Tehran-It was a peaceful afternoon in September 2001, when the news of a plane crashing into the empire state building set all eyes around the globe fixed on TVs. The following months you could watch the news of the U.S. army battle in Afghanistan, with the Taliban leader, Ben Laden, in pursuit.
Then, there came the war with Iraq, named war on terror, still on track.
From 9/11 on, no one is supposed to hear of the slightest peace in the Middle East. And there is a widespread fear of Moslems conquering Figure 1: New York on fire
hearts of poeple around the world. There’s a word coined for the phenomenon-on-issue, ISLAMOPHOBIA (!), with conferences held and papers presented, taking the issue into study.
WHO’S TO BE BLAMED FOR?
Some scholars argue that this is the western media representation system that makes the equation that all Moslems are terrorists, and thereof dreadful.
They assert that the western representation industry produces a picture of Islam so edging and poignant and as a result so abhorring to the western audience, with particularly different worldviews and values, that immediately generates an evil picture of Islam and Moslems.
But is this all? Should west be blamed for whole part of the matter?
Representation produces a new narration of a fact, the fact (for example; a behavior) is observed and interpreted according to the target culture’s worldview. So far as it doesn’t give way to a corresponding behavior in the target culture, it remains doubtful and perturbing. It’s impossible to claim one is not interpreting, but describing; and the by-product would be inevitably judgment of the interpreted behavior: who’s to stand against the inevitable when there’s the hand of values & worldviews in work? Can we tame our way of thinking & start thinking outwardly?
Let’s put it the other way round…
Haslett writes, Culture is a “shared, consensual way of life, and sharing and consensus are made possible only by communication.”[1]
By this definition we can now start looking at the issue from a communicative perspective; reaching resolution regards a dialogical interaction, it can never be achieved through a monologue fueled with resent and hot debate over one party’s likes and dislikes. Who’s to be blamed? Regarding Haslett’s definition, I would argue: NO ONE.
It’s merely the difference in communication style that sets quarter against quarter. Cultures satisfying a low-context communication, using a personal style would have difficulty to understand the role-oriented style of communication dominating the Middle East countries[2]. The opposite is considerable, too; that is, by the same explanation, people from Middle East countries would have difficulty to understand why they are being represented by western countries from an angle they had never had observed themselves before.
The conclusion would be: While western countries satisfy from cultural dimensions such as Universalism, Individualism, Neutrality, and Achievement status, The Middle East people, on the contrary, live (or maybe struggle) within particularistic, Collectivist, Emotionalist and finally Ascribed status cultural dimensions[3].
This can lead us to a more challenging understanding of the ways of the world:
We are not understood nearly for the same reason that we, ourselves, don’t understand. And they are not understood simply for the same reason that they don’t understand.
Now the question that most probably would be raised is that:
- “can we & they try to understand?”, I would answer most sincerely that:
- “ No!!!”, but hesitating, I would add:
- “But we & they can respect.”
William Faulkner, Author of The Sound and the Fury, brings:
“No battle is ever won, they are even fought. The field reveals only to man his folly & despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.”
There’s no need for battles, because they won’t be won. Nor is there the need to cram each others’ minds with terminologies potentially ready to add fuel to ours’ & theirs’ relations, whether having the aim to study the issue scientifically, or having the urgency to make the issue ideologically an overwhelmed picture in West, and unknowingly let it be the historical plaything for the generations to come.
[1] Guirdham.M. (1999), Communicating Across Cultures, Palgrave, N.Y., p.61
[2]for more understanding about the terms refer to: Ibid. p.56-60
[3] for more understanding about the terms refer to : Ibid.56-60
0 comments:
Post a Comment