also attended Pathways' 2009 Summer Institute on Islam, Intercultural Relations & Leadership. Ian has been working as an intern with Pathways for Mutual Respect since October 2008 and is primarily responsible for managing and developing Pathways' growing web presence.
Ian's areas of interest include alternative education, complexity theory, social networking, media studies, and the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. He would like his career to focus on alternative curriculum development and facilitating intercultural learning, especially among young people.
A cultural value that is widely and strongly adhered to in the United States is egalitarianism. While this is admittedly a vague concept and there are likely to be as many definitions of it as there are people, we can loosely define it as a belief in certain inalienable rights that every human being is entitled to regardless of ethnicity, gender, creed, social class etc. We envision a society constructed on this value where all individuals can navigate the social landscape on equal footing with the opportunity to realize their personal aspirations through their merit and force of will. Another useful term for our discussion of this value is self-determination – we are equal when we possess equal power over decision-making. Although it is highly questionable whether we are living in such a society, many of us take it for granted that we have indeed fully realized our ideal of universal self-determination and thus have a duty to pass this value on to parts of the world where ‘unjust’ and ‘unequal’ societies still exist, or to enforce this value as a norm on new entrants to our society. Such support for imposed egalitarianism, while perhaps less pronounced today, has historically manifested itself in foreign policy decisions and stances on immigration.
If we correlate egalitarianism with self-determination, we can see the absurdity inherent in an imposed egalitarianism. How can we pay lip service to self-determination while imposing our values on others? It is my belief that like egalitarianism, any value pushed to its extreme empties itself of its spiritual and ethical potency and becomes a parasitic shell of itself, an ethnocentric propaganda tool, or just a meaningless cliché. It becomes its own enemy, the very evil it sees in the binary opposite from which it seeks to differentiate itself – freedom becomes tyranny and justice becomes arbitrary domination. To understand this process we need to look not only at the diverse cultural values held in the world but also at the asymmetrical power relations that exist where they intersect and clash.
Why is it that what is conventionally viewed as a strong commitment to values or principles generally entails a covert or even overt violation of them in actual practice? Such a ‘cultural crusader’ attitude polarizes issues and creates confusion over what values actually mean. It also reveals a fundamental disparity in power relations in that the culturally marginalized do not have the privilege to impose their values on others. Rather than a strength, to me this attitude seems more like a defense mechanism to mask insecurity and a weak commitment to principles. I wonder whether it is possible to reconceptualize values and what constitutes authentic commitment to them. Under this new conceptualization I would prioritize security in one’s identity and principles as a demonstration of real commitment rather than measuring this by how aggressively we assert ourselves in the face of difference.
How we choose to present our beliefs and react to the presentation of others determines the success of an intercultural encounter more than the beliefs themselves. While debate tends to entrench each side in their preexisting beliefs and thus has a polarizing and narrowing effect, dialogue and engagement have the potential to enhance these beliefs, refine them of their inconsistencies, and bring out their latent truths. Which one of these approaches seems more likely to cause a ‘watering down’?
When people feel their values threatened in ambiguous situations (as intercultural interactions are with few exceptions), they often tend to assert these values more aggressively in their behavior. The aggressive assertion of one’s values, and the attempt to impose them upon another through argument, persuasion or force signals to me not a firm commitment to said values, but rather a lack of such commitment. How can values we are truly committed to, that is, ones we genuinely believe in, be threatened by interacting with others, even if they do not share these values? My exposure to and exploration of other cultures has absolutely not diluted my values or eroded my identity. On the contrary, I feel that it has strengthened my commitment to certain values by making me less defensive about them and more willing to think critically about the foundation they are built on. From my perspective, this process is by no means one of identity erosion, but rather one of identity enrichment.
Yet there persists all around us a fear and aversion to the notion of cultural relativism, a term that to many connotes moral relativism or even nihilism. This fear is often expressed through the belief that venturing too far outside our respective identity groups will lead to a “watering down” of values and beliefs that will spell the certain demise of our civilization. It is my opinion that this impending doom brought on by cultural relativism, and perhaps even the possibility of cultural relativism existing at all, is a chimera. This entry as well as my next explores this mythology of intercultural resistance, which I perceive as nothing more than a convenient defense mechanism and a barrier to interpersonal connectivity.
From my experience, intercultural experience does not necessarily entail any fundamental change in values, although it can facilitate change of a certain nature. That is to say, it has the potential to clarify and enhance our existing values – but only if we voluntarily embrace this process. Nothing is compulsory here; as adults we do not passively absorb our beliefs and principles through a process of osmosis the way we imagine children do (and even this is debatable, in my opinion). The intercultural experience certainly does not lead to any “watering down” of values or identity. I believe this kind of phenomenon is more likely to be caused by cultural isolation and rigidity brought on by fear of difference. Any identity rooted in the fear of engagement with difference is likely to be brittle, maladaptive to changing circumstances, and therefore prone to decay. Furthermore, the aggressive assertion of ones values is likely to contradict and undermine the very values being defended. My next entry will expand on this topic and give an example of how a value can negate itself when pushed to its extreme. I will also suggest a potential reconceptualization of what constitutes true commitment.
Lately I have become addicted to language learning podcasts, two of my favourites being Coffee Break French and Coffee Break Spanish, which offer dozens of lessonsin 15 minute installments (short enough to enjoy with a cup of coffee). I find these are a great way to learn because podcasts offer much more flexible and self-driven learning than a rigid classroom environment. Also, the simple conversational approach is more engaging than many other “teach yourself” kinds of programs. Unfortunately, there is no Coffee Break Farsi, and I have been browsing the net for good Farsi resources with little luck.
Until I manage to find a good systematic and regularly updated podcast for learning Farsi, I will post piecemeal audio or video files that may be helpful for those of us looking to familiarize ourselves with the sound of Farsi and some of its basic words and phrases. I have included one such example in this post, which you can hear by clicking the link below. The English speaker will say the phrase he wants translated in English and the Farsi speaker then repeats the phrase in Farsi.
A friend shared this TED Talk from Chimamanda Adichie with me and I was deeply moved by some of the ideas the speaker discussed. While I would like to let the video speak for itself, I encourage viewers to consider the potential impact that a single, homogeneous narrative of Islam and the “Islamic world” (originating in Western literature and perpetuated through mass-media discourse) has had in shaping our attitudes and perceptions of the many heterogeneous cultures and traditions encompassed within Islam. I hope that this video will provide a springboard for fruitful discussion on this topic. Enjoy!
PFMRinteract is an ongoing project created and maintained by Pathways for Mutual Respect interns to facilitate electronic learning and dialogue. Here you can:
read blog entries by staff, interns, and other friends of Pathways
find out about books and films related to Islam and the Middle East
Pathways for Mutual Respect is a nonprofit organization located in New Haven, Connecticut.
Our vision is to cultivate peace by creating opportunities for the practice of mutual respect among individuals and communities of "the West" and "the Muslim world."
To find out more about who we are and what we do, visit our flash site.