Pathways for Mutual Respect Interactive

For me, the controversy surrounding the alleged “Ground Zero Mosque” has had a mixed effect. I am disgusted by the lies and propaganda surrounding the community center, particularly with how media outlets and politicians are deliberately flaring up ethnic tensions for their own gain. I think this kind of cynical action is representative of how nihilistic our political system has become: the political scene is in many ways operating under the maxim of “nothing is true, everything is permitted”. Those who masquerade as staunch defenders of constitutional liberties one day will spit on the constitution and religious freedom the next. This self-serving duplicity would be merely irritating if it weren’t leaving a wake of ethnocentric regression and undermining efforts that responsible citizens are making toward peace. That being said, there is a certain advantage hiding in this media spectacle in that it is clarifying important unresolved issues and bringing them into public discourse. When bigotry and ethnocentric fears are left to lurk unacknowledged beneath public consciousness, we can delude ourselves into thinking we have progressed to a degree that we have not. This allows subtle, passive-aggressive forms of ethnocentrism to operate in society without being detected. Therefore, as destructive as a situation like the Cordoba House controversy can be, and the hateful rhetoric that it invokes, there is a degree of honesty and clarity carried with it that I find strangely appealing. Maybe it can be a stimulus toward real change in inter-religious relations.

While the mainstream media continues to distort and ignore the facts of this situation in Lower Manhattan, progressive voices are being forced out of their slumber and called to action, offering sober and positioned critiques of the media circus. These voices are cropping up in increasingly prominent locales like the New York Times, where I have read several articles on the issue. The one I would like to share is my favorite because it so poignantly highlights our inability to  comprehend differences within Islam and explores how this monolithic thinking has contributed to the civil crisis we are undergoing in Manhattan. By making a contrast with how we understand our own faith tradition, the author humorously demonstrates the absurdity of this line of thinking:

Most of us are perfectly capable of making distinctions within the Christian world. The fact that someone is a Boston Roman Catholic doesn’t mean he’s in league with Irish Republican Army bomb makers, just as not all Orthodox Christians have ties to Serbian war criminals or Southern Baptists to the murderers of abortion doctors.

While I do not agree with some of the assertions the author makes (for example, I’m not sure that calling Sufism the “New Testament” of Islam is an appropriate parallel), I feel it stands as a good example of the type of nuanced public discussion that is emerging from the bitter stew of right-wing punditry. The fact that the leader of the Cordoba Initiative is of a Sufi persuasion and being caricatured as an extremist, in my opinion, just serves as the icing on the cake in demonstrating our poverty of understanding when it comes to the vast and diverse tradition that is Islam. While Sufism may indeed present a softer, more pluralistic form of Islam than the picture held by most non-Muslims, even if the community center being planned had a more “orthodox” orientation the same issue would stand. Even the most “orthodox” of Muslims typically deplore the actions carried out at Ground Zero, and our inability to distinguish them from the hijackers is our own problem, not theirs. What is being demonstrated is a complete failure to take responsibility for our own ignorance. Instead we are witnessing calls to “respect our sensitivities”, which is just another way of saying “YOU take responsibility for our ignorance and fear”. This is the same logic behind demands that Muslims somehow prove their loyalty to our country or publicly denounce terrorist activities to which they have no connection to in the first place. This logic is degrading and inhibits the development of healthy relationships between religious groups. I hope more inspired voices of peace make themselves heard in the coming weeks.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/opinion/17dalrymple.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Roger Baumann, who participated in Pathways’  2010 Summer Institute, is Social Media Coordinator at Public Conversations Project in Boston. Click here to read Roger’s thoughts on what he has gained from the experience and how this intersects with his work at Public Conversations Project.

As you may already know, PFMR Interactive is a website entirely run and maintained by Pathways interns. At the moment, this aspect of our internship program is inactive as we are focusing our efforts on preparing for our 2010 Summer Institute. The program will be back in full swing as we approach the Fall season, and we look forward to providing a multitude of fresh content and perspectives.

Thank you for your patience and for supporting our efforts here at Pathways for Mutual Respect

-Ian Burzynski, PFMRinteract.org Administrator

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 lessons in 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 little taste of Farsi…