In 1958, Chinua Achebe published his first novel, Things Fall Apart. Raised in a Nigeria that was still under British colonial rule, in the novel he portrays the ancient culture of the Ibo (or Igbo) peoples as it deals with forced change under the invading Brits, based on events that happened two generations before his. The colonists are not content to merely conquer, but also bring their culture into the world of the Ibo: their government, society, and religion. Conflict abounds in the novel, of course, but careful readers have noticed that Achebe is not merely portraying the white devils destroying a pure tribal culture; rather, he portrays significant fissures already at work in the Ibo people before the British colonists arrive.
Achebe himself has said something to the effect of not wanting to portray either Ibo or British culture in the book as inherently good or evil, but rather two portray two cultures which both have strong points and weak points. He wanted Westerners to understand that the Ibo culture was a culture much like any other, with better angels and a few demons as well. The conflict of the two cultures as the book moves towards its ending portray what Rene Girard has called the "sacrificial crisis," a moment of chaos that comes upon a culture that has lost its differentiation. Once undifferentiation abounds, violence, specifically of the sacrificial nature, must come in to restore order.
The reader of Things Fall Apart is forced to interpret the events of the novel in light of the way that Achebe portrays the two clashing cultures. I do not believe that the author ever dictates the way a text must be read, but I think the sensitive interpreter should keep in mind Achebe's statement that he was merely trying to portray two cultures that he has experienced the way that he sees them. He is neither a champion of the colonial system, nor an apologist for pre-colonial culture. Rather, the novel presents a world in which conflict is unavoidable, where old systems will topple and collapse and be replaced by new systems, at great cost culturally, emotionally, psychologically, and even in lives lost.
This is a long-winded way of saying culture must be interpreted. Now, I am willing to admit that I believe some cultures are superior to other cultures, as gauche and un-PC as it may be, but I am also much more sympathetic to what I see as positive aspects in foreign or exotic cultures. The reason that I can continue to be such an American character in so many ways (enjoying my cheeseburger and Coca-Cola, for example) while looking for value, truth, and meaning in other cultures is because I have taken the lesson of Achebe's novel to heart. Sure, Africa may not have produced a Mozart, but it did give us those seductive polyrhythms that animate the jazz music that I love so much, from Jelly Roll Morton to Elvin Jones.
Yet, sometimes we can feel so close to a foreign culture that we feel that we can pass judgement on it from the place of superiority, even when we would spurn such judgement applied to other cultures. For instance, I think the Western practice of monogamy (and here I mean one spouse - I'm not talking sex) is far superior to the polygamy practiced by the Ibo culture in Things Fall Apart. Many sensible Westerners would agree with me, but perhaps some would chasten me not to be so judgmental. From the lofty position of multiculturalism, we can condone things in other cultures that we would never allow in our own. And that's fine, for what it is. But let's bring it closer to home.
Recently, on YouTube, a hacked-off father named Tommy Jordan posted a video of him reading a post his daughter had written complaining about her parents that she had posted on her Facebook account. (That's a messed-up sentence). The girl clearly sounds disrespectful, and I understand why he is upset. His response is to teach her a lesson, something that it would seem sorely needs to be done, and he does so by firing seven or eight (much like Dirty Harry, I lost count) hollow-point .45 bullets into her laptop. Effective grounding technique, sir.
Many frustrated parents applaud Mr. Jordan, and I can also understand why they do. But just as many people are appalled, it would seem. And I can imagine many of their criticisms (and have read a few that anonymous souls have shared with the world on the internet). But, at the end of the day, most people are going to criticize Tommy Jordan based on a few simple cultural signals that he sends.
He speaks in a Southern accent. He is an obvious gun enthusiast (other videos portray guns and shooting as well). He is wearing a cowboy hat and smoking one of those nasty cigarette things. And although he does not strike me as unintelligent, he does not seem to be an intellectual exactly. Simply put, Jordan is a Southerner, with attitudes and thoughts typical of many Southern men (although I doubt how many would take their actions quite as far as he did).
People are appalled at the violence. I will admit that I find it shocking and a bit extreme, and I highly doubt I would ever take the punishment of one of my own children to that extent. I'm sure some feminists out there are churning out an article on how this is an example of extreme patriarchal control, and how the laptop is merely avatar of his daughter, his shooting of it the expression of his subconscious desire to shoot his daughter. Many are concerned that his frustration is the repression of a not-too-well controlled homicidal impulse.
These part-time pundits posting on the interwebs are interpreting the cultural signs of Mr. Jordan's appearance, manner of speaking, and actions in the video. Although a fair amount of the worldview of people like Tommy Jordan I neither agree with nor appreciate, I also understand his type of people. I grew up surrounded by them. They are largely law-abiding citizens. Their appreciation of and use of guns usually comes with a strong respect for the power of that weapon and the sense that there are right and wrong times to use it. They typically do not act this extreme perhaps, but I highly doubt Jordan is going to go on a shooting rampage anytime soon (Falling Down, this ain't). I don't look at Tommy Jordan and see someone I would like to share a beer with anytime soon, but I also don't look at him and worry about the future of our society, either. He is just representative of a certain culture.
And it is a culture that gets very little respect. Actions like Tommy Jordan's may not earn it respect, but Southern culture in general (not just that of white male Southerners) is foreign to most Americans, and they sit in judgement of it, whereas they would not sit in judgement of equally foreign cultures. Perhaps it is because something about Southern culture is American enough that other cultures of the United States feel that it is not as foreign as it really is; but what I think we see here is rank hypocrisy. I think all cultures are up for judgement, across the board. I am far more appalled by religious practices such as the immolation of live widows during the burial rites of their deceased husbands than I am by Tommy Johnson unloading a clip of hollow-points into his daughter's laptop. If anything, I appreciate his lesson (for all of us) about the importance of ownership. It isn't until we realize the value of ownership that we then realize how worthless ownership is compared with the intangibles that stick with us - love of others being the most important.
When I see Tommy Jordan's video, I know he is trying, in his own perhaps deficient way, to show his daughter how much he loves and cares about her. This is going to be completely foreign to a broad swath of Americans. We don't live in a country of two Americas (sorry John Edwards), we live in a country of many Americas. The melting pot ain't so melted yet.
This is not an apologia for Mr. Jordan's pigheaded behavior. This is a plea to eschew hypocrisy in interpreting culture. If you can say that Tommy Jordan is wrong for blowing away his daughter's laptop (I personally would have enjoyed him chopping it up with an axe and lighting it on fire more from a visceral standpoint), then I can say it is wrong for certain African and Middle Eastern cultures to practice the vile ritual of female circumcision. There is something fundamentally illiberal about the lack of consistency in interpreting culture that is on display in the reactions of many to the events portrayed in this video. Don't forget context next time you find yourself in the hermeneutic spiral; but have the strength of your convictions to apply your interpretations across cultures consistently.
No comments:
Post a Comment