On Multiculturalism and Hospitality in Dubai

If I had to pick one thing that I have enjoyed most about my time in Dubai (aside from the amazing food I’ve been eating, because let’s be honest, nothing would ever be able to top that) it would be how incredibly friendly and hospitable the people here are. I have noticed a considerable difference in social interactions here in Dubai as compared to back in the States.

In reading and learning about the Middle East, I had heard that it was customary if you were someone walking into a room or a conversation already on-going it was to introduce yourself and shake everyone’s hands (although this norm differs among genders). However, seeing this custom in practice has been pretty fantastic. It completely revamps and takes the majority of the pressure of f of social situations. In the US, I would say as a general assertion, social interactions as a young-adult are pretty confusing to master. Meeting someone for the first time, walking into an on-going conversation, entering a gathering as an individual, being an outsider can be reason for panic for some or (at best) require skillful social tactics for others. Here in Dubai, everyone (students, retail service workers, faculty, administrators, cab-drivers, metro/bus operators) has been tremendously friendly and welcoming from the get-go. I have made many friends around campus and found it very easy to join in on social groups/activities without much trepidation of being an awkward outsider, which is even more remarkable given that I’m a study abroad student.

This brings up another interesting detail about Dubai, and about me specifically. Being South-Asian in Dubai is like being white in the United States. There is a huge population of South-Asians (something I plan on writing about more in depth at a later date), and consequently people assume most of the time that I am someone of Indian or Pakistani origin raised in Dubai and attending AUD. It takes some convincing and detailing of my life-story to convey to people that I am an American studying abroad here, like other American students. In all honesty, this situation is more of a blessing than anything else. I can usually get by with walking around the city without being noticed (which is something that most of the Americans, girls especially, who are studying abroad cannot afford to do). Although this city is by-and-large a safe place, being in unknown surroundings can make anyone feel uncomfortable or unsafe, but because I blend in I think I have a certain sense of comfort that many other study-abroad students would not have. In addition to this, I can also avoid (for the most part) being boxed into the normative American (or American student) identity. Which brings me to my last and most interesting point about Dubai.

There really is no concept of normative homogenous identity here in Dubai. In the US, at least outside of metropolitan cities like Chicago, New York , LA and so on, I have found that there’s no real guess-work when it comes to figuring out who people are (in a general sense) and where’ they’re from. Here in Dubai, I have yet to meet a person whom I can confidently say is ­_ nationality or _ ethnicity or of _ background. I know all of these things are social constructs anyway, but my point is that the way Dubai has developed over the last few decades it has attracted the most multi-national and multi-cultural of residents, creating new social constructs of its own, unique unto itself. Everyone I meet has an interesting life-story. Born in Nigeria, went to school in London, studying now in Dubai before going to the US. Or parents are Palestinian/Lebanese, can’t get a Palestinian passport so lived in Dubai for most of his childhood, went to Germany to find employment, kicked out because of Palestinian papers, back in Dubai for the time being. These are just the watered down versions and still I could go on. It has been wonderful to be able to meet someone new, learn about their varied and colorful past, and realize that in all likelihood, the future will be comprised of more people like this as opposed to the alternative. Some would argue that living a life like this doesn’t give you a sense of a home or a land, but I would say that living a life like this doesn’t bind you to a land that in turn causes you to alienate others or see them as opposites. Living a life like this makes you more cognizant of the (in my opinion) fact that we all ultimately share the same homeland.

Paul Krugman’s “How I Work”

I ran across this essay by Paul Krugman entitled "How I work" in which he chronicles his research philosophy and lays out a quick trajectory of how he got where he is today. It was a really interesting read. If for no other reason, it was interesting to see a public intellectual discuss his personal journey and outline his professional/academic methodology.

His rules of research include:

1. Listen to the Gentiles

2. Question the question

3. Dare to be silly

4. Simplify, simplify

The section on engagement with the policy-sphere was something I found particularly interesting. This is something I aspire to do. I aim to (successfully, I hope) toe that line between high level academic research and policy consulting. It was good to receive validation from someone who set out on that path early in his career and was able to make strong contributions in both arenas.

Here's the PDF link.

Black Swan (2010)

I got to check out Black Swan last weekend when it opened, and wanted to write something about it for a while but because of finals, I couldn't get to it until now. One of my friends shared this Charlie Rose interview with me earlier today, and it really sparked the same thoughts (and some new ones) I had last week once again.

One of the strongest feelings I walked away with was how much the movie felt like Darren Aronofsky's other works, and most closely the The Wrestler (2008). Aronofsky explained the resemblances in the Charlie Rose interview (as explorations of high art and low art, of the use of bodies in entertainment), but to me the most profound similarity was what I felt Aronofsky was saying to the audience at the end of each movie. Both The Wrestler and Black Swan end with applause in the background, but with a strong sense of want or disappointment lingering for the viewer (I'll hold off on saying more on that so as not to spoil the ending for those who have yet to see it). I took this to be Aronofsky's way of saying "Are you happy? Do you see what these entertainers have gone through to try and appease your insatiable appetite? Is this what you want?"

In the Charlie Rose interview, Natalie Portman also brought up some really interesting points about the movie that bear heavily on my own current state in personal development. Portman described her transformation in the movie from a "ballet girl" to a "woman," as one which mirrors her real-life transformation into womanhood. One of the ways the movie portrays this is by Nina (Portman's character) moving away from trying to please everyone else and finding her own pleasure. This was a fascinating commentary on adulthood to me. I think too often personal focus is seen as childish, selfish or unbecoming of a well-functioning adult. In fact, I think the idea of finding your own pleasure is a great way to conceptualize ownership of yourself and your own happiness in adulthood, something I am working on for myself recently.

Black Swan is a fantastic artifact of film-making. It is meta-cognitive, highly subjective, beautifully scored and a much needed film in what seems like a drought in high quality films recently.

The Conversation (1974)

Ain't It Cool News announced a competition today for 10 spots to see a special screening of Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan in Chicago on Monday. One of the stipulations of the competition was to include a short blurb on what your favorite movie about madness is and why. Below is what I sent in regarding The Conversation, a 1974 film starring Gene Hackman and directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

Coppola's directing, the haunting score and Hackman's lifetime performance all really made for a terrific film. Hackman's character is a microcosm for 20th century America for me, his attention is so focused on being the best, that he doesn't realize how much he's screwing up in other facets of his life. I also think there is a lot going on in the character that speaks to every-day madness. The kind of madness that builds on itself and never goes over the edge to truly raise suspicion, but for the person experiencing it, it can almost ruin daily life. That's the kind of madness the majority of people deal with, the kind of that doesn't turn violent but still eats away at the hope of a "normal" life.

Hope I get to see the screening on Monday!

Mario Cuomo's 1984 DNC Keynote Address

A friend of mine mentioned this speech to me the other day. I had never heard of it before, especially with Obama's 2004 DNC address being the most popular speaking event connected with the DNC in my recently developed political conscience. I finally got around to reading the speech and I had to share it. My friend described it as a "seminal piece of rhetoric in liberal political ideology" and I couldn't have put it better myself. I would have picked out parts that I liked best, but I am more inclined to promote it in its entirety.

Here it is.

Are political orientations genetically transmitted?

Individual genes for behaviors do not exist and no one denies that humans have the capacity to act against genetic predispositions. But predictably dissimilar correlations of social and political attitudes among people with greater and lesser shared genotypes suggest that behaviors are often shaped by forces of which the actors themselves are not consciously aware, a point that is made with some force by Bargh and Chartrand (1999), Marcus (2002), Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen (2000), McDermott (2004), and Wegner (2002). It is not biological determinism to posit the existence of complex collections of genes that increase the probability that certain people will display heightened or deadened response patterns to given environmental cues. And it is not antibehavioralism to suggest that true explanations of the source of political attitudes and behaviors will be found when we combine our currently detailed understanding of environmental forces with a recognition that genetic variables subtly but importantly condition human responses to environmental stimuli.

From a 2005 study - Alford, J., et al. 2005. “Are political orientations genetically transmitted?” American Political Science Review.

Certainly a very emotional and political topic in itself, but the study includes some convincing evidence for the strong correlations between genetic similarity and development of political attitudes. The quoted paragraph probably strikes closest to my own conceptualization of what genetic determinism and social construction mean in observable behavior and attitudes.

Hackneyed “Clash of Civilizations”

As long as I have studied the Middle East (which is coming up on 5 years now) Samuel Huntington's legacy has been inescapable. I have, on so many occasions, engaged in arguments (personal, professional and academic) that are centered around his basic premise of a clash of civilizations between what he calls the West and the Islamic civilization. I can't even remember how many papers I have written or people I have tried to confront about the shortcomings of this "seminal" work.

Here, Lisa Wedeen puts my thoughts in a pithy and succinct manner -

"This understanding of culture as a specific group’s primordial values or traits is untenable empirically. It ignores the historical conditions and relevant power relationships that give rise to political phenomena such as “democratization,” ethnic conflicts, and contemporary radical Islamicist movements. The group traits version of culture, moreover, rides roughshod over the diversity of views and the experiences of contention within the group or groups under study. In the case of Huntington’s depiction of the Middle East, for ex- ample, such claims of sedimented essences have led scholars of culture to pass over such now obviously urgent matters as the contemporary nature of Islamicist movements, the causes of their recent emergence, and the ways in which communities of argument exist over what makes a Muslim a Muslim, what Islam means, and what, if any, its political role should be. Treating culture as a set of traits that purportedly distinguish one group from another also neglects the terrains of solidarity and fluidity that exist among groups, the ways in which political communities of various sorts have depended on the cross-fertilization of ideas and practices. In short, by ignoring historical processes and specific relations of political power, the treatment of culture in political science has downplayed the heterogeneous ways in which people experience the social order within and among groups, while exaggerating the commonality, constancy, and permanence of intragroup beliefs and values."

____

Wedeen, L. 2002. “Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science,” American Political Science Review.

Foucault vs. Chomsky

There's a short (13 minute) video from 1971 of a discussion between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault that I think gets at so much of what I've delved into (academically and personally) for the last few years of my life. In fact, I think I've been thinking about this for much longer, I just wasn't able to articulate it too well until a few years ago. The discussion, and the longer book, gets at some of the most profound yet basic arguments in social science, politics, religion, philosophy and really any endeavor in human development. The most pedestrian conceptualization of this argument is the age-old "nature vs. nurture" debate. In a crude sense, Chomsky falls more on the nature side of the debate and Foucault favors nurture in the fight.

Essentially, Chomsky argues that human nature seeks and needs creative outlet and that is something that we must strongly consider when establishing our social structures. Foucault responds by questioning Chomsky's understanding of human nature, claiming that we will never be able to truly understand human nature because we are mired in our own cultural production (informed by the politics, knowledge, philosophy, religion, &c. of the time) of "human-nature" as a concept.

As a social scientist, and someone who has written works using Foucaultian lenses in the past, I suppose it comes as no surprise that I side with Foucault more often than not. But what is most interesting to me is that I find myself coming back, again and again to Chomsky. Maybe its because he's an elegant, unassuming yet capturing speaker and writer. Maybe its because he is the model of a public intellectual, something that I hope one day to be myself. Maybe its because he has done so much terrific work in other (related) fields like linguistics and media studies. Or maybe because his quantitative and technical skills pull at the parts of my brain that easily get convinced of things when explained using the language of mathematics (not because I understand it better, but because I've mostly been socialized to think that math is not an argument, its a fact). Whatever the reason, Chomsky has always caught my attention because I think there is certain truth in what he says. His canonical contributions to the study of language acquisition and language development have yet to be thoroughly disproved. And maybe there truly is a human nature that can be understood, and coupled with our fight to uncover power structures in society (as Foucault promotes), we can do a better job of developing social structures.

I don't believe I will ever get to a place where I can confidently say I side with either nature or nurture in the debate (mostly because I don't think its ever either/or) but the inquiry into these fields and the analysis of any work I commit to through the lens of this debate seems to be a never-ending prospect.