The idea of an open society pre-dates many Semitic religions. The idea was well-implemented in Athenian Greece but it must have been conceptualised much longer ago. The Athenian statesman Pericles had iden-tified humanitarianism, equality and political freedom as fundamental characteristics of an “open society.” This was in the 6th century BC.
Now, imagine an open society, the epitome of progress - Basically a collective of non-homogenous hu-mans who may not dress alike, talk alike, eat alike, live alike and may have different beliefs situated in dif-ferent schools of thought, but must think alike. This congruence on thought comes from their acceptance of diversity.
The burning question now is, would it be acceptable for someone to bring in and hitch a camel in a parking lot lined with fancy, state of the art automobiles? Or if it would be acceptable for an individual to wear a shemag or a kimono to a party where most people are clad in lounge suits? Is it even imaginable for some-one eating with their hands, in an occasion where everyone else is using forks and knives, and not be ridi-culed, even behind their backs?
I am certain that answers to a majority of these questions would be ”yes” from a small group of people and I know, for a fact, judging from the way people have reacted in such situations, is that even amongst people who would affirm their acceptance to these notions, there are many who would find such circum-stances “awkward.”
The picture that “progressive open society” brings to mind, is that of a group of people educated in colleg-es, preferably situated in North America or Europe, or at least have followed their methods of institution-alised education.
They have to speak English, preferably fluently; they would wear business suits or dress shirts and panta-loons; dressing gowns for women are also “acceptable.” They have to have a taste in continental Europe-an food or the American renditions of continental and oriental food. The people must, and absolutely must, eat using cutlery.
The normal and expected reaction to the idea that an open society is very “western,” would be ridicule. “Isn’t all that very normal?”
That is exactly the point. Normalcy varies across societies and when an open society casts normality in likeness, it fails to remain open. Openness is in being able to accept what is unknown, unforeseen and is surely beyond being normalised.
In MasterChef Australia, we often see crocodile meat being cooked as a delicacy – not considered edible throughout many cultures; yet, the world seems to accept it. I believe food is the basic feature indigenous to a society. In my opinion, we accept the idea that crocodile or pig is meat because it is accepted in the West. Advertisements of alcoholic beverages do not bother us for the very same reason.
Then, if an Arab man burps loudly while having his meal it would attract abhorrent gazes from many shar-ing the same table with him – that is so not cool, because it’s not western. Even globalisation has not been able to bridge the East-West divide – the hole is still gaping.
I remember going to a cousin’s birthday party who was seemingly well educated in “liberal arts” across the West. When a guest arrived, clad in a white cloakish-gown – usually worn by Arabs, my cousin was laugh-ing hysterically – it was as if she was seeing a clown.
Forgive me if I was under the impression that her open and liberal acceptance was utterly dependent upon her ingrained thoughts and beliefs on acceptable attire that had firm roots in the “modern” western cul-tures.
The idea of globalisation was to erase the divide across borders and bring different communities closer to each other.
The cynic will say it was designed to promote international trade and I would agree these are norms that are accepted across the international business community; trade has been a major player in the change of politics, societies and culture throughout the course of history.
Greek and Roman were important languages 3000 years ago, then Arabic became the language of knowledge and trade before the colonial era and now after the British colonisation and American imperial-ism, it’s English. In a century, it may well be Chinese.
However, the focus now is on open societies. Cosmopolitanism, secularism, sexual and racial equality, cul-tural diversity, acceptance, affirmative action is some of the many orders of the day. I have issues when in a nude show of imperialist strength, utilitarian motives are coloured in ideology and diversity is dismissed for the false sake of intellectual superiority.
I am a staunch advocate of the open society. The social movement has, in its slow, indirect and direct course, rid the world of much malice. Slavery, bigotry, racism, fundamentalism, and sexism - the list is long. I fear that the approach that “open societies” take on “closed societies” will actually make the two opposing ideas a mirror image of each other rather than being opposites to each other. Thus, the gap may forever remain.
To be truly open, the West should follow as benchmark the seemingly unenlightened African tribes that have been actually practising pluralism without being the flag-bearers of progress.
Open societies, again, I am generalising, require people to behave a certain way, believe in certain things.
As opposed to being fundamentally closed, we are slowly approaching being fundamentally open.
This is simply another form of bigotry, fundamentalism that feeds on the belief of being culturally, eco-nomically, politically and often being racially superior to the “others.”
Now, one may feel good about being an enlightened individual and being open to differences, in actuality the open society may cease to exist. It is in danger of being a case of same old same old, only under a dif-ferent name.
