Hi everyone! To start things off, I've changed my blog umbrella. I found that the international personal & political significance of language and how we use it to change the world around us has been a theme in what I've written so far, as opposed to what I originally intended my umbrella subject to be. Therefore, I've changed my blog to be about said international language-focused topics. In case anyone is wondering, the title of this blog means "Words that make us think." That last Arabic word there is the verb for "to think", at least as far as I researched. (If, however, the accuracy police declare that particular verb incorrect, please let me know, and I'll gladly change it.)
Now, onto today's topic. On a lighter note than many of my posts, I'd like to discuss how we define ourselves around the world and provide an example of such. This was sparked by my reading of Reading Lolita in Tehran http://www.bookrags.com/Reading_Lolita_in_Tehran in English class recently. The memoir chronicles the learning process and lives of a group of Iranian women in a secret college course on English literature taught by renowned author Azar Nafisi. The students realize the tremendous legal and familial punishment they would likely suffer if anyone were to find out about and reveal this freeing, individualist, Western literature-studying class, but the promise of being able to express oneself and gain knowledge despite the trappings of the current political society proves too attractive for these girls.
Obviously, however, not everybody needs to define or express themselves within such a serious context. Just as a contemporary Persian woman may strive to proudly represent her individuality at home does not mean an American schoolboy feels the same impetus to actualize himself at whatever cost. And in my personal opinion, especially in terms of a national scale, self-deprecating understanding can help people remain down-to-earth and avoid needless, over proud conflicts (World War One, anybody?). I'm not suggesting that nations or people go around making fun of themselves and others simply so that everyone remains on the same level of low self-esteem. Rather, I'm hoping to point out that sometimes heated conflicts arise because people are too proud of a particular part of their identity and choose to overlook their faults. One could argue that even though the United States found itself in a war in Iraq that was technically illegal in the UN's terms, many of its citizens supported the war simply because America is perfect and deserves the ability to overstep international consensus when international consensus rules not in America's favor.
When thinking of how people could take this approach to simmer down pride and nationalism, comedians immediately come to mind. Lewis Black reigns supreme as America's angry comedic man, arguably never satisfied with the policies of our Head of State. Even men who make a business out of representing a certain slant of America (e.g., Jon Stewart) make satire out of the "foolish" concurrent events in the news and politics. And as always, although effective in reaching and bringing sow audiences down to earth, no one comedian ever truly connects with one hundred per cent of the people he/ she could be speaking to (out of all the people watching TV or at the Theatre). So that inevitably leaves one pocket of viewers who will not be simmered down, who will not lighten up their proud sense of identity.
Then, however, we are encountered with the comedians who cross cultural and national boundaries and make judgment calls or deprecating jokes about other countries. Now, there is a thread of philosophy that teaches that the truest image of oneself comes not from his/her biased image within, but from how his/her actions are perceived from the outside. I, for one, think there's some worth to this idea. But what I wonder is if such a philosophy is effective in the hands of comedians.
I'll give an example, and offer it up to anyone who so wishes to respond with his/her own opinion as to whether or not such humor helps or hurts relations worldwide:
There's a webseries on TV5.ca (an international French language website dedicated to television, culture, history, and French linguistics) that releases a weekly show called (translated) "Funny Cultures". It is presented solely by Boucar Diouf, a black man from somewhere in the French colonial diaspora whose mission statement is to "invite us to laugh about our differences in order to better tame them." This week's segment covered the fact that up to 30 % of edible food is thrown away in wealthy countries--avoiding the hungry mouths of poorer, less fortunate peoples as consequence. And from this, Boucar developed his joke: translated, he goes on to say "imagine we had a survey throughout the world asking "what is your opinion about the shortage of food in the rest of the world?" And regardless of the clarity of the question, the investigation amounted to jack squat. In Darfur, no one knew what food was. We asked the question in Western Europe, and no one knew what a shortage was. We asked the question in the former Soviet Bloc, and no one had any idea as to what an opinion was. And finally, we posed the question in the U.S., and guess what: no one knew what the rest of the world was." I personally found the joke funny and, if politically incorrect, at least demonstrative of overall wealth and arrogance in certain pockets of the world vs. others.
But now, I leave it to the reader: Are you truly offended when someone points out your country's weak spots? What about when a comedian makes fun of an individual trait of yours? Do you agree that, no matter how offended you may be, the is almost always something to learn about identity from the outside? And in this case, was Boucar effective in helping us to understand the unequal status of the world without deeply offending anyone's identity?
In case anyone wants to watch Boucar's video, la voici: http://www.tv5.ca/webvideo/droles-de-cultures-c-est-la-famine-qui-fait-immigrer-le-sondage-2434.html
No comments:
Post a Comment