Being is light, perhaps unbearably

We may admit that cultures are incompatible with each other, but we tend to ignore their enormous power to shape who we are.

If I had been born among people whose custom is to grow and braid hair, I guess I would be doing so.

Suppose the longer the braids, the nicer looking you are, and yours are considered among the best. Now if you go to a country where everybody is supposed to have her/his head shaved with an intricate pattern, what do you think is going to happen?

If I did not know anything about their practice, I will be greatly shocked. In their eyes, I will be an item of curiosity. They may think I am a complete weirdo, or it could be that they think I am a long awaited savior.

It is much more likely that you would be deemed a barbarian and be despised.

What if the Skin-head people come over to my Braid country?

You will be laughing at them.

So, we always win home games?
 

Culture is a set of unwritten codes of conduct; the more people adhere to it, the more powerful it is. Headcount matters, and that is one of the biggest reasons why Benedictus is against contraceptives and homosexuality. Going back to your trip to the Skin-head land as a Braid person, you would be disturbed and hurt by scornful reactions to your braids, instead of praises and respect that you have been used to.

Will I have a crisis?

That's certain. If you are destined to go back to your Braid country after a short period of time, you would endure the humiliating situation without doing anything to your braids. Once you return, you would hasten to tell your family, friends and colleagues how uncivilized things were in the Skin-head country.

If I had been deeply wounded by the disrespectful treatment, I will have every incentive to do so. I may even exaggerate, just to get even.

If you have to stay in the Skin-head country for a while, however, you may opt to cut off your braids and shave your head.

God forbid...

Do not despair, comrade. It will be a wise decision on your part. Suppose you keep your braids and try to do whatever you wanted to in the Skin-head country. It's going to be awfully time consuming and frustrating. In fact, it can take forever.

Are you telling me that I will not accomplish my mission, however noble that may be, simply because of my braids?

Yes, because you stand out so much that the focus will be on your braids. It will require quite a bit of time and effort to make the Skin-heads see beyond the strange appearance of yours. Your difference on surface is so big that it may be a fatal barrier against making yourself understood.

I shall blame them for judging by appearance alone!

It may be justified to do so, but as I have been telling you, we are so influenced by looks and there is not much we can do about it. Anyway, if you are practical enough, I am sure that you will be going to the barber's before too long.

And the Skin-heads will think that I am finally enlightened, liberated, emancipated... The bastards!

Shhhh, it's all hypothetical, comrade. Besides, the worse is yet to come.

You mean they may not accept me even when I do away with my beautiful braids?

That also. What I had in mind is the dilemma that you would face when your date of return to the Braid country nears.

... Quelle horreur ! I have to get my braids back, but I can't grow my hair to full length just on the day before my departure.

If you start letting your hair cover the nice pattern made on your skull, the Skin-head people are going to talk about it.

"We thought it was a miraculous case of assimilation to our refined culture, but alas, it looks like a barbarian is forever a barbarian." That kind of talk?
 
You got it. Plus, when you are back in the Braid country, you will find inconvenient aspects that you did not notice before: the trouble of washing your long hair and making it into braids, the fallen hair that you notice everywhere in your house, the attention you have to pay so that the braids do not get caught between elevator doors...

Oh no, will I be missing the Skin-head country?

You may even find the near religiosity that your people have for braids slightly ridiculous.

My stay among the Skin-heads has changed me...
 

We are very much influenced by the communities and the societies that we live in. Of course, there is a great variation in the direction and the degree of influences.

We often think ourselves independent of our environment, but that's not quite true. There is no definite 'I.'

It is a rather scary thought, but I have to agree with you. I happen to be who I am because of the places that I lived and the events I experienced, and the vast majority of those has been beyond my control. In turn, it means that I am a product of chances.

Are we getting into the nature-versus-nurture argument?

No, because I am not saying that our traits are formed either by nature or by nurture. I am simply underlining the importance of the nurture component. My main proposition is: who we are cannot be discussed without reference to our surroundings. When we examine our identity carefully, we discover that the bulk of it is about how we position ourselves in the community or the society that we are part of.

The smart one, the pretty one, the funny one, the complaining one, the nagging one, the bragging one, the one who runs fastest, the one who is good at fixing things around the house, the one who trips over everything, the one who...

Usually, we think as if the attributes were absolute, but for accuracy, we should be adding the word, "around."

The smartest one around, the prettiest one around, and so on?

Have you heard about a village prodigy who goes to the city to attend school and experiences great shock, because s/he is mediocre compared to other students?

We hear that story all the time. In movies, they are the successful ones in the end, though.

Have you thought about why they are shocked?

It's simple. There are many more competitors than s/he imagined earlier.

Another way to phrase it is: the village prodigy can no longer be identified as the smartest one because s/he is in a new environment.

It's an identity crisis, then?

You see, her/his idea of who s/he is hinged on how other people fared compared to her/him. Think about a teenager who aspires to be radical. If s/he lives in a rural area, how radical s/he can be and still be accepted by family and friends would certainly differ from the radicalism allowed to her/him had s/he lived in one of the biggest cities in the world.

It is possible, though, that a radical will be a radical wherever s/he is.

Certainly. But for most of us, our tendency to go in particular directions is measured against how the rest of the society goes along those paths. Our identities are built on where we are in relation to the whole society.

That is why there is no absolute 'I.'

I was brought up by leftish parents in rightish places, and I took pride in being progressive. But at some point in my life, I became friends with leftish people from leftish places. Imagine how shocked I was to find out that I was not a true progressive in this big world!

What did you do?

I was horrified to find out that I was experiencing myself the feelings that I knew the rightish people in rightish places had when they heard of my opinion. I was also surprised to discover that the label of 'left' or 'progressive' was so important to me. I had sleepless nights before I could fully subscribe to the new ideas that I was exposed to, but I managed. I was propelled by the desire to stay progressive, and not become backward by any measure.

So you are now an 'all-region left'?

I know many people who describe themselves left, right, center-left, center-right...

For some reason, no extremists call themselves extremists.

What those labels mean is deeply dependent on where they grew up and have lived. As with any aspects of identity, they think that their adherence is to the ideas and not to their place along the local, political spectrum that they inhabit. On some occasions, I have pointed out that they would be thinking differently had they lived or had lived elsewhere. They would be taking the same political seats in any society---one to the left, to the right, or in the center. However, where that whole assembly room is situated varies, depending on the community that they belong to.

Did you manage to convince them?

They didn't believe me... I have also met quite a number of people in the West who have abandoned Western religions to embrace the Eastern ones, and quite a few in the East who have converted to Western religions. I am certain that had their birthplace been the reverse, their beliefs of choice would be reversed as well. In other words, what matters is the fact of conversion rather than the content of religions that they convert into.

Rejecting what we were imposed upon, and accepting what is presented as an option. Denouncing the institution whose unsavory aspects we have been exposed to, and embracing one whose ugly side we are yet unaware of. I trust that you didn't point these out to them...

The analogy would be taking a seat on a boat on a river. Each of us has a preferred seat: facing upstream or downstream, closer to the center, to the bow or to the stern. We usually choose the same spot of a boat, regardless of which river or where in the stream we are.

Things tend to be all right until we encounter another boat, correct?

It's the same as purchasing the latest model of whichever gadget you are crazy about. You think you are in love with the latest one, but that is true only as long as there is no newer model. In most cases, once another version becomes available on the market, that becomes your passion.

The attribute of being the newest is not absolute, but relative to other existing models.

People who go back and forth among different cultures, thus face a delicate task of balancing their fidelity to certain ideas and their desire to maintain a fixed set of adjectives for their identities.

It will be awfully confusing if you are progressive in some places and backward in others.

Alas, a person who is a true amalgam of red and blue cultures and has turned purple will be considered red among the blue, and blue among the red...

At the bottom of our rational choices

Your point was that logical analysis is more reliable than intuition, because logic can correct feelings, but not vice versa. What if two logical systems collide?

You are right. I realize that sets of logic that cannot be reconciled exist side by side. In fact, that is what cultures are all about.

If we operate within one culture, it all makes sense. But once we come into contact with another, we face contradictions.

One may tell us to be assertive, not to be stepped over, while the other may urge us to be self-deprecating so as to show our confidence in ourselves. There would be no problem if we know which rules prevail.

Things get tricky when we don't know which, because we don't say such things like, "I know that we come from incompatible cultural backgrounds, but I firmly believe that we should go about based on the Triangulum protocol."

What we leave out is, "I am from the Triangulum Galaxy, and I think we are culturally advanced than you guys from the Andromeda Galaxy, ha!"

While the guy from the Andromeda Galaxy is thinking the reverse.

 
Again the winner is the one that manages to be more brutal and ruthless.

We shouldn't act by the Gentlemen's Code, then?

I don't know why we should be bothered with it at all. Think about all the historical events. The ones who did away with such codes have always been the winners. Who said that the fighting should be on the ground only? If we realize that we can attack from the sky, we don't ask the enemy whether it is okay to do so. We just start dropping bombs from airplanes.

But isn't it self-destructive? If you take a no-holds-barred approach, the other party is going to retaliate with the same. The response could be more dramatic than the original acts, because they would be fueled by sense of defeat and revenge.

It is self-defeating only in the long run. What if the more brutal party annihilates the other? There is no point in our acting gentlemanly if the price to pay is our very existence.

If the tougher guys are going to win thanks to their toughness, why are they destined to self-destruction later?

When the culture is characterized by brutality, they can turn to each other with the same cruelness that they applied to their enemies. We know that once the first enemy is eliminated, the rest would split themselves to create enemies. With all regret, I have to say that it is human nature to do so.

We keep on destroying who is left until there is no one.

It is the course of fate that governs too many aspects of our lives. Think about price wars. They may benefit consumers, but not if the workers are insufficiently rewarded for their work to produce the goods. And the workers are consumers, too... Back to the issue of colliding logical systems, if we are to decide which to believe in when not threatened by immediate danger of annihilation, the choice will be dictated by our feelings and emotions.

We cannot logically compare logical systems that are incompatible in terms of logic.

Hence, if we are pressed to choose, it will be based on how we feel about each one against others.

You mean our decisions are more emotionally charged than we'd like to admit.

All of us try to present our arguments if they were the only ways that the discourses can reasonably unfold, but that's not true.

I know that one. Parents versus children, political left versus right, religious fundamentalists versus atheists, and more.

Sometimes we are brought up with one way of thoughts and do not deviate from them, because deviation may lead to reexamination of the fundamentals of what we believe in and how we are. We want to avoid that at all costs. But other times, we are given the freedom to choose.

Downhill versus cross-country skiing, sci-fi versus suspense novels, classical versus rock music...

Those are easy, because we may indulge in both without any problem. It becomes more interesting when it comes to political systems, for example. Nobody can say that s/he supports both democracy and dictatorship. The two cannot coexist.

Or, capitalist and communist economies.

The decisive thrust for one over the other comes from our feelings for them.

And the feelings originate in our experiences with them, right?

If your hard-earned assets have been forcibly confiscated by the communist party and that in front of your eyes, there is no way you are going to be a staunch communist. Likewise, if you and your parents have been exploited by a big landowner, there is little chance that you are going to be a capitalist.

That is irrespective of the logic behind the capitalist and communist systems.

We have to be careful not to treat the two systems as if our attraction to the two were the same. For the sheer reason that the capitalist system appeals to our base instincts to consume and own, it has a stronger draw.

In the case of the exploited peasant, s/he may strive to become a landowner her/himself instead of abolishing the unfair landholding scheme, then.

Exactly. It is our personal feelings generated through personal experiences that serve as the dice for the final selection among incompatible choices. However, when it comes to defense of that choice, we argue as if we had arrived by logic alone.

Well, not many people are going to be convinced by saying that your parent's castle was ransacked by the thuggish party members and that is why you hate the party and its doctrines.

That is why we build up arguments for our decision devoid of such events. Such behavior is not confined to our private thoughts and affiliations. It holds for various views in professional arena, including academia. Contrary to popular belief, we do not start with a clean slate of mind in deciding what we believe in. Rather, we start from our beliefs and build a fortress around it in the name of logic and science.

I bet that's why we seldom manage to convince the other camp.

Most of the time, we ourselves are even not aware of what is at the very bottom of our seemingly rational convictions. If we are, we are loathe to admit it, because we know that the material is not something that makes the other party to change sides. A variation of this theme is found in our appreciation of art.

We know what we like first and then try to find arguments as to why?

That is true, but it would be of the same theme. What I meant by a variation is that the knowledge of the personal aspects of artists affects how we appreciate their works.

Whether the painter was near starvation or living comfortably with the inheritance money should not matter when we judge how good a painting is.

I know an artist with paralyzed limbs who manipulates the brush with his mouth. I was greatly surprised to learn his handicap, considering the level of accomplishment. The question is: are we supposed to, or is it correct to, be more appreciative of his art now that we know his hardship.

If we are to publish one book of paintings, should it be his or the other's whose artistic value may be higher but without such difficulties?

In terms of pure profit, I am certain that the publisher would choose the former. But in terms of artistry, I am not certain if we should appreciate the handicapped more. It is like giving a student a better grade just because s/he suffers from learning disability. The implicit agreement is to evaluate the results, but we take efforts into account as well.

It is true that we are often curious about the artists' private lives, and we tend to like their work more if we are familiar with their biography.

Sometimes it can go the other way, too. If we find out that the artist is awfully conceited, that puts off quite a number of people and make them dislike her/his art. Similarly, our own personal events associated with a certain work can determine whether we like that particular piece.

It is hard for me to listen to the music that I heard when my dear pet beetle passed away. I was digging a hole in the backyard to bury it...

I know that Francisco Goya will forever be a very special painter for me. His exhibition was the first one that I remember attending as a child. It's amazing how vivid the memory has stayed. The crowd, the atmosphere, the weather, the changes in the dominant color in paintings as Goya aged, asking my mother about it, seeing his painting shortly afterward as a poster and recognizing it as his right away, and so on.

A piece of music suddenly means more if a story is attached to it, right?

It is not that I think about the story as I listen, but somehow the music becomes alive. Art begins to mean much more when a bit of context is given. In fact, the story or the context only serves to make me truly listen or see.

Without a story or a context, you pay cursory attention to art?

It seems that I often---not always, mind you---need a story that allows me into the world that each piece of art creates. Once I gain access to that world, I don't need to go back to the story or the context. Sometimes, they even become bothersome during the moments when I appreciate the more abstract nature of art.

Who said that we are rational beings?