I can't believe I'm dragging Star Trek into this!

OK, I'll lay my cards on the table.  It won't be pretty, but it's better than what you're probably thinking based on the title of this post.

No, I'm not a Trekker, Trekkie, or any variant thereof. 

Truth be told I used to watch the original show because of the scantily-clad women that Captain Kirk got to kiss on seemingly every episode.  When the later incarnations of the show came on the air I saw great promise in the totally hot casting of the the Chief of Security (Tasha Yar, played by Denise Crosby) and the Empath Counselor (Deanna Troi, played by Marina Sirtis).  But Crosby quickly left the show and Sirtis proved to have little to offer in the way of on-screen romantic fireworks beyond a low-cut uniform.

So there it is.  I'm a pig... but not a Trekkie pig.  OK?

But because most of you seemed to have taken the central idea in yesterday's post and run with it in a completely unexpected direction... I feel like a follow up is warranted.  To do this I'd like to use a handy devise that Gene Roddenberry (the creator of Star Trek) employed with great success in his scripts: Taking taboo cultural problems that exist on earth and making them 'safe' for discussion by assigning them to fictional aliens.

The most 'problematic' race dealt with in the early Star Trek episodes were the Klingons.  They were warlike, tribal, belligerent and their motivation was completely beyond the understanding of Star fleet officers.  Sound familiar?

Initially the Klingon were a handy catch-all enemy (like the Romulans) against whom Kirk and the Enterprise could consistently wear the white hat.  But in later, more socially-sophisticated versions of the show we see that the vast cultural gulf between Klingon culture and the norms of the Star Fleet Federation seem to have been mostly bridged because Klingons are now counted among the officers and crew of Star Fleet ships.  It might be worth thinking about how that happened and apply the lessons here.

The Klingons were a handy hook on which to hang the terrestrial cultures we perceived as hopelessly warlike and bent on conquering us.  But it wasn't until much later that the script writers got around to dealing with them as a soluble problem and a potentially approachable race of people with whom relations were possible.

Another race that was initially meant to serve as an ongoing threat to the Federation were the Ferengi (not coincidentally the Arabic word for Western traders).  Although the Ferengi quickly lost their real sinister role and became almost comic caricatures of the most loathsome human traits of avarice and dishonesty, they remained an interesting discussion point on how cultures that assigned completely different values to process and result could not only coexist... but have ongoing relations once they understood each-other's ground rules.

I think I am pretty safe in saying that to most westerners, Arab/Muslim cultural norms are as inscrutable and unapproachable as those found in the Klingon and Ferengi cultures.  In fact, most of the negative traits westerners point to as reasons that Western and Levantine culture will never be able to peacefully co-exist are found in these two fictional alien races.

That having been said...

In my responses to yesterday's comments I tried to bring people back from the semi-hysterical place they instinctively wanted to run with the topic of cultural relativism.  For the sake of clarity here are the ten main points I tried to make:

1.  A hint to my mindset when I wrote the post can be summed up as: Western vs. Levantine definitions of 'Intellectual honesty' and 'fair play'.

2.  The post wasn't meant as a condemnation of cheating. It was meant to draw attention to the huge chasm that exists in the cultural values that actually assign moral value to - and define - things like cheating, lying and shame.

3.  In my post I assigned no single motivation to the way the Arab had 'solved' the puzzle... I just pointed out a cultural acceptance of certain shortcuts as expedient to reaching the desired solution.

4.  One of the reasons polygraphs work is that most westerners have a physiological reaction to potentially being caught in a lie. We sweat... our heart races... our breathing changes. However if there is no corresponding social taboo to most kinds of lying in Arab cultures, there is no shame to measure. In such a culture, the spoken word (such as the claim by an Imam that Jews have poisoned a village's well or blown up the Dome of the Rock) can be absolutely true while it is being said... and yet the next day when all the villagers who drank from the 'poisoned well' are alive and well and the Dome of the Rock still stands in Jerusalem, there are absolutely no repercussions. Quite simply it was true when he said it but now it's not. In such a culture not only is there no shame associated with most lies, but one is considered a bit of an idiot if he/she doesn't say the most expedient thing to achieve a specific aim/goal. What this young man did with the puzzle was a form of lying (according to my standards), but his openness about how he did it proves that he was completely unaware that he had broken any social barrier or rule.

5.  Being process AND goal oriented is of value only so long as all people trying to reach the same goal agree on the basic ground rules. If this had been a hedge maze I suspect the young Arab man would have pushed his way through the branches rather than try to find the 'correct' path to the end. Again, if we can agree that he wouldn't have seen such action as cheating, we can't blame him... only wonder at how two such different cultures can pursue larger, more important goals when the two sides don't understand each-other's rules and processes.

6.  Think about how you react when there is a piguah and CNN puts on a talking head from Israel and a talking head from the PA. Doesn't it make your blood boil when you realize that one talking head is stating cold hard facts and the other is saying whatever he/she thinks will advance his/her cause (without any regard to what you and I would call 'the truth')? Those PA talking heads aren't evil or corrupt (in the narrow sense relating to the words leaving their mouths). They are simply acting according to cultural norms and values that you and I can't even begin to understand. I chose the example of the puzzle (specifically how the Arab man seemed to show no misgivings about how he had 'solved' it) as a 'safe' opportunity to examine this cultural disconnect. One of the biggest obstacles to the west ever having a meaningful dialog with the Arab world is that nobody dares examine this cultural disconnect or how to overcome it.

7.  The young Arab man in my post may be a wonderful father and husband. He may give charity in his community and be extremely moderate in all his views. But he comes from a culture that assigns no shame to ignoring what westerners consider to be hard and fast rules... and in fact doesn't fully understand the western obsession with rules and 'fair play' at all. This really isn't about whether he is a good or bad player in the scenario. It is about the fact that he plays according to a completely different set of rules.

8.  The post was meant to draw attention to the disconnect between two cultures... one that says such a 'solution' to the puzzle is cheating/shameful, and another which says that the the object is to complete the picture puzzle without rules or limitations. One is a process oriented solution and the other is a results oriented solution. The value is only what each culture assigns to it.

9.  Regarding the 'instant gratification theory: I suspect that the sole gratification the young Arab man anticipated from the puzzle was it's completion. The very idea of taking satisfaction from the process probably didn't occur to him. I obviously am guessing here... and using only my own cultural tools to make that guess.

10.  Regarding the assertion that the Arabs aren't "playing by accepted Western rules of cultural, governmental and economic normalcy":  First, they are playing by rules... it's that they are rules that we don't fully understand (or perhaps are willfully ignoring). Second, why should the Arabs be expected to play by western rules? Who is to say that our rules are 'normal' or that they are universally 'accepted'?   Perhaps, as many suggest, we should try dealing with them entirely according to their own rules.

OK, I've had my say.  What I had hoped was that we could have a discussion of different rules and values to those rules.  If it will help keep things calm, feel free to talk in terms of Klingons or Ferengi instead of Arabs or Muslims.  It's enough to admit that their culture is foreign to us and that ours is foreign to them.  Now what?

Can anyone take the issue of how to approach the cultural disconnect and discuss it outside the minefield of political correctness we've created for ourselves here in the Middle East?