Author, Roger.
Published, September 7, 2009.
So, I heard the other day that Soccer in Australia is now referred to as Football. Despite my secret joy at the recognition, I began thinking how that would make the general, AFL mad, populus of Victoria feel. They have enjoyed for many years the exclusivity of the term ‘football’, but now it looks as if it may have to be shared. My real interest lies in what is to be done now. (For those thinking this is rather boring, be strong I have a point!)
I don’t think the term ‘football’ will cease to be used for AFL anytime soon in Victoria, in fact I think it will simply just be used for both, and will cause confusion when those of one persuasion cross paths with those of another. But, there was a lot more to it than that, because this rather innoculous, and irrelevant discussion on the term ‘football’ was rasing other more relevant questions. However before I get there, let’s see the possibilities and how this may play out.
I see three possible outcomes from this multi-usage of the term ‘football’;
- The people everywhere understand how the term is used throughout all regions in Australia. If you are in Victoria one speaks of AFL as football, and when one goes to NSW football means Soccer.
- When one travels somewhere the term remains to them as they understand it. When discussion arises with people who understand the term differently, then either confusion or debate or clarification ensues. Thus the two groups remain estranged.
- The people everywhere decide that such ambiguity is rather unproductive, and the term is reserved for one of them only, leaving the other to feel inferior, or go out of existence, or just go on ableit with a different name.
Now I shall turn to my hyopthesis, and ultimately my question. As I have said, this may be a rather suyperfluous topic to be talking on. But really, it raised a question within me, relating to the multi-cultural society we live in. One might see that there is a clash of identity here, that in one culture not a ‘term’ but a truth, or an understanding (of existence, etc.) might mean something totally different to another culture. So what is to be done when these two cultures meet, in a ‘melting-pot’ as suburbs of the sort are often referred?
In the first case mentioned above, each culture learns how to understand the other, and aim to relate accordingly. However, it is by far the most difficult solution, because it would require education in all cultures that another may come in contact with, and mankind has never (generally) been so inclined to expend so much energy for others.
The second case, though it may seem to suggest conflict, merely says that upon meeting two cultures have obvious differences and no real understanding of them; there has been no effort expended, as in the case above. Because of this lack of understanding, conflict, ghetos, or confusion might follow. Ultimately no “translation” is ever done between the two cultures, and only when it becomes a problem in how they relate.
The third case, quite simply, one identity is created, completing the process of the melting-pot. In which much of the individual identity of each culture is lost. As a result, general experience, history, may be forgotten and depth may be eclipsed by the melting down.
Now obviously this is a rather crude way of describing the present millieu we live in. And each point above could be developed or described in many more different ways, and in many ways I think all of them are employed in our present context. My question really is that at this level, the options above are rather opposed to one another. And if opposed, ought we decide on one? Which way sounds best? Do too much, do too little, or compromise?
Best case scenario, at first glance, is the two groups remain estranged. But, as you said, your description is crude, so I would suggest that there would ideally be a level of cultural understanding, while there remained some estrangement. How would Koreans go about trying to find common ground with Botwanians? Well, there would be some understanding as to the way in which humans are viewed and what their general purpose is, but I think that some enstrangement is necessary in order for them to retain their distinctions.
Do you think we would still gaze in wonder at the rituals of the Ukrainian Orthodox if there wasn’t misunderstanding between us and them? Would we would find the All Blacks performing the Haka as intriguing and terrifying if we had reached an intimate level of understanding as to what it all really means? I suggest not. On this level, I would still prefer option 2.
I think I understand what you are getting at. However, I don’t see why the outcome of one would mean the non-outcome of the others. Society is complex. So much so, that all three (and I dare say other possible outcomes) occur simultaneously and in varying degrees. Culture is generally not so monolithic. As a consequence, within a ‘culture’, there are various forces working towards an understanding of other cultures, just as there are opposing forces who would prefer to keep to themselves (or what have you).
But to return to your question, I believe that we ought to be as tolerant as we are able. Tolerance is not some form of radical relativism, but a recognition of the humanity that we all share. ‘You have beliefs. I have beliefs. Your beliefs are different to my beliefs…. um, what to do? I say! I’ll be tolerant of your beliefs if your tolerant of mine! And so long as neither of our beliefs causes anyone harm, then I shall respect you for having them’. Tolerance seems to work best when it is reciprocated. It is proactive, not defensive. Really, it is summed up by the saying: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.
I tend to think (or hope) that tolerance is really what any democratic society is founded on. Thus, when other cultures enter our own multi-cultural society, we expect them to be tolerant towards members of our society. I tend to reject the view that suggests that, if we tolerant others, we are siding with an other’s personal choice or particular value. This is simply untrue. Tolerance means that we are upholding the same political freedoms that allow for everyone’s beliefs - not just my own. Ultimately, it is for the people of a democratic society to collectively decide the degree of freedom, and congruently, the limitations of what will and won’t be tolerated.
So, my answer. We ought to be proactive in understanding each other. We cannot afford to dismiss other people’s values or beliefs as ‘wacky’ or ‘primitive’ or ‘demonic’. We must delve a little deeper. If something doesn’t make sense to you straight away (and I’m not talking to anyone specifically here), we must look a bit longer until it does.