In a response to Samuel P. Huntington’s book, ‘The Clash of Civilization’ (in which he argued that people’s cultural and religious differences will be the main source of conflict in the post-cold war era), Mohammad Khatami, former Iranian president, proposed an alternative concept; “Dialog Among Civilizations”. No-one, except a hardcore extremist like John Bolton or Elliot Abrams, can deny the power of dialog vis-à-vis a clash. No sane human being willingly chooses clash if given a chance at dialog. But there’s an important proviso for dialog; it has to be honest. You can conduct hundreds of conferences, shake hands, exchange words of flattery and diplomacy, but you won’t get anywhere unless you ask each other the honest questions.
So this whole anti-indecency campaign got me thinking: why is there a cultural clash here? The components are obvious, a large ratio of the UAE’s citizens feel uncomfortable with the collective dressing habits of the expatriates. One culture is feeling apprehensive of the other. It accuses the other of being inconsiderate and insensitive. On the other hand, and although it’s wrong to portray the expatriate population as a monolith, I’m going to assume their reactions are uniform: so they retort by stating that the rules aren’t clearly displayed, the laws aren’t well known, some of them assert that they are free to wear what they like ..etc..
To me, there seem to be something missing here. Questions aren’t being asked. Words aren’t being exchanged. Probably due to fatigue or wariness or apathy. But these, in my inexperienced opinion, are important and vital questions. Starting with the issue of imposing a formula of decent closing, one has to wonder how can we, as Muslims, demand that people dress to our liking, when we vehemently protest Sarkozi’s statements and the head cover ban in France? What’s our contention when we protest these rules? Isn’t it that we think that people are FREE to wear whatever they like? and that we always never fail to counter by asking the obvious question: why should my sister’s Hijab offend you? I mean, we DO ask these questions, don’t we?
Similarly, aren’t people who, according to you, are wearing indecent clothing FREE to wear whatever they like? and if your answer is no, then aren’t they entitled to an explanation? Why is what a woman or man-- whose culture is obviously different to you, why is what their wear is a source of chagrin and discomfort to you? why is it offensive? Why are their actions, when they’re totally irrelevant to your well being or to your physical existence, matter so much to you?
Although I come from a conservative family, I am not overly religious, so I posed these questions to a colleague of mine. Y isn’t even an Emirati, he’s a Jordanian national and a provider of a small family. He recounted for me once how he’d been in the Emirates Mall with his family –wife, 12 years old daughter, 8 years old son—and this guy starts fondling and kissing a girl on a bench in the walkway across Carrefure. He told me he wanted to walk up to him and give him an earful, except that he was tired and busy with his purchases. I asked him why did he feel offended or disturbed by what he’d seen, since it doesn’t at all affect him (all he’s got to do with the action is that he can see it). He said that it’s not ‘healthy’ for his daughter, who is very near her puberty, to see such affection in action. I told him that he’s having unrealistic expectations of the world when he demands that nothing unhealthy (again, according to him) be exhibited anywhere near his daughter. He said that unlike most of other unhealthy actions in the universe, body exposure and display of affection stir up certain desires in human beings that are better kept in check. And that SATAN will play unfair games with the feeble minds, and seeing such scenes doesn’t help at all……
I had no further questions of Y.
….
On the other hand, one could very much ask: why do you, western (or generally foreign) expatriates and tourists, choose to wear revealing clothes? I understand that this is probably entrenched in your culture so deeply that you don’t question it anymore, but come on, think of something. Also, is your culture really totally sexually permissive? What’s your definition of ‘decency’? What do you know about the Arabic/Muslim view of decency?
Before wrapping up, let me just reiterate that it’s not me who’s asking the questions or who’s expected to come up with answers. I, personally, don’t feel offended either way. Strip off naked and walk by me in the food court and I won’t feel offended (it would be nice if you could cover your pubes though, I don’t fancy motes of hair landing in my Humos): I’m just posing these questions in this context because this is how I think we could have a real dialog. Everything else is a photo-Op or a missing opportunity.
35 comments:
Jazza,
No, not everyone in Europe dresses like a gangbanger or slut although this seems to be par for the course for the twentysomething oversexed celebrity obsessed Big Brother generation; Incidentally lots of those people came to Dubai recently to work as financial advisors and quantity surveyors. Then there are of course the Lebanese gold diggers looking for a meal ticket and the Russian working girls.
But yes, we do not have hang ups in the West about public display of affection or the odd naked tit poppin out(within limits - a Michelle Palmer beach sex romp is illegal anywhere I know of).
And despite all that, shock horror, we are still the epicentre of modern, peaceful human civilization whilst regions populated by cavemen like your colleague remain mired in oppression and wars. But I digress.
Jazz, the discontent amongst expats regards the inconsistency of the local government.
On one hand there is clearly nothing being done about rampant prostitution and the associated human trafficking in Dubai. There are bars everywhere. Obnoxious behaviour by the local youth on their quadbikes and on Beach road goes totally unpunished - in short, there is a whole lot of filth and indecency going on in Dubai in broad daylight. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right: just because there is prostitution it doesn't follow that one can run around naked.
But a government that is not consistent in its actions loses credibility and respect and it subject to deserved ridicule, as we can see.
i think it's only a problem if we make it a problem.
if we were more open culturally, we'd find that many of those beastly fondling and kissing giants are very keen to learn about islam and arab-ness.. as well as emirati culture.
we should engage them more..
there's no need for laws here.. it's a cultural matter.
leave communism behind.
real nick said it better than I would have said it. It's all double+ standards here, and no one utterly knows what's going on - so it's pretty much a "you can do whatever till you're caught" kind of deal.
Yes, nicely said Nick. Couldn't have said it better. What you're saying is what these people should hear and take on. Perhaps cross-post to UAECB.
Herr Nick,
While I agree with some of what you said, you still fail on so many levels.
First, how could you, without knowing the guy, assume that my colleague is a 'caveman'?
Secondly, 'peaceful human civilization' my ass. At the first sign of rising unemployment, citizens of Iceland and Greece smashed into banks and plundered shops and stores. Some civility, huh?
Your problem, on both the above contentious points, is that you appoint yourself as the morally superior among the lot. Heck, even though I agree with you on the freedom to wear whatever a guy/gal likes, I can't disagree more with your rather silly inference that liberal clothing leads to peace or that conservative clothing breeds war hungry people.
Thirdly, I'm not discussing the consistency of the government's policies. I've linked, through the UAECB, to a newspaper article that shows the Emirati point of view. These are the people speaking. If you want to know where they stand on prostitution (although I suspect you already know), you might research articles or ask Nationals you know. It might help expand your narrow-minded point of view.
But there’s an important proviso for dialog; it has to be honest. You can conduct hundreds of conferences, shake hands, exchange words of flattery and diplomacy, but you won’t get anywhere unless you ask each other the honest questions.
I disagree. I would say that the dialog has to be sincere. In other words, it has to be honest AND there has to be a willingness to compromise, from both parties. If there is no possibility of compromise, there is no reason for dialog. Such "dialog" is little more than self-righteous posturing, where both sides put forward their positions and lay out their grievances, and then walk away.
PS-A "dialog" where one side is expected to make all the concessions is nothing more than coercion. And that type of dialog is not only a waste of time, it is counter-productive in that it only adds to the grievances the other side has against you.
I think the problem lies in variable definitions of the concept of "decency." For example, I usually wear jeans and tank tops; all of my private areas are covered (and therefore I am dressed with decency), but I'm comfortable in the 100+ degree, super-high humidity weather. It would not occur to me to dress differently unless there was a considerable and obvious difference in either the weather or in the culture.
However, if I go to synagogue (a place where there's a considerable difference in culture from the secular world) I'm going to put on clothes that also cover much of my arms and collarbone, as well as a skirt that's not especially form fitting, because a religious setting has a different standard of what is considered "decent."
People tend to be egocentric and ethnocentric, believing that only their cultural mores are truly valid. This works really well when the only people we (editorial sense) encounter are people who share identical cultural mores, but does tend to cause conflict when we encounter cultures that don't agree w/ our ideas. It manifests in sad displays of intolerance such as the head cover banning, or conversely people being upset when they see people who AREN'T covered. These kinds of conflicts will continue until people make a conscious effort to appreciate and understand the differences that exist from culture to culture, rather than attempting to force others to conform to their own ideas.
An interesting conversation I observed recently along this same topic was about swimsuits. Some Orthodox women were discussing where to get swimsuits that weren't indecent. There was mention of a few websites where you could order suits, and one person said they didn't feel comfortable wearing the ones that are sold to Muslim women because they felt that while the suits were more functional as well as cute/attractive/beautiful/pick-an-adjective, the form-fitting nature of the suits made them too inherently revealing to be considered decent. I thought this was pretty interesting, since both the Jewish and Muslim cultures place a HIGH emphasis on decency in how one dresses, but even minute differences in how one culture observes that standard could invalidate it for another one.
Anyway, it's kind of moot since it's unlikely we'll be making the world a more tolerant place anytime soon, but I thought I'd mention it because I found it fascinating.
Relax DJ, nick is being ...you know..a dick when he talks about "we are still the epicentre of modern, peaceful human civilization" - there's the good, the bad and the stupid in every society. That said - "Thirdly, I'm not discussing the consistency of the government's policies"
BUT - the government is all that MATTERS. We all know the majority of Emi folk (nope, not the nouveau rich / fake ones) but the real folks, are some of the nicest / warmest / giving people you shall find in the Arab world. They are simple in their ways of life, very down to earth, peaceful and conservative. I appreciate what DXB has done for the economy and sort of placing the nation on the world map, but I hate what it has done to the soul of the once beautiful simple place. I have a lot of respect for the real people in that land. However, they have little or no voice when it comes to having and enforcing laws. It is the UAE government. Hence I agree with what Nick said.
And you know what is the SADDEST part of all - UAE does not need these sort of tourists / gold diggers / whores and what else have you. There are tons of educated, worldly and worthy people in that land - nationals / expats. Only if UAE truly had confidence in itself - in the people that truly built / make up the back bone of its economy, its identity, its future and just about everything else the world identifies UAE with. In short, stop whoring out -- look within, create dialogue, reach out, be aware and respectful of who you are. It's one way to create solidarity and confidence.
As for another lousy "media campaign" - the less said, the better.
Jazza,
First of all I think that - seen fifteen years on- Samuel Huntington was spot on the money. clashes mostly arise from differences in civilizations; and that includes the way dialogue is being conducted. That's the clue here. Dubai's government is not consistent in the way they communicate with the great unwashed expat community. Maybe, in cultural terms, this is in line with their (perceived) higher social ranking of authority. Tey are, after all, not accountable and chose to communictae when and how they see fit. Occasionally, that is, and hapazardly - because there is no mechanism in place for review of laws and regulations, as there is in a democratic society.
So, I think the issue is NOT the definition of decency. And the issue is NOT what the "Emiratis" are thinking. Thye may well define the laws of the country, but it is up to their government to stake out clearly the legal perimeters of this country and guard them.
The issue is the lack of communication and lack of sincerity in dialogue as Programmer Craig (my old neo-con libertarian foe) suggests.
The impression is that the government talks "down" to the people whenever it likes to.
This is no way to conduct a sincere dialogue - and voila' - you have a clash (of opinions).
Nick,
Once again, you’re missing the point. So let me reiterate: I’m not critiquing the Dubai government. This blog isn’t the “Dubai government watch” blog. I’m not discussing that, period. Governments will change policies all the time. And when we talk about culture, do we also refer to governments’ positions as well? Culture has little to do with how governments react and set out their policies.
So in other words: is it acceptable to you when the government permits something but citizens end up resenting it? even though Dubai government has been, for long time, lenient toward the way expat dress (and even behave), that doesn’t mean nationals are happy about it. So when you conduct a cultural dialog: who do you talk to? A government press attaché?
Allie,
I think this issue is more pronounced in Dubai because it’s a transient city. Even in the US, where there are several cultures and norms at play, one could use discretion as to what to wear and when to wear it. This discretion is precarious in Dubai. Or let’s just say everyone has a different discretional reference than everybody else. This is what gets people confused.
To regulate, though (legalize or legalize certain outfits) would be ridiculous. Let people wear what they please! If they get stared at or ridiculed, then they will use their discretion the next time around. Applying the law in this case, as Bu Jassem said, is somewhat dictatorial.
Programmer Craig,
I liked your first couple of comments and agree with them. They are inline with what I've said in the post, anyway. But, please refrain from derailing the discussion with silly comments. Remember, takes only two clicks.
Rosh,
Huh? I'm relaxed. I just like to take a jab at Nick whenever he utters something stupid. lol!
Bu Jassem,
Hala wallah, agree wholeheartedly.
KJ,
Let me expand on that a little: you can do whatever, get caught, and then get away with it, as long as you know the right people!
It takes 0 clicks for me not to come to your blog :p
Delete as you wish. No matter to me. I don't live in the ME, and don't intend to ever change that. Not as long as BuJ comments are considered valuable, and mine are considered silly. Because that's just ridiculous. BuJ has never said anything valuable in his life.
Craig,
you're always welcome to this blog. Just one rule, please no ad hominem comments toward any of my fellow blogger and friends. In all of your deleted comments you were calling names.
And btw, I'd do the same if you were the target.
DJ,
Yeah, I agree. Regulating attire is ridiculous. People will figure out on their own quickly enough what's appropriate to wear at any given situation (or in any given locality).
Well, Jazz, then it is you who's missing the point. Discuss decency as much as you like, but the issue is the lack of clear communication form the government.
Let me put it this way: people by and large follow whatever rules prevail. Western expats in Singapore don't jaywalk, don't throw chewing gum and cigarette butts because they know the punishment could be draconian. Full stop. Our(western) sensibilities are not set in stone; they are flixible and can adapt if we (western expats) are given clear guidance.
The problem is that the government here does not say clearly what it means and doesn't mean what it says. No wonder they are misunderstood.
Secondly,
Culture has little to do with how governments react and set out their policies.
Huh? This is nonsense, Jazza, and you know that. Time to read your Huntington again. Or ask your friend Ahmedinejad. And puhleeze do not tell me that the Pali/ Israeli conflict has only got to do with land....
Nick,
First, with regards to Huntington, I have to say that there might be ‘some’ grain of truth to his speculations. But his whole theory strikes me as opportunistic and over the top. Why, for instance, did he tie up his hypothesis with a time frame that is set AFTER the cold war? So in other words; what’s new about the contrasts of cultures that suddenly make them more pronounced and elevated to the level of conflict? (AFTER the cold war)
Your citing of Singapore is irrelevant, and shows that you’re still not catching up on the subject of dialog. What makes you expect that you, as a foreigner to both countries, could conduct your business and go about your life similarly in both of them? You do know there are unwritten laws here, don’t you? You do know that when the law implores you, as an expat, to respect cultural sensitivities in certain cases, the same law doesn’t go on and explain all the cultural sensitivities that had ever existed. You learn that by research and interaction, by dialog.
Again, I’d like to ask the same question that you’ve dodged earlier:
When you conduct a cultural dialog: who do you talk to?
Jazza,
Re. Huntington's premise starting after the cold war: because that (the crumbling of communism) marked the end of the clash of ideologies as defining the attitudes of a nation state, by and large. Culture became instantly the way of defining identity; for example the several wars that broke out in former Soviet states from Chechniya, Georgia etc. were culturally motivated and the Soviet was no longer there to rein them in. The same happened in the former Yugoslavia.
With regard to your - forced- distinction between government and cultural sensitivities of the people I think you miss one point -with particular relevance to the UAE: As far as I am aware there is no laicism in Islam - no clear and statutory division between state and religion.
The state is also the representative and custodian of religious law. (More obvious in extreme cases like Iran).
This is why I put the blame for not having clearly defined the boundaries of acceptable social behaviour and attitudes in the court of the state / government. They are after all the self appointed (if unelected) custodians of morals and they should clarify laws, and then enforce them.
So, to answer your question: in an Islamic state the cultural dialogue has to be between the government and the (expat) community. In a Western democratic environment this dialogue would be between the people of different provenance, and, by election and thus political influence, the practical outcome of this dialogue at street level would inform future policies by statute, if adopted by the parliament.
Here, there is NO dialogue between expats and state.
(Come to think of it: this is what this country needs: an expat union, or an Austro-Syrian-Indian tribal council)
Nick,
I still can’t see how the Russian-Georgian or the Serbo-Croatian conflicts could have had cultural elements. What’s so stark a difference between the Serbs and the Croats that made them stump the snot out of each other? I don’t think culture has much to do with that; I see these two conflicts as natural outcome for when people scramble to delineate their respective states based on, admittedly, ethnic lines. But ethnicity doesn’t entail cultural differences…..
As for laicism in Islam, well the ocean is the limit when it comes to interpretations. But if the current status of law in most of Muslim countries is anything to go by, then Islamic laws (or Sharia laws) are only limited to personal status laws and such. Religious edicts and statutory laws intertwine in no clear pattern. The ruler is not a source of religious authority, nor Muslim scholars are vested with any power to rule. Bottom line is: there is no hard and fast rules. States chose to meet religious requisites at some points, and divert from them at others.
Another thing that seems to muddle the conversation here: it’s mostly assumed that religion is the single most powerful component of culture here. It’s most definitely not: even in Saudi Arabia, there’s a dominant tribal structure that almost contradict Islam altogether. i.e. certain tribes can not marry from certain tribes….. and even in cases when that happened, I’ve seen many announcements where the head of tribe annuls such marriages (because such unions might disturb the becking order). They probably have the legal power to do that. Or they could simply disown the tribe member. In any case this whole thing has nothing to do with Islam. Prophet Mohammad told the believers that they are all equal like the teeth of a comb. The Saudis console themselves by relying on old interpretation of one of marriage conditions: equivalence. So they consider social status, and in this case tribal status, as part of this equivalency. You see what I’m getting at? This is a case where culture, the tribal one in particular, trumps religion.
So in short, culture here is composed of many factors, religion is only one of them. Government job is to issue laws; they don’t owe you explanations. If you want further information or if you want to debate, you should talk to the intellectuals, scholars, university teachers.. etc.. maybe go the extra mile and learn the language and its dialects, listen to radio and read what the Emiraties are talking about on online forums. But you have done none of that, I don’t blame you, there’s currently no incentives, unless you have a knack for these kind of things……
Jazz,
I still can’t see how the Russian-Georgian or the Serbo-Croatian conflicts could have had cultural elements...
Those were distinct countries with different languages and even differnent religious majorities before they were cobbled together in the Soviet union, or Yugoslavia, and after the decease of communism as political / ideological glue they reverted back to those lines.
True, some ethnicities share similar culture, but of course ethnicity is related to culture (e.g. language) and religion, not just race.
Government job is to issue laws; they don’t owe you explanations.
Spoken like a perfect citizen - intimidated, beaten, downtrodden, ignored by his government. NO, Jazz. IF the UAE wants expats, and they not just want us but most desperately need us, then they have an obligation to explain and interact and engage in dialogue to expats. Life's a two way street. Ironically, Dubai acknowledges this by appointing a global PR company to reowrk the brand. They should start at home.
Nick,
You must be confusing me with someone else, I'm a citizen of the Syrian Arab Republic, not the United Arab Emirates!
And yes, I believe that the UAE government doesn't have to explain to exapts its decisions, or convince them of them. Imagine having to tune yourself into the mentality of 190 nationalities, it doesn't work that way, I think.
Again, want to find explanations, it's more productive to interact with nationals, maybe learn Arabic and read Emarat Al Yoom daily. I'm not making fun of you, I'd do the same if I was you. (how long have you been here, btw? ;) )
Jazz,
Ah, yes, pardon me, Syria. That shining example of citizen engagement and democratic participation...
I have seven years Dubai under my belt, young man. Maybe I am having the "seven year itch" these days.
Where I can't reach.
"I believe that the UAE government doesn't have to explain to expats its decisions, or convince them of them"
Mr Jazz - that's not a very nice (or wise) thing to say, you know. Only if you'd lived through the experiences of what most folks in the UAE have prior to the federation coming together. And I'm not speaking from an "Expat" (I hate that fucking word) - but also of the true blue "authentic" Emirati stateless folk. The UAE government (whomever that might be at the very top), I think, should have an honest face to face dialogue with those who truly make up and made that country what it is today. It's the least they can do. I don't think they know the kind of people that make up the society or the kind of people that travel into the country. And I say this from reading comments of most citizens as well as from the statements of folks in the government. They seem oblivious to many aspects / factors.
I agree with almost everything Nick has to say (except of course the west being all that perfect stuff, it's not)
"An expat union, or an Austro-Syrian-Indian tribal council"
I'm not sure of Austro, there's just so few of them or about the Indians - way too many with vested interests (bite me). I'd say an Emi-EU-UAEian council ha! The UAEian encompassing of course, all ethnicities -- Arab, African, Asian, Persian and then some :)
Rosh,
That might have been a bit harsh, it was a part of a sentence in a sequence of thoughts. So What I must have meant to say is that UAE or Dubai's government isn't obliged to convince expats of its decisions.
Nick brings up good points, from the point of view of an uninitiated expat. My gripe with his perspective is that he's totally reliant on the government to inform him about the culture, this will not happen. All of my expat friends that have learned arabic, or learned substantially about the culture, have done so on their own.
Jazza,
Your last statement is a silly cheap shot ad hominem to discredit my argument. We are not talking about me in particular having to learn about the local culture but the relationship between government and the expat population at large, and the absence of clear markers and dialogue as equals.
You obviously completely fail to understand this expectancy on part of the western expat population because you have no idea how a "western" mind works, or you have never lived outside the Middle East and you are simply used to being talked down to by a government rather than engaged, and being repressed in a myirad of small ways and daily ground down into obliging compliance, or resignation.
But I am glad you are happy this way. It saves you a lot of headache.
Nick,
It’s interesting that you accuse me of cheap shot ad hominems when the second paragraph of your very comment (as well as many other previous comments on this post and other) is nothing but hominem!
OK. So you really thought the discussion was about western expats? Who told you that? what about expats from the far-east? Don’t they probably have different concept about decency that Arabs? How about expats from FSU? Or Africa? Or Latin America? Or is it enough, according to you, to address western expats and the rest can go to hell?
And Nick,
No, I haven’t lived in the west for long stints, but it’s still very interesting that I know more about western culture (in the broad sense) than you entire accumulative knowledge about Arab culture in the 7 years you’ve spent here. This isn’t ad hominem btw, this is the case of probably 99% of ‘western’ expats. So it’s kind of rich that YOU end up accusing the government of not reaching out to you.
Such ‘expectancy’ huh?
Stop it you two -- don't make me come down there! :p Though, I think people can read between the lines - you guys actually AGREE with each other, barring the low balls.
LOOOL ROSH!
i was going to suggest to those two love birds to GET A ROOM.. and battle it out there!!!
yeah, coz at the end u guys agree about almost everything, except the size of dem colhones :)
I love the premise of the post and I was able to get about halfway through the comments before the point seemed to drift. I love dialogue. I like clearly written and fairly enforced laws. I believe everyone - visitor, resident and citizen has a right to know what to expect as a consequence of behavior. There are just too many inconsistencies around and let's admit to the elephant in the room. It's awkward to have decency laws in a state where its leaders abuse their power with girlfriends, boyfriends and other no-nos. You may not be able to publish this. That's ok. I just think that therein lies the problem. Some people are just fed-up with the double standard and some genuinely are unaware. Of course, some don't care but they are never the ones that stay very long.
Post a Comment