Some notes on cultural identity and the definition of culture

Abdellah does not observe Ramadan. But he springs to its defense: it purifies one, is good for health, and so forth. And Khadija, though she does not keep halal, defends the concept: in ancient times pork and various creepy-crawlies were not safe to eat, etc. Like most of their compatriots, my Moroccan friends defend from the criticism of outsiders religious practices which they themselves do not practice.

It is part of a mechanism which obtains everywhere in the world in precisely the same way: one is prepared to criticize his own country in front of foreigners provided that the foreigners will play along and strenuously object to the critique. The French will say in front of you "France is corrupt to its very core!" or "The French are lazy!" as long as you do your bit and exclaim: "Mais, non!" But let the foreigner say that the French are corrupt, and the French will make a 180-degree and jump to defend the honor of France.

This is precisely that my Maroccan friends are doing: they are defending Morocco from foreign critique. Imagined critique, in my case, since neither halal nor Ramadan appear worthy of critique to my mind; they are just two more of the odd practices people practice all over the world. They range pretty low in oddness on that oddity scale which includes ritual cannibalism and child-marriages. And why not let people indulge in whatever oddities strike them?

What is interesting here is why Abdellah and Khadija would defend religious practices they do not practice: because they identify them somehow as theirs. It reminds me of a Japanese student I once knew in the US: when asked to define the essence of Japaneseness, he (predictably) mumbled something about the Emperor. Asked to say more about it, he clammed up. He clammed up because, in fact, like most Japanese, he neither knew anything about the emperor, nor cared a fig. Yet, all Japanese are in the same boat: they all think the Emperor is somehow central to their identity. He isn't.

Our cultural identity is something much smaller, much plainer, much more basic, and much more homey than all of the high fellutin' stuff we imagine it to be.

A Pakistani fellow runs a blog about Islam; in it he describes a weekly practice from his childhood -- a close reading of the Quran. Once a week, a mullah came to the house and the family sat around on the floor, reading and discussing the Quran while eating mountains of parathas and buckets of curd. I wrote him a note about how much I missed the parathas and the curd; but he ignored it: he could not be bothered about silly things like parathas and curd because, he imagined, these things were inconsequential. What mattered to him was the Quran. Or rather he thought it should matter to him.

But that's a misperception: what matters to most Pakistanis is the parathas and the curd; the food, the dress, the way of sitting and greeting. Hence the brouhaha about the hijab: that the hijab has no Quranic source should be sufficient to show to everyone that the argument is not religious; it is a fight concerning an established daily practice; daily practice is what matters to us.

It is these things -- the small, pithy, seemingly inconsequential daily practices, so easy to miss when one focuses his sight on big picture things very far away -- that make up our shared cultural identity. It is also these things which provide greatest pleasure for those learning a new culture.

And this is where European philosophers err when they urge Judeo-Christian foundations of European culture. The true foundations of European culture are bread baked in loaves, grape wine and malt beer, bacon, pork trotter, chicken soup, kidney pie and sausages; tables, forks, beds on legs, houses with windows facing outside, fireplaces and hanging chandeliers.

In fact, viewed in this light, there is not one Europe, but two: the south with wheat bread, grape wine, coffee, olives and figs; and the north with rye bread, beer, cucumbers, cabbages and tea.

Our "great" philosophers have been right about spotting a great division within Europe, but they were wrong assigning this difference to the divide between Protestantism and Catholicism.