I recently came across an anthology of writing on "New
Media", and was struck by how the editor explained the
conceptual basis of the content through references to Western
philosophers, namely Socrates, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Adorno.
To readers schooled in Western philosophy, this sounds quite
reasonable. But given the nature of the topic, i.e. "New
Media", why should he assume that his audience is Western?
Naturally, there are situations in which assuming a Western
audience is appropriate, but in today's increasingly multicultural
world, it is often unreasonable. New Media is not an exclusively
Western phenomenon. The Eastern half of the world has had
as much to contribute to it, not just in terms of content,
but also of technologies. Furthermore, there are many contributors
to New Media who speak English and live in the West whose
cultural backgrounds are not Western. Despite these facts,
many Western intellectuals continue to assume a Western audience
when they write for a New Media audience.
In other countries, the West is often portrayed as self-obsessed;
in fact, in my own readings on the subject, the Western philosophical
tradition encourages ignoring everything outside of itself.
By comparison, while it is common for Eastern intellectuals
to refer or draw analogies to Western ideas, the reverse is
rarely seen. The validity of arguments in the West is achieved
by strictly conforming to its own protocols. Going outside
of those protocols would immediately invalidate the argument.
For this reason, alternate philosophical systems such as Eastern
philosophies often carry the legitimacy of a Tarot card reading.
I once wrote to a scholar who specialized in the philosophies
of Jacques Derrida and Ludwig Wittgenstein, asking him why
he never mentioned the similarities between those thinkers
and Eastern philosophies, especially Zen Buddhism. In his
response, although he agreed about the similarities, he said
he could not write about them because he respected Eastern
philosophies too much to speak of them "ignorantly".
He further explained that, to do an "authoritative"
job, he must have much "deeper" knowledge of the
entire system of thought, as well as the ability to read the
original texts in the original language.
This little vignette captures a uniquely Western tendency
of thought; the attempt to dig "deeper" into the
essence of an object, as opposed to extending one's knowledge
wider to see the relationship of the object to the whole.
To the scholar above, "ignorance" consisted of not
knowing deeply enough, but to an Eastern philosopher, "ignorance"
would be not knowing widely enough.
This difference manifests clearly in medicine. Traditional
Eastern doctors do not have discrete specialties the way they
do in the West. They fear that, by specializing, they would
miss the bigger picture. Western doctors are often helpless
if a disease does not neatly fit into their own specialties.
And they are scared to treat it if it lies outside of their
specialties, because our society condemns any medical practice
that does not carry the "badge of authority" that
comes with specialization. If the disease is a manifestation
of disharmony caused by multiple inextricable problems, their
hands are tied. Conversely, Eastern medicine excels at treating
this type of problem, simply because they focus on understanding
the body as a complex relationship of interdependent parts.
To carry the analogy into the philosophical arena, the West
tends overall to view its specialists as superior to its generalists.
By placing greater value in the habit of honing, and this
tendency to break objects into discreet parts, Western intellectuals
are often prevented from seeing their own ideas in relation
to the rest of the world. Rather than placing our philosophical
tradition in the context of Eastern, Arab, or Indian philosophies,
we tend to see ours as singular, unprecedented, and most importantly,
superior to all others. Hegel himself exacerbated the problem
by clearly announcing that Eastern philosophies were inferior
to his own.
Jacques Derrida saw the pitfalls inherent in the tendency
of hierarchically opposing binary pairs. He pointed at that
the qualities typically associated with women have been systematically
suppressed as inferior, and those associated with men, superior
(e.g. active/passive, logical/emotional, big/small, etc.).
This force has been so dominant for so long that even women
themselves have been convinced of men's notion of what is
superior. As a result, the "great" Western men of
the past have created a comfortable world for themselves where
their natural qualities are considered superior by default.
The qualities associated with the East, or with anything perceived
as "other" than they are, have been subjected to
systematic degradation. Conversely, in the East, "active"
is not superior to "passive", "logical"
is not superior to "emotional", and "big"
is not superior to "small".
Such cultural differences become relevant when writing for
New Media. This does not mean that we need to always assume
a global audience. It means, however, that we should examine
whether our usual conventions, references, values, and techniques
are appropriate. In the field of psychology, for example,
where the contributions of women are as significant as those
of men, to write as if only men existed in the field would
be unreasonable to say the least. By the same token, when
writing for a global audience with a variety of perspectives,
being "relevant" is more important than being "authoritative",
and will better encourage a global dialogue. And in order
to be "relevant", writing must not implicitly subordinate
cultures that are foreign to its own intellectual tradition.
This is not a matter of ethics or morals; it is a matter of
being relevant to today's world.
Back to home page
|
