“I” and Y-O-U: The “Why” between “I” “Owe” “You”

B”H
Bracha Ebriani
USC ’10
Be-True, Campus Representative

“I” and Y-O-U: The “Why” between “I” “Owe” “You”
“Man says he wants to bring peace to others, but in order to do that he must first find it within his own life” (Muhaiyaddeen, 8). The current state of most Americans has transformed from one of resistance for the plight of freedom towards the more common, facile state of apathy, resisting little if anything at all. Regardless of the American glorification of tolerance, in a foreign country, it serves no moral purpose to have an internal sense of tolerance in the face of external intolerance. Others would argue that being content with your own values without imposing them on others is virtuous. They would stipulate, in the face of encountering intolerance, it would be wrong to impose a supremacist sense of personal morality on a foreign culture without first understanding it. When confronted with an intolerant society, it takes personal integrity to uphold one’s own society’s values on a private basis. In order to do so, individuals need to be at peace with who they are: their social dictums that proffer ethical and moral values as well as their racial, ethnic, religious, national, or any other background that defines them. In other words, ignorance is a poor excuse for the fear of being true to one’s values. Moreover, without personal integrity, social interaction in a foreign culture translates as dealing with deficients. One can also wallow within both extremes, neither of which is mutually exclusive, namely a hesitant and forgiving mentality or one that is dismissive and suspicious. With the fortitude of tolerance, Americans will avoid making any decisions whatsoever to stay clear of physical harm, or at the worst, a verbal confrontation that forces them to attest who they are. In short, the strongest means towards peace on an individual basis in the current social climate calls for a denunciation of tolerance in favor of interacting along borders of culture without fear or condemnation. This translates into a call for understanding, even in the face of doctrinal evil in our times.
One’s experience of death, pain, suffering or exclusion can result in feelings of prejudice and hatred. Intolerance stems for the misunderstanding of a community or society of people. Even seeing the inherent value of a specific individual affiliated with a particular culture, ethnic or religious identity will not preclude maligning the entire group as a whole. A single positive interaction in the past with an individual is insufficient to overcome deep prejudices. However, an isolated negative incident can have rebounding consequences for an entire nation of people. Hence, what is needed to overcome intolerance is not just mere tolerance but awareness, as Gustav Niebuhr stipulates in his book, Beyond Tolerance. What is needed is a particular kind of understanding that penetrates the core of the individual beyond preconceived stereotypes and biases. This understanding ought to manifest itself in the confidence of expressing and defending one’s convictions: “…does anything take more courage—is anything more challenging and sometimes frightening—than to live by our own mind, judgment and values?” (Branden, 42)
In application, this subject pertains to the discomforting “why”—the gap between the defensive justification of oneself and one’s community, as opposed to the reason behind the stance defending those who are different—in essence, the reason why we owe each other respect when there are differences between us. According to Dr. Glenn Tinder, this gap is the communal space when where the possibility of communication occurs. To traverse this space—this space where intolerance begins and ends—requires a certain mentality. Therefore, it is worthwhile to address the presumptions that we take for granted regarding societal differences in order to overcome the intolerance that precludes peace between various social factions. There are numerous instances when tolerance is inappropriate, specifically when it relates to being a direct victim of or witnessing an act of persecution, or any means of physical aggression. It is difficult to dismiss or justify repeated slaps across the face without meeting force with force. To concede in the face of an angry assailant or enemy is not valiant. To concede against the principles of what deems to be ethical or humane is hypocritical.
Before suggesting the manner in which to respond in such situations, it is necessary to understand the reasons behind intolerance. One can argue that intolerance stems either from fear of the ‘other’ or from a deprivation of proper self esteem. People whom we have never seen or who we perceive to be different than us can easily be maligned, and therefore, locally verbal or far-reaching cinematic stereotypes can leave lasting impressions. This acceptance of misleading representations especially holds true among communities characterized by homogeneity. Even on an individual basis, community is a force that both inhibits and breeds intolerance through the implicit trust of sharing experiences. The credence and validity of these shared experiences are less likely to be challenged because of the susceptibility of being off guard to distinguish between the realistic fact and the interpretation of fact.
On the level of community, stereotypes are easily conveyed without a sense of stigma with the implicit validation that stereotypes are what often unite people who have little in common. Some may argue that accepting the validity of your own religion calls for a personal, if not public, disapproval of other religions. Others will attain the humility to recognize that there are many paths to G-d and instead harbor on the necessity of “inner faith rather than interfaith” to achieving an internal sense of peace which is prerequisite to societal harmony (Hecht interview). On the one hand, if individuals in society have a basic knowledge of people of different faiths, we will be in a world that is characterized by something greater than tolerance—by understanding. ‘Tolerance’ often carries negative connotations of toleration, implying that to deal with something you cannot stand is valorous. In contrast, the term ‘understanding’ suggests that our social interactions are characterized by respect. Toleration is again a wrong measure of overcoming prejudice because to tolerate means you compromise to some degree the validity of your own opinions. Moreover, tolerance can “lead to minorities having low self image” (Sacks, 203). To add to this, toleration undermines our moral duty to denounce social injustices as they appear in other societies that are foreign to us. Instead of a demand for tolerance, Jonathan Sacks stipulates the importance to value the distinctiveness of one’s own opinion, identity, or culture. To be secure in our own opinions and to understand what we truly believe in should precede learning about contrary points of view. In other words, building self-awareness and self empowerment is one step even further towards multiculturalism.
To demarcate the divergence of opinion between Niebuhr and Sacks, the point in question revolves around whether this awareness should primarily be external or internal, compassionate or introspective. In encountering a strange or uncomfortable philosophy, in order for gestures of compassionate understanding not to be subtly demeaning or disparaging, one must first internalize the ethical standards in which s/he believes and then choose whether or not to project them outward. Therefore, the first step to achieving peace and tolerance is overcoming the notion of tolerance itself and instead reaching the basis of understanding. Understanding is, first and foremost, self-perception. Only resulting from this self-reflective acuity begins the process of understanding, or attempting to relate to, a foreign culture or ideology. Upon doing so, one will not be fighting “falsehood” but will appreciate other viewpoints, even without accepting them.
As I was walking with my family through the Arab shuk, or open market, in the Old City of Jersualem, an old man spit at my sister. My sister looked in his direction to see why he could have acted in such a manner—perhaps it was a mistake—but again he spat at her. Being the non-confrontational type, she shrugged her shoulders and walked away. When she told me this story, I was naturally infuriated at the indecency of the old, Arab man and began to ruminate about the way any person should react to such an encounter. When I saw a similar incident occur—this time an Arab child spitting directly at the face of an Orthodox Jewish boy with long peyot, or sidelocks, both of the same age—I saw the Jewish boy’s inaction and it hurt. He just looked straight ahead and kept walking. I questioned the humanity of such hateful behavior coming even from a child and began to feel enmity against any persons who identified themselves as Arab. I thought to myself that it contradicted my ethics to extend any support to them, I won’t spend my money here to support such people. And then I realized not all Arabs could be this way. Following both incidents, I began to question the possible reason linking the two incidents. There is a common mentality in such behavior.
A Jewish tour guide in the Old City who experienced much of the conflict between Arabs and Jews living in the city of Hebron explained his understanding of it as an expression of enmity against Jews sourced in the Qur’an. He proffered, Islam suggests that Jewish people are surrounded by the spirit of the devil, and spitting keeps the devil away. I accepted this reasoning without question, although it fit into my construct of the meaning of spitting based solely on my exposure to dissimilar foreign cultures through cinema. Others suggested that the reason could be because the Qur’an describes Jews as filth, and the two Arabs were acting on the basis of religious indoctrination. In my mind, this action, whether or not sourced in religious dogma, was undoubtedly an act of anger. I thought of other stereotypes as well—questioning their rationality and open-mindedness—without realizing that I could not group all Muslim Arabs into one stereotype. These misconceptions can lead to discrimination and bigotry. In the meanwhile, it is also unethical not to make continuous attempts to understand the source of such anger with patient diligence.
I failed to recognize the susceptibility that resulted from my anger and my pain. My internal faults made me prey to the trap of hatred, prejudice, and gullibility, which I have been on guard against since I was old enough to understand the meaning of the word ‘stereotype’ and the effect that it has on populations of people. It is the same mentality that has caused Jews to have been blamed for social problems in the Arab world—the lack of questions, the acceptance of hearsay. While some may argue, as does Niebuhr, that the comprehension necessary to overcome intolerance is a basic appreciation that contrary dogmas contain truths, it seems that confronting one’s own values precedes confronting and attempting to understand the values of other cultures. One of the reasons why we, both as individuals and as a cohesive society, owe respect to people who are different arguably begins with the fact that we ourselves come from a place of diversity. If respect were due even to individuals with an impaired sense of judgment, that respect implies a self-reflexive misunderstanding that allows one to judge the benefit of the doubt.
Beneath this sentiment lies the question if one can accept truth or validity from a culture which is not one’s own without an imperialist, sanctimonious sense of superiority. Holding true to one’s beliefs is remaining steadfast while faced with the challenge of defining one’s stance towards that which is unfamiliar. The risk that accompanies being open to learn from another culture and hearing an opposing viewpoint can be overcome if we understand ourselves. Thus, openness to a new world first begins with cracking one’s own shell, or turning inward and seeing the rich potential beyond the persona of one’s culture. For example, if I were to ask a Muslim the reason for the actions I had seen take place in Israel, they would most likely be as taken aback as someone asking me why Jews seize Arab soil and treat Arabs with contempt. For argument’s sake, neither one of us would have seen the accusation with the same degree of virulence as it was being described. Although it is easy to condemn religious fanaticism, it is difficult to condemn an entire faith based on the cruelty of several individuals. Therefore, it is important to recognize the issue of tolerance is irrelevant. Even in the microcosm of the small country, the actions of the few can easily be misunderstood to represent the actions of a large majority of people. Without a sense of self-awareness, the speculative suspicion of being attacked for one’s beliefs or one’s identity can often linger. According to a Jewish friend who studied abroad in Israel for several years, this mentality of distrust and contempt is particular to the place and cannot be understood from the rationality of someone who grows up in the United States. To quote her loosely, “Even a warm hug between us that seems to be genuine on the surface would feel artificial because there are underlying tensions that keep us apart.”
Those who clamor in favor of pure tolerance offer a distinction between various types of tolerance and suggest that tolerance does not entirely undermine the validity of one’s own beliefs because a tolerant person accepts a detachment from “historical absolutes” (Tinder, 466). Questioning personal affirmations with sincere doubt is a positive step. When hatred wrestles with hatred, the first step towards release the clutches of anger is an internal rationalization before an external understanding. Upon visiting a foreign country, one must use such instances as opportunities to internalize personal value systems and to arrive at a strengthening of one’s ethical standards. This measure confers responsibility to be autonomous in one’s decision-making and to allow discussion to be the basis of one’s decisions. To be tolerant is in effect to be civil or to make an attempt to “stand clear of both extremes” (Tinder, 465) and be impartial. Forgiving oneself precedes forgiving others. If both sides accept upon themselves some measure of fault and take responsibility for their actions, this hatred can be overcome. Communication would ostensibly bridge the gap to resolve their differences. Tinder stipulates that “one who is tolerated is set at a distance, but not at a distance that is untraversable” (452).
This attitude does not ease the masses, those who do not dare traverse the barriers of indifference and ignorance, because conversation and discussion can unmask the vulnerability of their ignorance. Those who stand idly by, with the presumption that interfering or standing up to something that they do not understand, can succumb to the sheltered belief that interfering is unethical. In this sense, tolerance can perpetuate racial or social injustices, and therefore must be taken a step further. Nonetheless, before considering whether to engage in societal exchange, it must be understood that there is no negotiation with corruption and crookedness. If hatred is ingrained in a person, it is not easily mollified. The ability to defend oneself against adversity is a necessity. Destructiveness and cruelty is a problem that needs to be absolved before one even enters the space of communication and of tolerance. Understanding the “moral value” (Tinder, 456) of stepping up to defend justice is of primal importance. Because justice itself is a subjective evaluation, the importance of understanding one’s own values cannot be emphasized enough. Only then can one evaluate prejudice and discrimination with proper critical faculties at hand. While some may argue that tolerance does not preclude independent thinking, self-awareness is a stronger protection against bigotry. Anyone can encounter the dilemma of fighting prejudice. With such proper measures taken into account, alternatives to violence and hatred can be implemented.
Tolerance is no longer a solution to social injustice because unacknowledged stereotypes oftentimes accompany diversity and inhibits peaceful relationships, in the sense that such preconceptions impair fair judgments. It is no longer about actively conveying your beliefs in the face of opposition, nor is it about passively ‘succumbing’ to the beliefs of others. It is rather about facing one another with a sense of understanding that simultaneously transcends and accepts differences. It is about being who you are without feeling threatened by the other. While ‘tolerance’ may frequently suggest a deprecating attitude towards a foreign culture, ‘understanding’ suggests the humility to appreciate that which is other without compromising yourself or your sense of community. Understanding is a process of communication and decision making that can appreciate decisions made by others, even if they are perceived as intolerant. Through the justification and expression of our humanity—the benevolence that even when there is difference there is the chance of understanding—fosters an atmosphere that will achieve more than ‘tolerance’ ever could. Overcoming intolerance, thus, requires the forefront of goodwill in the expansion of the effort of understanding foreign cultures.

Copyright © 2009 by Bracha Ebriani. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

Branden, Nathaniel. “Self Esteem and Culture.” The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem. New York:
Bantam, 1994. pp.277-301.
Hecht, Rabbi Eli. Personal interview. 25 September 2009.

Muhaiyaddeen, M.R. Bawa, Islam and World Peace: Explanations of a Sufi, Philadephia: The Fellowship Press, 1987.

Niebuhr, Gustav. Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America. USA:
Viking, 2008. Introduction.

Sacks, Jonathan. “Multiculturalism or Tolerance?” The Home We Build Together: Recreating
Society. London: Continuum, 2007. pp.135-145, 193-203.

Tinder, Glenn. “In Defense of Pure Tolerance.” Polity 6.4 (1974): 446-68. Palgrave Macmillan Journals. USC Libraries, Los Angeles, CA. 7 Sept 2009.