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’?

Well, finally I am here! First I say a warm Hello/Salam/Peace to all my Pathway friends. I missed you all, and I hope we get together soon. My SIIIRL 2009 experience has been one of the most important and meaningful experiences in my life that I will never forget. One of the reasons was the unique knowledge and  thought of the Pathways team of and about my country, religion and culture – which is rare in the US indeed. That was the nice part for me which also helped me to connect better with the new environment.  Another reason was the belief of the Pathways team that “small steps make big changes”. I really witnessed that point during my experience with Pathways and SIIIRL. I hope they continue their precious effort to make big changes in the hearts and minds of people, through their small but meaningful steps!!!

Good luck friends

I will write again, soon Ensh’Allah!

Fatemeh :- )

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.

Do these policy statements accurately reflect reality?  If that is the goal, then the US, UN, and EU should withdraw their disapproval and acknowledge Israel’s sovereignty over the West Bank.  Unencumbered settlement construction should allowed.  Such a policy is the only honest representation of the international community’s intentions.  It is now well over 40 years after Israel annexed East Jerusalem and occupied the West Bank.  It has by now become clear that no government or organization with the influence to seriously dispute Israel’s authority actually does.

If we assume that the majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank would disagree with this change in policy, who is there willing to advocate their interests?  Obama’s half-hearted protests say that he is politically unable orunwilling to oppose a strong Israeli government.  If anything his and Netanyahu’s current suspension on new construction has reignited political support in Israel for settlers.  The EU surely responds to the conflict with enough outrage, but their opposition seems to have been no more forceful than university students boycotting Israeli-grown avocados.

The UN has responded in much the same way, but without even Europe’s naïve humanist fervor.  One can cite any number of non-binding resolutions that condemn Israel’s stance toward its occupied territories.  Though again one finds the seriousness of force nowhere in these documents.

To be sure, western groups are not the only ones who advertise themselves as patrons of the Palestinian cause.  At times Egypt, Syria, and Iran have all purported to champion it.  Egypt has fought a handful of wars with, politically opposed, and eventually became allied to Israel.  The net effect of the entirety of their efforts has been zero.  Syria would prefer to posture diplomatically and rattle the saber while they are in fact not influential enough with Israel even to regain their own Golan Heights.

Iran presents an interesting character to the Palestinian people.  Ahmadinejad  has clearly zeroed in on Israel as an enemy of the Islamic Republic.  One of his commonly cited reasons is the way Israel has treated the land and people it occupies.  However, one does not need to be a middle east expert to detect Iran’s alternative motive.  Right now it is a rising power in the middle east, and opposing Israel, the currently dominant power, is a natural and predictable move.  Siding with the Palestinians is a tactic for expanding its own power.  The worry is whether the Palestinians will suddenly lose their champion if supporting them ceases to serve Iran’s interests.

The basic truth is that Israel is a powerful and influential nation.  No one is willing to shoulder the political and economic risk that goes along with resisting them.  This is especially true when it means allying oneself with a group as impoverished and practically impotent as the Palestinians.  There is no economic or political incentive to siding with them—only human incentives, and one can see how much weight that has carried.

Therefore, what one sees in the present situation in the West Bank is not an intractable problem, or urgent international conflict.  It is the consensus that the entire international community has tacitly agreed to.  And there is no evidence it will be changing soon.

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…