Yesterday’s news was dominated by the multiple assassinations in Paris at the satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ of which Stephane Charbonnier was the central figure and no stranger to law suits and death threats. But no more! He died along with about ten others and this does not account for the wounded. The impact on French society in particular is immense, but is also felt deeply by ‘The West’, though I do not think that the rest of the world was that surprised or impacted.
The western nations feel their ‘freedom of expression’ challenged and it is to some extend. But, not every one shares ‘western’ values to that same extend and holds tolerance, respect, community and tradition as equally or more important. As several of the interviewed French people said, we do not want the values of the Islam imposed on our society. This is of course a two way street and mutual respect is called for in this case.
Peoples identities are associated strongly with these values be they freedom of expression or respect for taught traditions. An example is the imageless representation of certain holy persons, such as a prophet or the Divine, which is a tradition found in the Islam as well as the Old Testament. I am referring to the ‘graven - carved - image’ as mentioned in the Ten Commandments in Genesis.
The psychological value of this prohibition is that the face at least, is not fixed and thus remains fluid and therefore adaptable. This enables peoples from different cultural backgrounds to hold a personal image of the holy without having to agree or disagree on its ‘true’ representation.
This way we can actually appreciate that the ‘no-image’ rule is a way of creating tolerance and acceptability among diverse groups about important issues. Our politicians know about the value if such flexibility when they answer questions in the House of Commons.
That is, let us make room for the ‘other-believer’ and give him or her that freedom of expression as well!
Another relating observation is that in Buddhist countries and traditions we see a tremendous variety in the way the figure of the Buddha is presented. This is a counter example and shows what happens if there is no rule that prevent such representation.
I’m not advocating one approach over another, but would like to point out that the way Jesus is represented in European Christian art is as a good looking Italian male and certainly not like an ancient Hebrew man. This was made clear by a Time magazine issue, now many decades ago.
So, what am I saying here? Let’s be careful and flexible about what different people hold dear and how they value that. Why not try to understand the advantages, disadvantages and the reasons for the variety in our human traditions and learn to appreciate this diversity, rather than insisting on our own ways as the best. It may be best for you and me, but not for the other. That is, let us make room for the ‘other-believer’ and give him or her that freedom of expression as well!
<9:15am~
