...
The culture though has abandoned that standard and therefore, we find ourselves taking this principle in an unnatural direction. We have people saying that they speak their truth, as if truth is a subjective concept. We have people trying to live and express harmful ideas and stopping their ears from listening to any reasonable arguments against their point, because it would be offensive to them. They defend their stand by saying we have the freedom of expression. But by disallowing arguments and cancelling the opposing point of view, they are denying that principle to others. Therefore the pendulum has swung in the other direction. By allowing a subgroup freedom of expression but denying another group the same, there is no longer freedom of expression, but tyranny.
Understanding this is key to understanding the youth we deal with.
Reverence of the elderly and those in positions of responsibility
This brings me to a related point. Reverence takes on a different understanding in traditional Western culture versus Easter Eastern (Egyptian) Culture.
In my view Reverence to those in positions
Two opposing personal experiences:
- For a period of time I used to sit with Uncle Magdy on regular basis to discuss different topics. And the man is a lot more informed and knowledgeable than me. If you look at his practices, he did a lot of research, a lot of reading, a lot of prayer. He was a thinker. And when we talked with each other it wasn't a one way monologue, but rather a discourse. I learned a lot from him, but I disagreed and still disagree with some of the points which came up in our discussion. Does that mean I disrespect him? Not in the slightest, but disagreement is not equal to disrespect. We can disagree with each other yet respect each other's point of view tremendously.
- On the other hand, one time I was reading a book by Pope Shenouda and he said something (which I can't remember) that I didn't necessarily agree with. I mentioned my disagreement to a fellow I knew, and his response: "Who are you to disagree with the Pope". And on another occasion I was mentioning a thought about Pascha and the response was "Are you going to correct me, sonny".
You can see the stark differences in both of these encounters. In the first one there is an inherit encouragement for the freedom of expression
...
It seems to me that reverence to authority has gone down the road of not questioning or disagreeing with people in authority. That seemed to take a sharp u-turn after the revolution in Egypt. Maybe Bassem Youssef was one of the major cultural shifts in Egypt during his time.
This mentality of not disagreeing with authority has become ingrained in the church culture as well.
The Western view is to hold authority accountable for their action. "The government is by the people for the people".
When comparing and contrasting both views the eastern side seems to conflate between "holding accountable" and "disrespect".
There is a way to disagree respectfully with people in authority. And I'm not talking about disagreeing willy/nilly. It's not about objecting just for the sake of objecting.
My argument here is restricted to intellectual discussions (although it can be generalized, but this is not the purpose).
This is an important point of divergence to be aware of when dealing with the youth. It's not a sign of disrespect to question or doubt what a person says. It's part of the freedom of expression mentality. So if the person being question shuts the person down or disregards their point of view or makes fun of it, the likely outcome is people will simply be turned off and not attend or care to be involved.
For illustration here are two opposing personal experiences:
- For a period of time I used to sit with Uncle Magdy on regular basis to discuss different topics. And the man is a lot more informed and knowledgeable than me. If you look at his practices, he did a lot of research, a lot of reading, a lot of prayer. He was a thinker. And when we talked with each other it wasn't a one way monologue, but rather a discourse. I learned a lot from him, but I disagreed and still disagree with some of the points which came up in our discussion. Does that mean I disrespect him? Not in the slightest, but disagreement is not equal to disrespect. We can disagree with each other yet respect each other's point of view tremendously.
- On the other hand, one time I was reading a book by Pope Shenouda and he said something (which I can't remember) that I didn't necessarily agree with. I mentioned my disagreement to a fellow I knew, and his response: "Who are you to disagree with the Pope". And on another occasion I was mentioning a thought about Pascha and the response was "Are you going to correct me, sonny".
You can see the stark differences in both of these encounters. In the first one there is an inherit encouragement for the freedom of expression, in the second one not so much.
It's important to highlight that due to the abandonment of the principles spoken of earlier, the western view of reverence has been taken too far of course, to the point where the wisdom of the elders is no longer respected. Their view is now played off as "old school" or "old fashioned" and completely discarded.
Individualism versus Collectivism
Individualism: idea that people can and should guide their own lives” and “pursue goals and values that they themselves have chosen.”
Collectivism: action is something that is undertaken in concert with others or that is a consequence of the self operating in a field of forces.” Easterners, much more than Westerners, “follow outside direction — whether from tradition, from the society around them, or from public authorities.”
Egyptian and the Coptic Church tend towards collectivism. We're big on tradition and keeping up the tradition. Much of the decision making is made with that in mind. We term it protecting the faith. But we tend to lump tradition along with the faith, which is not necessarily true.
Indiv
| Tip |
|---|
Mead offers three examples of cultural differences between the West and other cultures: (1) individualism versus collectivism; (2) moralism versus situational ethics; and (3) theory versus experience. (It should also be noted that these distinctions are to be understood generally rather than universally. Of course there are exceptions. Indeed, a significant percentage of the elite in non-Western societies are either educated in the West or Western-style institutions. Many also exhibit Western traits in their thinking and lifestyles.) By individualism, Mead means the “idea that people can and should guide their own lives” and “pursue goals and values that they themselves have chosen.” Westerners “typically see themselves as willing and able to act autonomously” and have a strong sense of agency. Mead cites social psychologist Richard Nisbett, who in his comparison between Western and non-Western cultures found East Asians to be more influenced by social pressures. Observed Nisbett, “for Easterners, action is something that is undertaken in concert with others or that is a consequence of the self operating in a field of forces.” Easterners, much more than Westerners, “follow outside direction — whether from tradition, from the society around them, or from public authorities.” While Western languages attribute events to individuals, Eastern languages apply a passive voice, perceiving events happening to individuals. Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede, after surveying IBM personnel in 66 countries during the late 1960s and early 1970s, found individualism to be highest in employees in Britain, the United States, and Canada, followed by other European countries, Latin America, and lastly Asia. Hofstede also found high levels of assertiveness and tolerance of uncertainty in Westerners, as well as stronger aversions to hierarchy. Non-Westerners in turn were “less assertive, more hierarchical, and more afraid of uncertainty.” Other research in the business realm and political scientist Ronald Inglehart’s World Values Surveys corroborates this. Moralism also distinguishes West from East. Relying on the work of such academics as F.S.C. Northrop, Mead means that in evaluating moral decisions, Westerners consult principles internalized early in their lives, principles they interpret to be universal and timeless. This process allows them to make ethical judgments based on their own authority, without recourse to external society. It also means people are held individually responsible for their decisions, and that they can be persuaded to choose the right. The “psychic sanction” driving good behavior is guilt, “the sense that one has violated some universal moral norm.” Non-Western cultures, in contrast, make moral judgements based primarily on social context. Right and wrong are derived from the expectations of one’s immediate associates—such as family, neighbors, and coworkers. In this paradigm where morality is externalized, there is less of a sense of freedom and responsibility, and more choosing based on situational factors. Shame, rather than guilt, is the psychic sanction for good behavior, and people are pushed to choose the right less out of persuasion than on command. Finally, Western culture is defined by theory, or abstract thinking. Typically for Westerners, what constitutes truth and reality is theoretical, and does not need to be experienced directly. Sense-experience is “only an instance of something universal.” This focus on the abstract—dating back to Plato’s “forms” and Aristotelian logic—was critical to the development of the scientific method, as well as Western political philosophy, which seeks to “reconcile the individual with political order.” Non-Western cultures, alternatively, are more empirical and less theoretical. What is “real” is what is tangible and practical, and the intellect’s ability to accurately understand reality is suspect. “In Asia,” notes Mead, “the world is seen as endlessly complex, beyond human comprehension. Objects and people are not distinct from one another but, rather, related by myriad ties. Individuals are not distinct from society but bound to it by many duties.” Thus, rather than seeking mastery through reason, the East “seeks harmony through sensibility.” |
Dialogue versus Monologue
...