Treacherous trinity: trust, dignity and proximity

You've been suggesting that dignity is the most important aspect in our lives.

I'm not the only one to think so. The very first Article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

The Declaration talks about human dignity, but it never defines what it really is.

We can say that it is about inherent worthiness of each person.

What does that mean? It surely shouldn't mean that an idiot deserves less respect than other people.

What is the respect that an idiot deserves? The concept of human dignity says that idiocy should not make a difference in how that person is treated.

Suppose that there is a person who is easily offended. Won't it be more difficult for her/him to protect her/his dignity than for others who are less easily offended? If so, it suggests that we are not uniform in terms of dignity.

You are talking about dignity in a sense slightly different from that in the Universal Declaration. The Declaration is more about how to set up social institutions so that human dignity could be systematically protected. Examples would be intolerance of torture, slavery and the like.

Dignity can be taken away by personal injuries and that is where our focus has shifted, I see. The shift probably suggests that we---you and I---do not see with our own eyes any systematic damage done to human dignity on a daily basis.

Are you sure that you do not witness dignity challenged in our everyday lives? It is possible that such instances are so prevalent that we have become blind to them. I think the kinds of discrimination touched upon by Article 2 of the Declaration happens everyday, everywhere.

That article is rather lengthy. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Do you remember talking about forgiving---that the burden of coming to terms with what happened is on the victims? I'm afraid the same principle applies here.

That is...?

When someone does or says something that deprives of your dignity, you cannot obviously go back in time and undo the doing or the saying. Your dignity is taken away for the moment.

And, you are saying that the best is to forget about it?

We can restore our dignity by responding or reacting to the incident in certain ways. To act as if it were nothing may be indeed the best way in some cases.

We should not act as if the offense was effective. That is, we should not take their bait or play their game. Is this what you have in mind?

Yes. You may reveal that you have noticed the offensive action or remark, but never show explicit anger or shock caused by it.

That will be easier for a verbal one than for a physical one...

Certainly. It is again up to the offended whether something can be done to the damage. It is possible to protect our dignity by firmly believing that others cannot possibly do something like that to us, in other words, by staying calm.

It will be best if the "aggressor" admits or realizes that they have not succeeded in humiliating. Does it come so easily?

Most likely, it will take a several rounds or more. It is possible that it never happens. But compared to preserving one's dignity, establishing and maintaining trust may be more difficult.

I remember that you run away whenever someone indicates that s/he does not trust you.

I don't actually run away! I just feel like it.

You also said that trusting a stranger, or acting as if you did, is against what biology dictates us to do, and that is what civilization consists of: defiance of biology.

The trust issue is more difficult on that account than the dignity issue. After all, our dignity is about how we think about ourselves.

Can we say that safeguarding dignity is part of our biological mechanism to survive?

I think so. On the other hand, the most primitive survival instinct says it is best not to place trust in someone casually. Trust is more about how we evaluate other people; it depends much more on others' behavior than in dignity.

Didn't you say human relationships are based on reciprocity? If so, you do have control.

The reciprocity principle works in many cases, but not in all. Trusting others would not make them trustworthy, at least, overnight. I can think of many complicated examples.

For example?

A person may be very nice to you, but nasty to others. Should you trust that person?

I've seen such relationships. Some couples are like that; they are only nice to each other.

You have stepped into yet another territory. Even devils become angelic when in love.

Doesn't that suggest that we should all be in love with each other?

Fortunately, we can't be forced to be in love with someone. Anyway, you implied that closeness in relationships brings trust. I think you have mistaken predictability as trust.

Predictability comes from observed consistency of past events, and so does trust. However, you can also be untrustworthy and consistently so. I know that predictability and trust are not the same.

When we are close to someone, you have more opportunities to observe that person and s/he becomes more predictable than others. Closeness also means that you are more likely to say to each other what you would not to people who are less close.

And that includes all the bad things about each other, right?

Yes, I knew I could trust you!

Let's say you have become predictable.

Closeness does not necessary mean belittling each other, but the possibility of exposing dark emotions and thoughts is certainly larger.

The dark emotions and thoughts could be about your partner in the relationship, but also about yourself and everything else in the world.

The problem is that it is difficult to maintain dignity when you let out your fear, anger, jealousy in unedited forms.

Proximity is a difficult ground for dignity, then.

How can you have trust, if dignity is damaged, now and then? That means the sources of comfort can be self-destructive by their very nature. But we all need our own coterie, a group of people who, we think, understand us well.

I knew it! It's treacherous---trust, dignity and proximity.

What you read is a double-edged sword for the chicken and the egg

Birds of a feather flock together.

Let's say our meetings are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I thought we could start the new year with a more positive note.

Why do you think that different minds' getting together is negative?

True, Adam Smith saw the danger of like minds convening in one room.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That one?

Yes, and do you remember the cliques in high school?

Their aim was to create birds of a feather by focusing on what could be labeled cool.

We need a sense of togetherness or belonging, but that often comes at the expense of the excluded.

Don't you think there are people who are happy to be excluded?

Oh no, do you want to start the year with a Unabomber-like note?

I don't want to be part of my grandmother's bridge circle, for sure.

Or, my nephew's Teletubbies fan club.

You see, there are groups that you'd rather not join. But in most cases, we need to belong to more than one group to satisfy our diverse needs and interests.

Family, close friends of similar interest/history, local community, student/professional associations, etc. come to mind...

The dark side of the psychology to belong is that it comes from the realization that we feel less at ease with people outside the groups.

As long as we don't go out to hurt the non-members, I would say forming groups based on feeling at ease is not bad at all. On the contrary, it happens because the population is not uniform. If it were, there would be no need for various groups. Diversity is a good thing, I thought you said that.

Only if it were so simple! Haven't you ever met people who give you an "are-you-one-of-us-or-not" exam, immediately after you are introduced to each other?

Where I was born, which schools I attended, which subject that I majored in, where I live, whether I have children, what I do on my days off, what is my favorite cuisine, whether I prefer coffee hot or cold in summer---I've been asked these.

Didn't the conversations come to an awkward end when it became clear that there was nothing in common between you two?

I remember the silence when I confessed my hatred for all iced drinks. But that's only natural. We have closer relationships with people who are similar to us. When people are similar, they don't even have to get to know each other through explicit means; similar and close are almost synonymous.

We seek validation of ourselves in others, and that leads to the desire to belong to a group. That group could be a couple or an extended family, too.

What's wrong with that?

When we belong to a big or solid enough group that all our different needs and desires are satisfied, we do not bother to get to know people outside the group.

One of your double-edged swords, again!

I'm afraid it is. Only when we are still in search of people that we could feel comfortable with, we are open to different types.

I suppose the open-mindedness of youth comes from that.

I would also say that long-established couples and tightly-knit families are---not always but usually---less outgoing due to the same reason. By the way, I think it is the same with the novels that we choose to read.

Do you mean to say that we tend to read a wide variety of fiction when we are young?

Most of us discover the kind of fiction that we like quite early in life. I only know of sci-fi fans who became so when they were teenagers and never changed.

Indeed, I haven't heard of anyone being transformed into a sci-fi fan from a romance fan.

We read what satisfies our desire and assures our existence, as far as fiction goes. I always happen to choose fiction whose protagonist I can identify with.

You read horror stories, I didn't know that!

My concern here is that the reading habit amounts to seeking validation of myself and not much else.

Surely, you cannot embody all the protagonists of the novels that you read and liked.

You are right, but it remains true that reading fiction for me has become reaffirming who I am, instead of expanding the possibility of whom I could be.

Isn't it something like a tight hug or a gentle tap on the shoulder? We need them.

I agree, but it is our duty to be able to understand increasingly divergent people as we continue to live on.

I've never heard of that one.

We shouldn't get old for nothing. You would agree to that, wouldn't you?

You mean, we should compensate for the loss of outer beauty with a gain in inner beauty?

If you could relate to people on the other side of the globe as much as you could relate to your neighbors, there would be more interest in world affairs. I believe that will lead to wiser political decisions.

What is your recommended strategy for greater understanding among people from different backgrounds?

You have to like them first.

You have to like them first to understand them? That doesn't make sense!

I know, but that's how our psychology works. If you detest something or somebody, it is guaranteed that you are not going to make sense out of it.

Isn't it the other way around---because it does not make sense, you don't like it?

If it does not make sense and if that is why you don't like it, you have to force yourself to like it so that it starts making sense.

First it was a double-edged sword, and now the-chicken-or-the-egg problem!

A wonderful way to start the new year!

Direct democracy to the rescue

Your ideal state of mind is an individualistic one, correct?

With willingness to compromise when necessary.

Can we say that it is often the crowd psychology that spoils well-intentioned social systems?

Take democracy. It drifts toward populism because of the if-you-say-so kind of laziness in us.

Sure, laziness is to blame for everything. By the way, when is the last time you cleaned up your place?

It's not only populism and fascism that the crowd psychology leads us to. Bank runs, too, are caused by it. Any kind of run is nasty, because it is the expectation of a big enough group that creates the real phenomenon.

Runs can be over sugar, rice, petro---anything people believe would be very scarce.

Crowds are responsible for fads which are all about following the so-called trend-setter without thinking much. It has also contributed to the making of winner-take-all societies. Think about the contracts that sports players, singers, kiss-and-tell authors sign. We value the very few as if there were an abyss between the top and the rest.

How can we avoid such undesirable consequences of our innate nature to follow the leader? In other words, is it possible to make even the most thinking-averse ones to think on their own?

I'm afraid some of us are die-hard followers, but I know a way to make the majority of us think more. It is direct democracy.

Like the one practiced in Switzerland? I suppose your line of thought is that we act only if the consequences are dire.

To some extent, yes. But unfortunately, if we think we have no power to influence the system or our daily lives, we turn apathetic and do not exercise our rights to participate in politics. That is, we may cease to act, even when our action can prevent dire consequences to fall upon us. Eventual depletion of petro may be one such instant.

Let me rephrase it then. We would act only if we know that our actions have real consequences on our everyday lives.

Yes, we are much more likely to take action, if not doing so would inconvenience us tomorrow. Our mental capacity is so limited that we need direct feedback to feel responsible for what we do. Consider hazardous waste, for example. As long as it is taken to a far away place, we do not think much about its treatment and effects on the environment.

Waste that is hard to treat is often shipped to developing countries, because they are in need of cash.

And only when the toxic material makes its way into the food system in the developed countries that people who generated it start worrying.

As long as you don't see, hear, or smell, anything goes.

Sadly enough, that is our natural behavior. It is one of the reasons why gated communities are not a good idea. They allow the rich to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, but it is the rich who have the power to make changes so that gated communities would not be necessary. Some are opposed against universal health care, because their family and friends do not need it.

If it is about people whom you could not relate to, you care much less.

The same with income redistribution. If you don't know anyone suffering from bad luck of having no father and an alcoholic mother, you think it unnecessary.

What about the case of parents dying in a car accident and no relatives with the financial means to take care of the children?

You know, a single, alcoholic mother was simply one of the myriad possible cases...

I know another one. Political refugees with no linguistic skills to survive in the host country. Or losing your limbs while working in a factory, or...

The first world is dependent on the low prices of primary resources and simple manufactured goods from the third world. Not all, perhaps, but the vast majority who are employed by such industries work in dismal environments for a pittance. And, that is a big contributing factor in the affluence in the first world. The consumers in the developed countries, however, do not see the abhorrent labor condition or the absence of proper waste treatment; it encourages them to be careless and wasteful about what they purchase.

Anything cheap is good, although they are made possible by underpaying for labor and material.

The important point is that all of us on the globe are connected and support each other in one way or another. You may not be interested in Amazon Rainforest, but we all benefit from its mere existence as natural wonder, not to mention its biodiversity and function as a carbon sink. We owe to the people of the Rainforest for the knowledge of plants and animals unique to the area.

I heard that many companies have turned to the forest as a hunting ground for new drugs.

We have called the enlargement of the definition of human beings as progress. We have managed to relate to more and more people, even if we do not share the same biological attributes---such as skin color and gender---or beliefs and life styles.

If you are incapable of sympathizing with types of people whom you have never met or come in contact with, such as starving babies in Darfur...

Or, if you cannot treat the person whom you despise with basic respect, you are going against what civilization should be. Given the latest gross wealth of the world, universal health care is possible and sufficiently progressive tax systems are musts.

After all, it's a piece of cake to be nice to people whom we know and like.

A socially formal system for supporting the disadvantaged allows us to be more business like, compared to reliance on informal support system, such as extended families.

A formal system is more convenient, though, because there would be cases in which we have to say 'no more support' due to abuse.

At the same time, it is inconvenient, because there would be occasions in which we would like to extend support, but bureaucracy does not permit it. Getting back to the issue of direct democracy, it will make us more aware that nobody but ourselves are responsible for government actions.

We often accuse governments of their abuse of power, including corruption.

In some countries, people with the most resources have decided unilaterally to govern others. In such cases, we cannot say that the masses are responsible for what the government does. But, if you claim that democracy is working well...

It's a generic 'you,' I hope!

Of course, ahem! If you think your country is governed by well-working democracy, you are responsible for the body that you happen to elect.

It's a generic 'you,' I hope!

I told you so! You are responsible for government actions, under either type of democracy, but I am sure that the point would be driven home better in the case of direct democracy.

Our government is not 'them,' but 'us,' so to speak.

Most of the time, people complain about certain government decisions but do not do anything to change the situation. If we were truly serious about it, we would take to the streets.

Ah, your revolutionary streak, again. But you know, we can't be out on the street everyday.

That is one of the reasons why student protests are powerful. They have the time to engage in protests and not much of a job to lose.

For people whose daily bread depends on how your boss views you...

Direct democracy to the rescue!

Handle with care: individualism

Individualism is not a step forward, but backward.

Really?

You implied so in our last meeting.

No, not really...

I also remember your saying earlier that self-help books are bad, because they have done the necessary contemplation on our behalf.

Zero thinking on our own is surely a gigantic step toward totalitarianism.

Why should you be negative about individualism, then? Isn't it about being individualistic in thinking?

Alas, individualism comes in many guises.

I see, you're taking a cheap escape route by claiming that several types of individualism exist.

Several versions exist for everything. Think about a national dish of any country, Nasi goreng in Indonesia, for example. We all know that no two persons make the same Nasi goreng.

Suppose the society tries to identify the artist to whom a highly valued work could be attributed, and gives that artist elevated social status and/or financial rewards. You called it individualism last time. No doubt, it could lead to competition, but I don't see anything wrong with that. On the contrary, it motivates the artists to strive for better quality.

I wouldn't deny that. However, it could also lead to petty competitions, resulting in waste of energy for all involved.

Stealing and obstructing others' work?

Yes. Incentives always have the potential to be misused or abused. Suppose you reward a child for reading as much as s/he can, and you measure that amount by the number of pages read.

Naturally, s/he will go for books that are easier to read and with fewer pages per word. Was that your strategy when you were in elementary school?

Shhhhh! Individualism should not mean putting oneself above others at all times.

If everyone puts her/himself above others, we will have nothing but hell.

Individualism is not equivalent to isolationism, either.

Do you think it is possible for every one of us to think on our own? I thought you suggested that it would be difficult.

There will always be people who prefer to follow the most vocal and strong-sounding person.

We have herd instincts.

And we must resist them.

You said that we should overcome our me-me-me urge, and now you are saying we should not succumb to our if-you-say-so desire.

Again, the best lies in the middle. But that does not mean we are allowed to be egotistic some times and apathetic other times. By the way, the famous case of Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton shows that even brilliant minds can be alike.

They invented calculus separately, without collaboration... We belong to the same species and have access to similar sets of information. So it is natural that some of us come to think very similarly.

In my opinion, the best state of mind is an independent one which never fails to examine the problem itself carefully.

I take it that the ideal is not to let personal likes and dislikes interfere when forming our opinion.

All of us are under the great illusion that we are the very best human beings around, at least to our friends and family. So, I would be extra careful to voice an opinion that does not go down well with one of them.

Did anyone tell you that you drive people crazy? I'm getting totally confused.

Do you remember, Natsume Soseki, Blaise Pascal and all that? I know another line by Pascal, which serves us well here. Deux excès : exclure la raison, n'admettre que la raison.
Two excesses: to exclude reason and to allow only reason... You always find a way out of a tight corner!

I have a better way out.

Let's hear it.

You should form your opinion independent of who are for and against the issue, and also of how you feel about them as persons. Reason should prevail in this part. However, in making public the conclusion thus arrived, you should take personalities and personal histories into account. That may entail tweaking your conclusion a bit.

If there is a need to consolidate various opinions, as in the case of deciding what to do in order to prevent the city of Venice from going under water, we will be asked to compromise.

Certainly. It would not help to have everyone pushing her/his own idea. Note that this is the kind of instance where leaving the principal agent unnamed is a very wise plan.

All want to bask in the glory of being the one who rescued Venice, and clashes of such desires can well lead to adopting a plan that is not the most effective in terms of technology and finance.

As for the Golden Gate Bridge, Joseph Strauss managed to appear as the principal designer for seventy years after its construction, contrary to what actually took place.

Do you think it possible to suppress the me-me-me urge? I think it would be rather counterproductive.

I agree. We cannot totally eliminate such primary desires and they have to be taken care of one way or another.

Let me guess what you have in mind. It's an "Employee of the Month" scheme when there are exactly twelve workers...

Regress is in the signatures

Bon anniversaire, Claude !

Hé, Claude, we visited le musée du quai Branly last year. Tant pis, we didn't see you there.

We?

Let me think, perhaps you were with someone else, not me. But I know that it's nobody other than myself who told you that the museum was inspired by Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Lately, you have been making remarks as if you had been with me, but...

Minor details shall not get in our way, my dear comrade! I should have asked you earlier---how did you like the museum?

It was very nice.

And?

Very well done.

Anything else?

I just can't get too excited over an anthropological museum. The objects that they display were not made for that purpose, unlike Western paintings and sculptures.

That does not diminish their value.

Certainly not. However, they are in the wrong place, because they can be fully appreciated only in situ.

A set of bow and arrow shows its greatest functional beauty when used to hunt a deer, for example.

You got it. Buddha sculptures did not interest me much, until a few years ago when I saw one in the center of a very small temple. Before then, I saw them mainly in museums. It shone subtly in the darkness. It was sublime. That experience convinced me that the so-called anthropological objects removed from their original environments are akin to fish out of water.

The sculpture made sense to you in its natural habitat.

It came with its context, which I think is important. In contrast, paintings and sculptures in the West are produced under the assumption that they will find permanent homes in sitting rooms.

Wouldn't you say museums, instead of sitting rooms, in the case of Damien Hirst, Takashi Murakami and the like?

Or, the Nth spare room of obscenely rich collectors. None of their works is meant to be used in ceremonies or in everyday life, and that is what differentiates the art in the West from the traditional art in the rest of the world.

I have seen Chinese vases adorning rooms with no flower in them, though.

I would say their principal function is still to hold flowers.

What about Chinese scroll paintings?

Those function in the same way as Western paintings, I admit. Let me rephrase "the rest of the world" as "the part of the world in which houses were traditionally not decorated as in the West." Anyway, when Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse and others encountered the art from Africa, they were astonished.

By the abstract nature of it?

Yes, and also by the fact that no record existed as far as the names of artists and the dates of production were concerned.

Can we say that the emphasis is more on the utility of objects than who toiled to create them?

I think so. If a sculpture reveals extraordinary artistic value, the artists/artisans who were responsible would be appreciated by the community, but the object is seen more as something that the community as a whole produced and owns.

It must also mean that there would be support for the artisans during the production period.

I imagine that the community provides food and other necessities so that they can devote all their time to making objects.

There used to be a similar system in the West. Musicians and painters, even mathematicians, were employed by rich patrons.

Such arrangements are not quite the same, because the parties involved had some kind of a contract, an agreement between two individuals. And more often than not, we know who paid and who did what work in return.

In other words, the West came up with individualism the earliest and the trend is spreading around the world.

Individualism is irresistible, because it legitimizes the me-me-me desires in us.

If so, we are moving from systems which suppress such biological and primary urges to one that celebrates them.

It's a regress, don't you think?

Big, big leaf with tiny hair versus big leaf with tiny hair

Do you really think social conventions are arbitrary?

How else can you explain the fact that opening a gift in front of the offerer is considered rude in one culture and not doing so is rude in another culture?

I think those two rules are based on different aspects of the same action. Since it is not nice to show disappointment, it is better to open the gift after the guest has left. This is the rationale for the first one.

As for the second case, promptly unwrapping the gift is supposed to be a sign that the receipt alone has already made you happy. It also allows showing appreciation in person, rather than in a thank-you note to be sent later. This approach requires that you be prepared to smile and look delighted, even when you are given the ugliest and the most useless object in the entire universe.

Your examples do not say customs and conventions are arbitrary. On the contrary, the common, ultimate goal is to convey appreciation for the act of giving itself, that is, regardless of what is given.

You are right. It is all about showing appreciation for one another. But if we agree that the two takes on gift giving make equal sense, the preference of one approach over the other is arbitrary.

You cannot open right then and there, and also later---you have to choose. Plus, if you are inconsistent in the timing of opening, people would start searching for meanings. Did s/he open it right away, because it was from Monsieur Untel and not from Madame Unetelle? Or, because it was bulky and wrapped with a colorful paper?

I have seen quite a bit of frustration among people who crossed the lines of these two types of culture.

Another well known source of friction is how lavish a spread you present when you invite people.

In many cultures, showing that you are stretching your means to entertain the guests is very important. That said, I feel really uncomfortable when a precious goat, sheep, pig, or chicken is slaughtered, just because I am from a far away place or faintly connected to a person who is mighty important to them.

They are eager to chop the heads off, even if you just met them an hour ago.

How am I going to tell them that I am a vegetarian?

The spread issue can go the other way around, too. If you are raised in a culture which says any guest is to be fed until s/he has to lie down for digestion enhancement, some other cultures come across as offensive.

True. One time, I brought a nice bouquet of flowers to a luncheon, only to find out that the hostess had decided to have a rather soggy and plastic-looking pizza delivered, instead of cooking herself.

I suppose she had a coupon?

I think that was the case, indeed. I was shocked, too, that I was the only one who presented something to the hostess.

And that the pizza was served from the box... Are you resentful, because you had gone a long way to compose a bouquet which looked classy, but not as inexpensive as it actually was?

... But I don't remember your coming to the florist or to the luncheon with me!

Isn't it the company and the content of conversation that matter?

In theory, yes. But, to this day, I feel I have to make more dishes than the guests can possibly consume and I consider a "little something" for the host/ess an absolute must.

I thought you were more open-minded.

It's similar to saying "good morning" to strangers on the street. It certainly does not make everyone on earth on good terms with each other, but it is a gesture that acknowledges your presence and existence. I am convinced that contentment in life is made of such seemingly trivial acts.

In short, although you admit that there are various possible ways to achieve the same goal, you are offended if people do not take the way that you prefer.

I would avoid saying offended, but I was disappointed in this particular example. You may think that I only approve of the manners that I am most accustomed to, but not so. After all, what do we have our thinking faculty for?

Conventions are conventions, because some thinking has been done for you beforehand.

If you cross cultural boundaries, you are most likely to encounter customs and conventions that tell you to do what you were told not to do in some other place.

Just as in the case of gift opening.

As a person with the experience of having lived and living in other cultural environments, you are given the opportunity to choose among multiple solutions to a problem. That is where thinking becomes required.

While you had accepted in toto the customs and conventions taught by your parents, you now reflect on them, compare them with the solutions that you yourself have discovered, and make a rational judgment as to which solution is best.

How successful that can be depends on how open-minded your environment is, and even if people around you are receptive to alien manners, it may take some time to be understood that your way is a viable alternative.

In other words, if people think you are strange, their closed-mindedness is to blame. How convenient!

I remember reading about an anthropologist who lived in a village in a foreign country for his case study. The very first task was to learn the local language. The village elders assembled for the occasion with a bunch of different leaves.

To teach him how to count?

I don't remember if it was the very first lesson, but anyway, he had to learn the name of each plant, looking at the leaves. For him, they were so much alike that he could not distinguish one from another. Of course, the villagers did not understand why a grown-up like him could not tell the big leaf with small veins and short hair from another big leaf with similarly small veins and short hair, but with different luster.

You mean his mental capacity was inferior to that of a five-year old, as far as the villagers were concerned?

Yes. It took some time for the anthropologist to understand that the ability to identify different leaves was very important in their daily lives, in terms of medicine, toxin and nutrition, and that was why the village elders insisted that he master the art. The villagers themselves could not articulate the purpose of the exercise explicitly, because they had not been exposed to other cultures; they had not consciously examined their ways of life in relation to others'.

Does it mean that the definition of full adulthood is culture dependent?

Consider the case of our anthropologist. He does not have the knowledge and the skills to function as the head of a household in the village. Even surviving on his own is probably impossible. Put differently, he may be an adult in his own country, but no doubt disqualified as such in this village. In many cultures, you become an adult only after you are married and have children. In some others, that is no longer part of proper adulthood.

We can say, then, that maturity is about how well you behave along the socially accepted norms. That further means you will have to adopt whatever the local culture says one should do.

It is impossible to abide by all culture codes that we come across.

Come to think of it, if social conventions are arbitrary and maturity is about following such conventions, being mature is arbitrary. We can't be serious about a standard that is arbitrary to start with and changes from place to place.

The most important component of maturity is about knowing when you are going to violate or have violated the codes, and how you make up for that. I believe how you amend is, in fact, more important than whether you commit a cultural transgression or not; however careful we may be, we all make faux pas.

I know about that one! So, what is your recommended strategy?

Be ready to admit your mistake or conscious violation, and be sincere about your past and future intentions that you did and will not act out of malice. Arrogance is always a bad idea, of course, but self-deprecation can also get absurd.

Should we be insincere if we wanted and want to be malicious?

...

Okay, skip that question. But, aren't we back to the same, fuzzy idea that everything should be in moderation?

Yes, and the world will never agree on what that moderation is.

Three cheers for your pessimism!

Oh no, I'm quite optimistic today. If you haven't noticed, that is a problem.

Blame others at a hint of criticism... So much for mature behavior, I'd say.

I declared that maturity can well transcend cultural boundaries. How more optimistic can one get?

The joke is on me

We focused too much on what damage stereotypes can do last time.

Are you trying to tell me that they can do good?

I wouldn't go that far, but you know, they're kind of fun.

Fun!

Shhhh, you're getting loud, and that's one of the traits in people that you dislike most. Don't you think there is some truth in stereotypes, though?

We agreed that, just like class systems, they have a built-in mechanism to sustain itself.

That is true with respect to habits, attitudes and professions. But what about big nose, thick lips, and such?

You're terrible. You make fun of physical features that you think are common among a certain ethnic group, precisely because they are not considered comely. If they were, you wouldn't be joking about them. Besides, if you knew many members of that ethnic group which is not yours, you would hesitate making jokes.

Out of respect?

You wouldn't need respect for that. You know a number of individuals from the group intimately, and have seen many facial features within the group. It becomes just like your own ethnicity; we usually don't see stereotypical features in our own ethnic group.

Because we have seen and see so many of them, we know it is unjust to generalize. The common features also become one of the norms.

In other words, the mind set we have for our own ethnicity can be extended to other groups. I have to add, though, that there are people who deny what they see and go by what the conventional "wisdom" says. Stereotypes are part of that "wisdom."

So, if we think stereotypes about physical features are funny and make jokes about them, it is an indication that we do not know many people from that group.

You can be callous because they do not belong to your definition of human beings.

That's an exaggeration! I don't deny that some tribal people whose name I have never heard of are also human beings.

I wouldn't say that you are lying, but I am confident that you would not make fun of their faces and attires if your best friends are among them. Let's say you may, but in a special way. It is all a matter of how much trust there is. You see, I don't prescribe to the straitjacket version of political correctness. If I knew that you don't think every one of us grow nose hair...

I've never said that and, thank goodness, never seen your nasal hair!

It's an example. Suppose my tribe is known in the outside world for growing nose hair and it is true that some do. Suppose further that doing so has medical benefits in their living environment, but people are unaware of them and the custom is looked down on. If you knew all that and if I knew that you knew all that, I wouldn't mind your making a gentle joke about it.

Because there is trust between us, you mean?

Yes, you may still joke about it, but almost as if you were one of us.

There lies the difference...

Jokes on ethnicity and nationality have far reaching effects than we usually think. Even the person in front of you who is of that ethnicity and nationality do not have the trait that you joked about, s/he may be offended.

Because her/his friends and/or relatives fit the description?

I'm afraid it's biology again; we unconsciously feel the need to defend our group.

I think you are for orthodox political correctness, after all.

Think about the world in which we mingle with people based on their interests and personalities, and not on gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or looks. I think we wouldn't mind light-hearted jokes about stereotypical features so much. In fact, I believe that we wouldn't even feel like making stereotype jokes in that kind of a world.

Most of us do not have the energy to go through the thickets of differences in customs, features, etc. But I wonder... Aren't you implying that in the ideal state of things we are all alike?

We should be able to preserve our differences and yet understand each other. A world without diversity would be awfully boring.

Nothing is and should be easy in the real world, I knew that...