Globalization and Cultural Boundaries: An Anthropological Perspective
- Aliaa R Rafea
Associate Professor,
Sociology Department,
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
E-mail: aliaar@optomatica.com
While anthropological and social scholarly works have been concerned with demonstrating how the flow of people, trade, and ideas affect local people in different parts of the world, either by emphasizing adherence to local traditions as a counter reaction to global hegemony, or discussing the changing aspects of cultures and identities within the context of transnationalism as a process that followed globalization, this paper takes the subject to another dimension where it critically examines the underlying premises of globalizing the world, yet it charts out a path to find our human universals. Using anthropological theories, this paper revisits aspects of the relativity of cultures. It aims at drawing another vision of observing how the world can come to common terms through understanding the inherited reasons for clashes, not from an ideological perspective, but through using anthropological premises, supported by its findings. In order to do that, it demonstrates the fallacy of dichotomizing our history into east and west, or the west and the rest, and clarifies the confusion between political and cultural conflicts.
The term globalization has been increasingly used in economic literature and political discussions as well as in cultural debates. In the past it has swiftly migrated across disciplinary boundaries. It has been rapidly assimilated and consumed by anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists, geographers, and other scholars, and even in everyday conversations.
Globalization is often perceived as an emergent phenomenon that is driven by the changing nature of economic and international relationship. There is a widely held view that globalization is related to the international movement of commodities, money, information, people, and ideas; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow these movements. Some anthropologists regard globalization as a perspective, rather than reified processes.
It might be suggested that, without ruling out other possibilities, an alternative would be to see globalization in terms of perspective. For those who usually study this question, this alternative would put a brake on the excessive emphasis on periodization and discontinuity, an effect of which is that the old problem of interdependence is largely neglected, as is the historical character of this problem, which in turn is subject to interruptions, cycles, and obvious resumptions that reveal the falsity of any evolutionist view. This makes it possible to relativize discontinuity without necessarily falling back on the opposite, substantialist pole and without having to deny whatever new realities appear (Velho, 1999; p. 322).
By turning `globalization' to a perspective, the scope of observation widens to include contradicting readings of the ongoing processes. In other words, `globalization' does not denote the same thing for every one. There is a wide spectrum of observation, ranging from considering globalization a process that will bring the world together as a `big village', or resisting that process, considering it as a new form of imperialism. Yet, still other people, who are neutral observers, watch silently the new changes in the fields of communication, and politics as inevitable transformation. Arguments in defense or against the process of globalization have their own justifications.
For those who relate between globalization and imperialism, they envision the neo-liberalism as the core of globalization process where the capitalist America is determined to control the world economically and politically after the demise of the Soviet Union, and the end of cold war. The US as a mono-polar power has become capable of steering the world economy toward capitalism. On the political dimension, the US has been creating allies around the world to spread its political philosophy.
Scholars have been investigating and speculating upon the impact of globalization on world politics and economics. For Marxism-oriented scholars (Hannerz, 1996; cited in Tsing, 2000; pp. 340-342) the cultural flows run from the central economically powerful countries to the less powerful peripheries. From this perspective, the economic supremacy of the developed countries opens channels for incorporating and remaking the cultural set up of the developing countries. Here, there is an obvious economic determinism where, culture becomes an epiphenomenon of economy.
It is noteworthy that developed countries exert disproportional influence over organizations (UN Security Council, the IMF, the World Bank, World Trade Organization, and others). Lipman (2005, p. 316) notices that there are powerful global and national forces bent on dominating the world politically, economically, and militarily. She argues that what emerged was a shift to neoliberalism as national and global strategy. Obviously, Lipman identifies neoliberalism with globalization and draws its central features as observed in the unregulated global flows of capital, multinational agreements to liberalize trade. From that perspective, every sphere of economic, social, cultural, and biological life is now a potential commodity and open to privatization, from education to the human genome irregardless of the consequences of those strategies on the poor and less advantageous countries. Harvey (1989) adds that in the present situation the territorial logic of the US state, aligned with the interests of finance capital, is acting to reassert US dominance over the global capitalist economy through military power.
This attempt to dominate does not go unchallenged, according to Lipman (2005, p. 317) there are resistances that are global in scope. This resistance hindered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle in 1999 and the Fair Trade Agreement of the Americas in Cancún in 2003 to realize their goals. Most significant, the world witnesses global social movements of farmers, workers, environmentalists, human rights activists, landless people, women, indigenous people, students, and intellectual and cultural workers. Those movements resist the hegemony of capitalism, aspiring social justice freedom for all and peace in the world. She goes on to say that "there are now two globalizations—one from above and the other from below". Smith and Guarnizo (1998, p. 4) recognize these global movements from below when they build their observation within the context of transnationalism as an outcome of globalization. They assert that transnationalism could be celebrated as an attempt to escape control and domination from above by capital and state by creating global movements from below among grass roots. Given the declining political influence of working-class movements in the face of the global reorganization of capitalism, all sorts of new social actors on the transnational stage are now being invested with oppositional possibilities, despite the fact that their practices are neither self-consciously resistant nor even loosely political in character.
From another level of perception, Kearney (1995 cited in Tsing, 2000; p. 343) argues that the key feature of the global era is the `implosion' of center and periphery, as distinctions south and north disintegrate. Spatial and cultural discriminations become impossible in a world of global flows. It is argued that the flow of information, ideas, people, and commodities create a world with no boundaries and no distinctions.
From this perspective, one of the important features of globalization is our interconnectedness. In a world of integrated economy, regional labor migration plays an important role in cultural transmission as well as it eases the economic and demographical pressure from overpopulated countries. Remittances are used for improving the standard of living of families of migrants, and changing their style of life. The flow of money goes from the rich countries to the poorer, and that is for the betterment of the whole world.
We also face global problems from a holistic perspective. For example, the greenhouse impact is a global issue that required an international policy to protect our future life on earth; poverty is not a local issue that concerns the poor alone, it has increasingly become the focus of the international community. Heads of states gathered under the umbrella of the United Nations' General Assembly, and set the Millennium Goals where they affirmed that they "have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality, and equity at the global level", and that they would spare no effort to free men, women, and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected. They declared their determination to making the right to development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire human race from want.
Moore (2006, p. 1) affirms that our economic and political systems, environmental and social problems, and unstable international situation—these are all interconnected with one another. They can only be understood from a whole systems perspective. We don't have a list of individual problems to solve—rather we have a `dysfunctional system' that needs to be somehow reconfigured, i.e., transformed.
Hence, the international community has become concerned with world problems from a holistic perspective. Eradication of poverty, sustainable development, preservation of natural resources, and keeping our environment clean are globally shared. These interests form a base for global policies that tie the world together toward realizing shared goals, and hence, create an area of mutual interests that ease the tension and conflicts.
As extension of the previous perception on the political level, our interconnectedness as a result of globalization will gradually make `democracy' the best choice for all nations. That is how Fukuyama (1992) perceived the `end of history'. Fukuyama argument about the `end of history' stems from the premise that humankind shares a directional universal history. This argument has its root in the 19th century philosophy. For, despite the fact that Hegel and Marx had different conclusions for history's direction, they both were convinced that there would come a point where humankind would reach envisioned political system that would finalize human being search for liberty, equality, and justice. Based on economic interpretation of history, communism formed the end goal of human progression for Marxism. The demise of the Soviet Union defeated that utopian dream. Here, where Fukuyama based his argument and saw history as taken its direction in favor of liberal democracy. Fukuyama argued that while earlier forms of government were characterized by defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions. This futuristic approach did not turn blind eyes to the contradictions of the capitalist societies. For him, those problems were ones of incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty and equality on which modern democracy was founded, rather than of flaws in the principles themselves (Fukuyama, 1992).
Globalization seems to enhance the process of reaching liberal democracy worldwide, yet since September 11, 2001, history takes another turn, the destruction of the twin towers in New York took the world by storm, and war against terror went so far that it has become terrifying. Fukuyama criticized the US policy in Iraq, and the neoconservatism which the US administration represented. He said: "neoconservatism as both a political symbol and a body of thought has evolved into something that I can no longer support" (New York Times, February 19, 2006). He understood well that the American Project aimed at democratizing the Middle East, but he was equally aware that democracy did not guarantee the coming of political regimes that represented the value of the west. Hamas success in Palestine and the Muslim Brothers' growing popularity in Egypt gave fundamentalism political power, and would lead to `oppression' in one way or another. Moreover, they would be culturally bounded and isolated.
Accordingly and against previous expectations, democracy does not seem to bring liberty in many parts of the world. Fukuyama blamed the US policy for that outcome. "The administration's second-term efforts to push for greater Middle Eastern democracy, introduced with the soaring rhetoric of Bush's second Inaugural address, have borne very problematic fruits" (New York Times, February 19, 2006). Despite these set backs, Fukuyama still hold to his view, seeing liberal democracy as a common aspiration for all nations, and it will be realized naturally once people satisfy their need of technological advancement.
This vision emphasizes the unilineal approach to history that was criticized by the American anthropological school led by Boas early in the 20th century. Moreover, this vision focuses on western history, and ignores the interconnectedness of humankind history where, each civilization participated in the making of the present world with its complexity, and the viability of other civilizations to participate in the process of future changes.
As a result of their concern of cultures and civilizations' emergence and development, anthropologists are aware of the dynamism of cultural changes and diffusions, and build their expectations accordingly. Some of them expected cultural diffusions and confusions in today's world as a result of globalization (Clifford, 1988; Flax, 1990; and Weiner 1995). In a presidential address to the American Anthropological Association as early as 1993, Weiner expressed her concern about the future of anthropology, envisioning the cultural dissolution as inevitable. "In the vast circulation of goods and ideas where boundaries evaporate and space and time are electronically compressed, things become different kinds of property and thereby even more elusive to traditional academic categorization. Can anthropology's concept of culture adequately contain the interpenetrating control of manifold agents and interests, were even the geopolitics are obscure? The terms `American', `European', `tribal' and `third world' no longer stand for the kinds of ethnographic and historical entities they once represented, while the Web of global political and economic conditions becomes ever more obscure, as centers and margins no longer can be differentiated" (Weiner, 1995; pp. 18-19).
Against expectations, the centers and margins are still differentiated, and more emphasis on cultural identity and local traditions become global phenomena (Velho, 1999; and Ghannam, 2002). For, despite cultural diffusion and the attractions of the American style of life, individuals are inspired by their cultures in their choices and behavior. While people move around the world and have access to news and events that are occurring thousands of miles away from where they live, they are bounded by their `religious', `national', and `cultural' identities.
Tsing (2000, p. 339) introduces her observations on how anthropologists perceived globalization: "Anthropologists do not merely mimic the understandings of globalism of other experts, even as they are influenced by them. No anthropologist I know argues that the global future will be culturally homogeneous; even those anthropologists most wedded to the idea of a new global era imagine this era as characterized by `local' cultural diversity. Disciplinary concern with cultural diversity overrides the rhetoric of global cultural unification pervasive elsewhere, even though, for those in its sway, globalism still rules: Diversity is generally imagined as forming a reaction or a backdrop to the singular and all-powerful `global forces' that create a new world."
While anthropologists are aware of diversity of cultures as a fact that is not going to be changed (at least in the near future if ever), the question is: Will these diversities mean necessarily clashes of civilization? Another related issue poses itself, if clashes of civilizations are not the only outcome of cultural diversities—Would it be possible to move ahead and remove cultural barriers? or to put it differently: What make us—people unable to exploit the power of easy communication in a way that makes us closer; rather than apart? These questions lead us to inquire about the possibility to rediscover universal cultural values that bind us together.
Globalization and Relativism
Cultural relativism is a notion that emerged to counter the trend of human science in the 19th century which envisions history progressing in a linear path, and western culture values prevailed as the most advanced in the world. With the notion of modernity as the cultural aspect of the western modernization, non-western (specifically non- European) nations have to proceed in the same direction in order to be classified as developed. It is assumed that western culture introduces advanced human universal values.
On the academic level, the argument of finding a common ground for all cultures, religions, and civilizations to live in peace, has been discussed by anthropologists, philosophers, and intellectuals. In anthropology, Boas (1901) criticized the European racism disguised under the notion of `modernity' and unilinear progress of history. Boas, who was convinced that each culture has a holistic structure of its own that should be understood by anthropologists through empathy, opened the way for his followers to study other cultures, using different plans and methodologies, trying to avoid their cultural biases. To be sure, the founding fathers of social sciences were influenced by Darwinism, depicting history to be progressing along the line of western values, and perceiving other cultures as less progressive, and less civilized. Within this outlook, there was no place for respecting the diversities of cultures; all cultures must come in accord with the western culture as the most developed. The American school of anthropology as represented by Boas had its influence in changing that outlook, and emphasizing relativism. "…, the idea of progress, together with the unilineal state theory of cultural evolution, was discarded, and when concomitantly cultural relativism came to include the normative type, the aim of ethnographic inquiry and the rationale for concentrating on primitive people were transformed. Because the diversity of cultures were not viewed as comprising not a scale of cultural evolution, but rather the range of cultural variability, its aim was taken to be the discovery of principles and theories that might explain the diversity in cultural and social system" (Spiro, 1986; p. 277).
Thus, whether fieldwork was conducted among Indian Americans, Africans or Asians, it was in service of some general theories that were crystallizing in relation to ritual exchange (Malinwoski, 1922), adolescence (Mead, 1928), Segmentary linage system (Evans-Prichard 1940), pattern of cultures (Benedict, 1934), religions and the `model of' and `model for reality' (Geertz, 1973). Other anthropologists became concerned with applied fields, such as cultures and development or culture in politics, economics, and education. Anthropology then widens its scope to include human activities at large. As a matter of fact, the relativity of cultures brings the study of others' cultures to a humanistic level where, anthropologists appreciate different world views and ethos. Therefore, anthropologists experience `humanness' beyond their cultural limitations and biases, and introduce as such, a model for how we are able to come together.
Yet, anthropology has faced theoretical and practical dilemma. On the theoretical level, relativism generated particularistic cultural determinism, which holds that inasmuch as cultures are radically different from each other, each culture produces a set of culturally particular human characteristics (Spiro, 1986; and Renteln, 1988). It is interesting to see that how this way of thinking influences political scholars, such as Huntington (1996) who stresses the uniqueness of western culture, and the impossibility to find a common ground between cultures and civilizations. He argues that as people define their identity in ethnic and religious terms, they are likely to see an "us" versus "them" relation existing between themselves and people of different ethnicity or religion. The end of ideologically defined states in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union permits traditional ethnic identities and animosities to come to the fore. For him western civilization is intrinsically different from `other' civilizations. The implication is that western civilization is more advanced, and since other civilizations are not capable of digesting it as a whole, it is not possible to cope with; they are likely to resist its principles. Therefore, clashes of civilizations are inevitable. He is convinced that the time has come for the West to abandon the illusion of universality and to promote the strength, coherence, and vitality of its civilization in a world of civilizations. Huntington goes further as far as differentiating between modernization and westernization—a notion that has great appeal to the non-western countries. For those countries, there has always been and still is the dilemma of how to modernize one's country without losing the cultural values and identity. Removing this contradiction between modernization and particularities of cultures is not only an ideological perspective, but also a factual reality. The experiences of China, Japan, and Malaysia confirm his approach.
However, Huntington's approach depicts Asian and Islamic civilizations as a threat to the West. Accordingly, diversities of cultures and civilizations are observed as foundation for conflicts. The event of 9/11 was observed as a confirmation of his analysis. The political contexts of this incident were overlooked; the policy of the US in the Middle East was not considered as part of frustration and accumulated rejection in this part of the world. Al-Qaeda as the ideological base for acts against the interests of the US does not represent Muslims at large, or the Islamic ideology. Al-Qaeda also forms a threat to many political regimes in the area which do not conform to their ideology. Moreover, Huntington's analysis oversimplify the complexities of cultural changes that take place as a result of easy communication and movements of ideas, and the increasing activities of cultural debates on grass root organization around the world.
Moreover, the very idea of anticipating clashes with other civilizations has created fear among Westerners as Moïsi (2007) observes. She argues that the expected clashes of civilization moved to the emotional level. For example, the western world displays a culture of fear; the Arab and Muslim worlds are trapped in a culture of humiliation. Both fear and humiliation created aggression and violence with different modalities of expression, as demonstrated in `wars against terror', and violent individual acts against western (American) symbols in the Muslims world. Criticism of separation and isolation under the theme of relativity is expressed by an American anthropologist as: "…the anxiety over cultural difference may also be seen as a historical peculiarity of the late 20th century, reflecting the fact that we are acutely self-conscious of our prodigious power and wealth. Indeed, so troubled are we by our dominant position that the mere identification of another has come to be equated with deprecation: It is as if labeling another as different from us must surely be some kind of put-down, a pejorative, at least implicitly. Hence, the paralyzing contradiction of contemporary multicultural discourse: While diversity in the abstract is celebrated, to objectify particular differences has become unacceptable (Bashkow, 2004; p. 454).
Having discussed the western view related to `relativity of culture', it is time to ponder about problems that have risen from the non-western countries in relation to the process of globalization, and relativism. Those countries also perceive the western hegemony as a threat to their cultural beliefs and dogmas. In the area of human rights, non-western countries have their reservations against the Universal Human Rights Declaration (UHRD). They stress the relativity of cultures as a way-out from the international pressure that requires them to conform to human rights principles according to western standard. Many countries protest against the UHRD, agreed upon by the General Assembly of United Nations in 1948, and the following covenants, namely the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both were adopted in 1966. China, India, and several other countries of the Islamic world—notably Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia—have been stressing the necessity to view human rights from the perspective of the historical and cultural context of each country or civilization. In September 1992, the final declaration of a conference of the 108 nonaligned countries, held at Jakarta, Indonesia, stressed "differences in cultures" in relation to human rights should be recognized.
This request sounds justifiable and its violations seem to be against the very reason why Universal Human Rights Declaration is needed in the first place. In other words, respect of differences is in the very essence of `human rights'. However, watching closely on some practices that are considered acceptable for indigenous people may evoke rejection at global level, coming from the world at large.
For example, the cast system in India is part of the Indian social order, and is taken for granted. The social, religious, cultural, and economic rights of members of the castes are predetermined in advance by birth (Thorat, 2007). This Indian social order violates the first Article in UHRD "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". This Article has an appeal to most of the people around the world, but cannot be implemented as long as Indian religious beliefs have their justification for cast.
In Muslim world, many Muslim countries violate another basic principle in the UHRD, that principle which assures equality for every human being regardless of race, color, sex, language (Article 2). For example, women are marginalized, and in many cases are used and abused. It is problematic to justify their practices by referring to Shari'a. Shari'a, as they explain, is the Divine Law that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad and documented in Qur'an. In Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, many articles conform to the UHRD, yet there is always an added phrase to emphasize the role of Shari'a as a grand frame of reference, and hence, open the door for justifying acts that violate the UHRD.
In most cases, peoples confuse between jurisprudence and Shari'a. The role of jurisprudence has been to find out a harmony between Qur'an guidance, and Prophet Muhammad's traditions Sunnah and new situations in social relations. Shari'a is a blueprint, not a fixed legal system. It is inspiring to Muslims when they build their constitutions and legal systems. As such, any interpretation and implementation to Shari'a is susceptible to criticism and modification. By blurring the distinction between Shari'a and jurisprudence, Islam has been used to serve the interests of rulers, or to affirm local traditions that marginalize women, or falsify poor peoples' social consciousness.
Due to the use of the notion of cultural particularities and moral relativism, oppression and suppression within given cultures are practiced. On the theoretical level, the paradox in this issue is apparent. While, respect of the particularities of culture forms a part and parcel of human rights, the denial of minimum moral human universal rights implies that there is no way to condemn actions that are considered from `humane' standards against human dignity and freedom. Would that lead us intellectually to the notion of human universals as constant variables beyond place and time? How can we define `human universals' without being biased by one's cultural prejudices?
The following incident explains the complexity of the subject, it shows how easily what seems universally acceptable may show prejudice. Under the claim of respecting freedom of expression as a basic principle that should be acknowledged worldwide, the Danish Prime Minister turned a deaf ear to listen to ethnic Muslims community in Denmark who expressed their dissatisfaction when a Danish journalist drew satirical caricatures of Prophet Muhammad. He also refused to meet the ambassadors from Islamic countries who wanted to express their protests. The incident occurred in September 2005. In February 2006, Muslims fury reached its climax when the same caricatures were published by other European newspapers, and active Danish Muslims leaders succeeded to reach out to larger section of Muslims for support. People—not governments—decided to boycott Danish products. For weeks, numerous demonstrations and other expressions of protests against the cartoons took place worldwide. Danish economic interests were greatly harmed. The Danish Prime Minister had to explain the situation insisting that the cultural value standard of his country is not understandable to Muslims, forgetting at the same time that he also should understand how Muslims feel about their prophet.
It is clear from incidents like this, how under the notion of freedom, other people's beliefs were ridiculed, and their emotions were humiliated. Worse still, Muslims were accused of being intolerant, just because they objected to what they consider a grave humiliation. Tolerance, hence, became a false claim. In other words under advocating tolerance, intolerance was practiced.
Anthropology has a saying about this dilemma. It is agreeable by many anthropologists, with different approaches (Geertz, 1973; Spiro, 1986; and Renteln, 1988), that relativism is meant to promote the understanding of other cultures and go beyond one's cultural prejudices. In so doing, relativism focuses on how to facilitate communications among cultures and civilizations, and to seek common ground for building bridges between civilizations.
Anthropologists are capable of facilitating that process albeit there are different approaches. For example, while Geertz was concerned on building a methodology that is helpful in the process of interpretations of a culture, Spiro insists on the importance of cross-cultural comparative method as a way to establish well-founded theories that explain diversities. Others see that relativism as compatible with the existence of cross-cultural moral universals. In sum, anthropologists come to the consensus that to accept others' ways of thinking is the first step to build a harmonious global world. Boundaries then are not meant to isolate people, but to acknowledge their free will to choose their own way. However, boundaries may sometimes form barriers.
Boundaries vs. Barriers
"The most important thing to understand about the world today is not how life is lived within and on either side of borders, but instead how borders are made" (Rosenblatt, 2004; p. 264).
Within cultural relativism, the idea of considering cultures as whole entities that should not be judged from outside its frame of reference, directs anthropologists towards searching for `patterns of cultures' (Benedict, 1934), model of and model for realities (Geertz, 1973), or seek to understand the integration of a culture within a given society. However, this depicted picture of each culture as distinct entities did not hinder anthropologists from seeing cultural processes as dynamic. Cultures give to and receive from other cultures beyond defined borders, and hence, they are susceptible to changes over time. Further, anthropologists are aware that patterns of cultures are likely to acquire their regularity in the base of day-to-day practices; the changing of social order is likely to introduce new situations and hence, new perceptions that require from individuals to reconstruct their previous patterns. Understanding the dialectics between individuals who create new meanings as a continuous process and `culture' as an abstract entity that shapes their world views and perspectives, is important to grasp cultural changes. In Egypt, for example, Valentine Day is widely celebrated, but in an Egyptian way. Family members would send cards to their parents, friends also, and not restricted to their lovers only. Egyptians Islamized Pharaonic traditions; they mourn for 40 days for their deceased as their ancestors used to do, so they mix between Islamic beliefs coming to them from beyond their borders and their old belief system. Their folklores are greatly influenced by their cultural histories, but they import and add to them continuously. Therefore, the same symbolic act may change its meaning gradually over time, which requires from the anthropologist to examine and re-examine what they understand about a given culture by observing the context within which acts, speech, body movement or any expressive behavior, takes place. The anthropologist then is able to discover layers of meanings for the same symbolic action. That what Geertz (1973) called `thick description'. Cultural distinct characters may continue to exist even though the symbolic system (using Geertz definition of culture) changes; `old wine in new bottle' or `old bottles have new wine'. Ideas, values, and all other cultural elements were and still are crossing borders and mingled with the existing cultural system in a given society. This has not ended the diversities of culture. Cultural boundaries are not considered barriers that hinder the flow of cultural communication; rather from an anthropological view, boundaries are analytical mental categories that allow us to see "cultural distinctions that were irreducibly plural, perspectival and permeable" (Bashkow, 2004; p. 443). By accepting that definition, anthropologists are able to appreciate the particularity of each culture and be able to recognize its uniqueness even in the processes of change. Unlike boundaries, cultural barriers are the outcome of ethnocentrism that hinders communication.
Within the process of globalization, some anthropologists raise the question of whether the density of movement of people, objects, and ideas from place to place meant that the idea of `divided and distinct cultures' will no longer be valid (Appadurai, 1996; and Gupta and Ferguson, 1997). The complexity of changes that are taking place in the world makes it difficult to answer this question positively or to predict the coming transformation. While, migration, culture diffusion, interconnectedness, weakening of nationalism and the growing transnationalism attract the attention of anthropologists (Foner, 2005; George, 2005; and Hansen, 2005), the rise of fundamentalism in almost all religions (Armstrong, 2001; and Mijares et al., 2007), and the emphasis on cultural identities, and the stress on the particularities of each `culture', `religion', `traditions' are equally important for anthropological studies.
It is argued that the complexity of our world today creates different borders where, culture and geographical territories are not the only signs for cultures' borders. Borders and barriers live in the mind of people who are affiliated to certain ideologies regardless of where they live. It is noticed that cyberspace is growing stronger in shaping people world views and perspective, and it is a place where interactions take place and create the necessary feeling of belonging and attachment, that is to say, people create territories which cannot be materialized and hence become difficult to observe. For example, Al-Qaeda organization is impossible to trace to one place, their affiliates are everywhere, and will not be known unless some acts of violence occur somewhere. The event of September 11, 2001 was shocking, not only because some terrorists targeted institutions in the most powerful country in the world, but also because there was no organized army that could be traced, no clear institutionalized body that could be seen in the US. Actors do not receive orders directly from a central authority, but they have clear goals and take all necessary measures to achieve those goals. Their ideological commitment is so strong that they do not hesitate to sacrifice their lives to realize certain goals. So, even killing Osama bin Laden will not end the acts of terror, as those who share bin Laden ideology are not located in one place, and do not derive their power from the institutionalized body, but from their attachment to certain beliefs. Those beliefs isolate those so-called Muslims from the rest of the human community, and deepen the differences between themselves and the rest of the world. This phenomenon of creating groups through space is related to globalization and requires more investigation. This paper expects this subject to be the focus of future studies. In relation to cultural barriers, it is more important to study the mental structure of those who build walls between themselves and others and search for the ideological root of that isolation. Apparently, demonizing the other is one important element in building those barriers, and it is worth investigating how this element manifests in religions at large (Mijares et al., 2007). It is interesting to see how dichotomizing the world to `we' against `them' moves from fundamentalists in different religions to political theory in the form of expected `clashes of civilizations' and the `end of history'. Huntington (1996) saw the military confrontation in Algeria (1960), Egypt (1956) and elsewhere between European countries as a war between the West and Arabs. He did not see these wars in their historical contexts where occupied countries were defending their right to be independent sovereign nations. He carried on his argument to stress the inherent enmity between East and the West. It is the same mental structure of `fundamentalists' who perceive the world through the glass of black and white, and who are defending their beliefs from the same perspective that `we are the best'. The Project of New American Century (PNAC) reflects the envisioned role of the US as a leader of the world, and a fighter for spreading democracy and defending human rights. Those are so noble slogans on the abstract level, but create human tragedies on the real ground.
The Project for a New American Century from the beginning saw itself as an agent of bold change, one that could strengthen Israel as well as the US. Just a year before its founding, in 1996, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was presented a report that recommended repudiation of the Oslo Accords and the whole idea of "land for peace", and instead called for the seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well as encouraging an outright invasion of Iraq by the US. It then suggested the next items that should be on the agenda: toppling the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", was coauthored by Perle, Feith and David Wurmser, who now works at the State Department under Bolton. A few days later these ideas, which would later become key policies of both Netanyahu and Sharon, were endorsed by the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. In the next few years, John Bolton and others wrote essays for the PNAC and for the neo conservative press that expounded upon these three themes: expanding Israel, taking out Iraq, and subduing the rest of the Middle East in one way or another. By the fall of 2002, advocates of this position were sharing their enthusiasm with the mainstream media. Interviewed in The Boston Globe, Meyrav Wurmser, wife of David Wurmser and director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the ultra-right Hudson Institute, was enthusiastic about the extended effects of the US establishing "democracy" in Iraq: "Everyone will flip out, starting with the Saudis. It will send shock waves throughout the Arab world. After a war with Iraq, then you really shape the region".
What seemed to be a reaction to a terrorist attack had been planned for, long before the incident of 9/11. Nothing would have prevented the allied military force from attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq for their oil, and their strategic geographical positions, and for domination, and demolishing of threatening political systems. This determination of control and domination create resistance which enhance the attitude of `us' against `them' which will increase barrier and hinder communication and hence destroy the hope of living in a secure world.
On another level of perception, it is noticeable that those barriers are not merely built through international relations, but also divide the same society to heterogeneous groupings, despite their interdependent social relationship. It is well-known in social science that in a complex society, there is one embracing cultural built-up, and subcultures that emerge from within the main culture. The main culture is essential for the society survival. Society is essentially an abstract concept that lives within the mind of those who share the same land and interact on the base of common values. Even in Marxism, society is an abstract concept that is deduced from historical experiences. It was supposed that history would move towards realizing communism as the last stage of human evolution, and that homogeneity would replace the conflict between classes. Structural functionalism and Marxism have their limitations as frames of reference in analyzing the disintegration of social order in societies around the world today. Emergence of conflicting cultures within the same society replaces the old idea of `conflicting classes'. High and low classes may share the same beliefs and habits, because they are exposed to `global' forces through advanced means of communication. The notion that culture is a reflection of social structure is not working in its classical form; rather the role of individuals as cultural transmitters and cultural creators exceed the role of the society and its formal institutions and structure.
Taking the Egyptian society as a reference point, migrations to Saudi Arabia since the 1970s have had their impact on the returning migrants who carried with them the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, and introduce this interpretation to a society where its culture has been one of the most open to `other cultures and civilizations' The coming of Wahhabi doctrine in Egypt does not fit with the tolerant Islam lived by Egyptians through the ages. Migrants who were exposed to Saudi culture do not come from one class, one profession, or similar educational system. They came from different strata and profession in the Egyptian society. Yet the growing trend of this doctrine is threatening to the homogeneity of the authentic Egyptian cultures, and creates barriers between the authentic cultural set up of the Egyptians, and those newly emerging groups. Parallel to this trend, the Muslim Brotherhood informal organization is gaining political ground, following a strategy that stimulate democracy lovers, by asserting their adherence to democratic principles and, at the same time, stresses the religious discourse in order to have an appeal to common Egyptian people. Their growing popularity forms a threat to the Egyptian intelligentsia, the socialists, and liberals, and of course to the National Democratic Party as the ruling party today. However, the Muslim Brotherhood organization has advantages over other parties and organizations because it works on the grass root level and introduce medical and educational services, while, other political parties and organizations do not have the same access to the grass roots. Their very existence as a viable political force is threatening to Copts. The Muslim Brotherhood informal organization stresses the Islamic Egyptian identity, and is expected to alienate the Copts who consider themselves the native Egyptians, and descendents from the Pharaonic civilization. The growing popularity of the Muslims Brotherhood could create barriers between Copts and Muslims within the Egyptian society.
Growing fundamentalism can also be seen among the Copts. On a satellite channel, an Egyptian priest attacks Islam systematically, and Coptic communities in the US have been lobbying to defend Copts' human rights in Egypt. Sometimes, they exaggerate the situation with an obvious biased tone. This is very threatening to social peace in Egypt, and is likely to assist in building barriers between Muslims and Copts. However, the Orthodox Church headed by the pope Shenouda III advises Copts to keep sectarianism away, and to hold on to national unity. The Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services mission is "dedicated to social and cultural development, individual well-being, social justice and intercultural harmony. It delivers its services regardless of gender, race, religion, or beliefs. As a Christian voice promoting pluralism and mutual respect in an Egyptian context, CEOSS encourages the participation of Egyptians from all segments of society—Muslim and Christian, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, powerful and powerless—to work together toward common goals". As such the Evangelical Church defend the Copts right in a smart way, through easing the sectarian tension, and emphasize the Egyptian-ness, they create secure boundaries as minorities.
The formal Islamic institution Al-Azhar has political and economic ties with Saudi Arabia's religious institutions, and keeps in harmony with Wahhabi doctrine, perhaps for political reasons. However, Al-Azhar makes clear that any act of violence in the name of Islam should be banned. As part of the formal governance, Al-Azhar does not approve the Muslim Brotherhood political practices, although it accepts their ideology in relation to how to establish Islamic society. Al-Azhar stands at a distance from the religious turmoil that takes place in the Egyptian society.
In Egypt, the emphasis on the cultural identity through Islam has been acknowledged by many studies (Ibrahim, 1980; and Rafea, 2001). Even Copts who have their own beliefs and practices are influenced by Islam as a cultural root. Copts use the same religious phrases that Muslims use, and keep the same values of Muslims in relation to honor, honesty, marriage traditions, and so on and so forth. Up to the second half of the 20th century, Copts shared with Muslims the same dress codes. The 1919 revolution in Egypt exemplifies the national unity between Muslims and Copts. Under the slogan "Egypt for Egyptians", the Copts fought hand in hand with their Muslim brothers for a national independence.
With the religious revivals that started in the 1970s as to replace the Arab Nationalism failure after the defeat of Arabs in their war with Israel in 1967, the Islamic discourse has changed to separate between Egyptian Muslims and Copts, and moves toward fanaticism, influenced by Wahhabi doctrine. It must be clear that Islamic groups in Egypt do not echo identical ideology. It is amazing to see how within the religious Islamic movements, ideologies have been crossing and intersecting. Muslim Brothers, for example, relate their emergence to Sufism, as their founder Hasan el-Bana liked to describe himself as a Sufi, and their discourse lately is full of promises for democratic life in Egypt. Among the leftists emerged a new trend by a philosophy professor Hasan Hanfi who merges between Marxism and Islam, advocating for Left Islam, and Nasr Abuzid who calls for a secular Islam. The combinations between Marxism, secularism and Islam are bizarre, and unexpected, but they have their audience. This interrelationship between different ideologies, and world views that repeat the same `discourse'; following mainly the teaching of Qur'an and the guidance of the Prophet Sunnah, makes dialoging between them difficult. On the one hand, each group thinks they express the `right and correct' Islam. As such, there will be nothing to discuss. Second, because they echo the same rhetoric, their differences are hidden and appear only through conflicts in the social ground. Barriers here are strangely built as a result of apparent similarities, not differences.
The other extreme is to examine borders, boundaries, and barriers as they are built for Muslims' ethnic minorities in Europe. Muslims as French citizens in a secular country are supposed to base their identity on what it means to be French over any religious affiliation. Yet, their attachment to the global community Umma manifested through dress code, food, and their general style of life evokes different feelings among non-Muslims. The French Government banned wearing any distinct dress code in schools and in all government institutions, including the Sikh turbans, the Jews hats, and so on. The goal is to break cultural borders. Yet, cultural boundaries remain in the way of French Muslims and other ethnic group think of who they are. Muslims can be incorporated into "France", but only as French speaking citizens who make an effort to leave behind their foreign attachments and to resemble other citizens in matters deemed critical to defining "France". The state thereby affirms the importance of maintaining boundaries that are both of the state and of the nation, as a counterweight to new internal pluralisms, pace the call by many scholars for a new pluralism of political boundaries (Brown, 2004; p. 53) (emphasis are in the original text).
Following the aftermath of 9/11, Islamophobia overwhelm non-Muslims in Europe and North America (Bunzl, 2005). It has become a problem in these countries to keep up with their self-image as tolerant and open in a situation where their obvious rejection to ethnic Muslims is apparent. On the other hand, how Muslims in France can maintain their loyalty to the Umma, and to their country France on equal foot? This problem is repeated in other countries where Muslims are minority and their identity is confused. Anthropologists are increasingly interested in investigating how ethnic minorities—including Muslims—live within the culture of the majority which may contradict with their basic values.21
Conclusion
Due to different changes that are taking place as a result of globalization, the old definitions of the relationship between society and culture are not exclusive any more. Culture does not crystallize necessarily according to face-to-face interaction in a given society; it is formed in relation to the experiences of individuals and their special capabilities to access the world through cyberspace, movements, or any means of communication that provide interaction. Therefore, it is not surprising to find multicultures that coexit or conflict within the same society. Moreover, it is expected to find individuals who identify themselves with larger groups that exist outside their place of birth and residence. As explained earlier, the Wahhabi-oriented groups in Egypt are more attached to the Saudi than to Egyptian culture. These changes will revolutionize social sciences. New concepts and theories will generate from studying globalization in relation to culture's formation and how borders are defined accordingly.
On the global level, boundaries are drawn in a different way. Dichotomizing human history to the west and the rest creates barriers that become hard to break because it overlaps with the international relationship as controlled by the mono power of the US. The tragedy in Iraq is but one manifestation of American hegemony. Studying the different addresses of G W Bush, and his justifications for waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq reveals the mental structure of simple dichotomization of the world into two blocs—America and the rest. "Fighting terrorism" has become so broad; it includes whoever stands in the way of American supremacy. The use of what became famous words such as "fighting the axis of evil", or declaring that "who is not with us is against us", emphasizes this pattern of thinking.
There is a need to start thinking in a different way where our history should be tackled from a different perspective, and where our interconnectedness must be emphasized. Old civilizations form the root of our human history, and each civilization contributed to other civilizations. One of the main tasks of contemporary anthropology is to awaken our awareness of how the past is living in the present. Anthropology can illuminate our way by explaining how our modern civilization would never have taken place without the struggles of our ancestors who challenged their wild environments, studied the world, created their understanding of the nature, and passed their knowledge to their offsprings who, in turn, continued on the same path, and so on and so forth, till they created what we call `old civilizations' in Egypt, India, China, Persia, and Mesopotamia. Those civilizations are the root of our presence.
If the present generation do not preserve and study histories and see how Hellenistic civilization was born in the womb of Ancient Egyptian civilization, and how the Islamic civilization paved the way for the renaissance and the enlightenment period in Europe, and how the Islamic civilization learnt from Persian and Indian civilizations as well as from Greeks, we will remain ignorant of our common root. As a result, we will be wasting what our ancestors struggled for, and ignoring pain they bore to make us who we are today.
This awareness of our common history is likely to bring us to the fact that beyond our diversity, there is a common root, and from there, we have to respect each other, and to reconsider our cultural premises, and self-criticize our built realities. These are the basics of anthropology as a systematic discipline. By educating our children through the stories of cultures and civilizations, we can create a common cultural ground without one `civilizations' biases and reach to what is universal.
What is universal about human is the fact that they share `humanness'. As humans we can be biased, prejudiced, and unfair, and as humans, we are able to sympathize, and empathize, and share our joys and pains. In all cultures and civilizations we try to find answers for the perennial questions of the purpose of our existence, and where we come from and where we are heading to. In our attempts to answer those questions, we built a whole structure of meanings expressed in cultural phenomena, be it language, rituals, arts, religions, and so on and so forth. It is the role of anthropology to disentangle the cultural language to facilitate mutual understanding between cultures and civilizations. So, it is not enough to acknowledge the holistic built-up of a culture, it is equally important to be able to build a dialog where barriers are removed and bridges of understanding are established.
While in the 19th century, the founding fathers of social sciences anticipated that scientific methods will be universally shared, and their prediction was realized in the 20th century, it is time to move to make the anthropological methodology a common culture of the world, digging all the time for commonalities, and respecting variability. Boundaries will remain respected, but barriers that hinder communication will diminish.
The role of anthropology should be taken to the heart of conflicts, trying to solve them. Its premises and method may lay a foundation for global cultural changes where people search for building bridges with other cultures and nations through real interests of understanding the other. After all, we share being part of a human family.
No comments:
Post a Comment