|
With the collapse of the eastern bloc and the end of
the Cold War, only one superpower remained on the world stage. It was a
development that opened new vistas before capitalist producers, who saw
the opportunity to conquer markets previously inaccessible to them. But
first, new rules had to be set in place, rules that would reduce
protectionism and open the field wide to competition, the mechanisms of
which the capitalists producers were better equipped to deal with. It is
from this reality that globalization was born. Although essentially an
economic phenomenon, globalization could only be envisaged in the context
of wider interaction between different cultures, and it is this aspect of
globalization, its cultural over-spill, as it were, that many see as a
greater threat than its purely economic aspect. Voices came to be raised
against the globalization process and the danger it represents for
specific cultural identities which, according to the anti-globalization
lobby, are at risk of being altogether lost or, at best, greatly diluted,
in the context of globalization.
How true is this in
regard to our Egyptian identity? Egyptians are unquestionably Arab – but
not in absolute terms. They are also eastern Mediterranean – but again
not in absolute terms. And, though part of the Islamic civilization, this
is not their unique identity. Then too there are important Ancient
Egyptian and Coptic components in their makeup. For example, although
there is a great resemblance between Egyptian cultural mores and those of
the Arabian Peninsula, they are not identical. The same can be said with
regard to Egypt’s Islamic and Mediterranean dimensions. For, despite the
importance of the Islamic dimension, it has not turned Egyptians into
exact replicas of Indians or Indonesians.
In other words, the
Egyptian identity is a compound one, a multi- layered tapestry woven of a
rich diversity of strands that are rooted in history
and geography. Because the Egyptian identity is not the
product of transient factors but has distant roots in the time and space
dimensions, its specificity cannot be obliterated by new phenomena that
are characteristic of the times.
To understand the role
of history and geography in forming the multi-layered Egyptian identity is
to realize the complexity of that identity and the depth of the
overlapping layers of which it is constituted. Once this realization sets
in, the dire predictions we are now hearing about the adverse impact
globalization will have on our cultural specificity, about how the new
openness onto the outside world threatens the integrity of the Egyptian
identity, will appear to be totally unfounded and illogical.
It would be wrong to
suppose, however, that because an identity is complex it remains static.
The main components of identity are history and geography. The first is in
perpetual motion, the latter, though apparently motionless, is in a state
of suspended animation. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from this is
that the traits of any specific cultural profile are in a state of
constant, albeit slow, change, like Time itself, which is a dynamic
process in a state of continuous flux. Thus the cultural specifics of an
Egyptian living at the dawn of the twenty-first century are different from
those displayed by his ancestors at the turn of the nineteenth century,
which were in turn different from those displayed by our forefathers at
the dawn of the sixteenth century. All of which means that cultural
specifics are in a state of suspended animation or apparent immobility at
the same time that they are undergoing a process of slow quantitative
change that leads cumulatively to a slow qualitative change.
If it is illogical to
claim that our distinctive cultural profile has remained unchanged
throughout the ages, it is equally illogical to claim that the traits of
which it is composed are all positive. The best proof that negative
strands are interwoven with the positive strands making up the tapestry of
our cultural identity can be found in our popular sayings, which celebrate
the positive and decry the negative traits of the Egyptian character.
Those who fear that our cultural specificity will be crushed under the
weight of others coming our way from more powerful and advanced parts of
the world would do well to study the case of Japan and other east Asian
nations. Although these have dealt extensively with western civilization,
emulating many of its patterns of
work and study, their cultural specificity has remained
intact. Indeed, some of the more positive cultural patterns they
assimilated from western civilization and adapted to suit their own
realities, like teamwork, have given them an edge in their dealings with
the West. A short train journey from Tokyo to any other town in Japan
attests to the undiminished vigour of Japan’s cultural specificity,
despite its extensive dealings with and opening onto a world having its
own distinct and very different cultural heritage.
A number of questions
need to be put to those who dread the loss of our cultural identity: Is
American culture really capable of uprooting our cultural specificity and
replacing it with its own? And, if American culture can obliterate the
Egyptian identity, why couldn’t British culture (which is deeper and
richer than the American) obliterate India’s cultural specificity over
four centuries of British occupation? Why does the hamburger and coca-cola
culture strike such terror in their hearts? Finally, if it is impossible
for America to assimilate us culturally, how can some people believe that
Jewish culture can subsume our cultural specificity under its own?
Egyptian cultural specificity is the result of a historical and cultural
continuum stretching over fifty centuries, while Jewish culture has been
exposed to many disruptions through the ages. Moreover, it is extremely
limited in scope because of the limited number of Jews in the world. If
anything, it is the Jews who should –and probably do- fear that once
peace is achieved in the region, their specificity will be exposed to a
cultural onslaught from the surrounding cultures, especially that much of
their cultural specificity stems from a ghetto mentality. Peace will mean
the end of the ghetto and, with it, of fully one half of Jewish cultural
specificity.
The lessons of history
prove that societies which opt for opening onto the outside world, which
interact with other cultures, help keep their own cultural specificity
intact while promoting its development. There is also ample historical
evidence that the total or partial isolation which some believe can
protect their cultural specificity from erosion is likely to do just the
opposite. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, thousands of
Egyptians were open to western life and culture without giving up any of
their own cultural specificity. In fact, their interaction with another
culture enriched them by adding to their own cultural specificity new
elements that boosted its positive attributes and helped correct some of
its negative aspects.
Moreover, it is materially impossible for any society
today to lock itself into total or even partial isolation. The
globalization of science and technology and the information and
communication revolution are not only a bar to economic protectionism, but
render dreams of isolation both impracticable and unattainable.
Finally, the axiom that
man is afraid of what he does not know is applicable to those who fear
that our cultural specificity will disappear if we engage in extensive
dealings with the outside world. If these proponents of isolationism had a
better understanding of the multifarious strands that have converged to
produce our specific cultural identity as well as a wider knowledge of
other cultures, they would not have the feeling of inferiority that makes
them fear the loss of their identity. Ignorance breeds a sense of
inferiority, which in turn leads to a paranoid fear that the other is
intent on destroying our identity. There can be no greater feeling of
inferiority, compounded by a superficial and simplistic understanding of
reality, than that manifested in the fear that exposure to other cultures
will lead to the erosion of our own. To believe that our cultural identity
will collapse when exposed to other cultures is an insult to our culture
and civilization. For the underlying assumption is that our cultural
specificity is so weak that it cannot stand up to the challenge of other
cultures if we open up onto the outside world, and that it can only
survive behind high walls separating our culture from others.
|