Terror, words, and cultures

Once, Bhaktimarg Swami of Toronto gave a lecture in Vrindavana in which he claimed that no single culture has ever dominated or imposed itself globally. Listening to this, I felt I couldn’t let it slide —it sounded like misinformation. So, during the question period, I corrected him in a friendly manner, since we had known each other for a long time. I pointed out that American culture is, in fact, pervasive worldwide, and India is not immune to this phenomenon.

To my surprise, in front of everyone, he almost called me foolish for saying that. Yet he knows me well; we’ve often had discussions together. What a funny world we live in! (We are in Vrindavan, and we cannot act as living exemples of vaishnava etiquette. See my article on Srutakirti.)

As devotees of Krishna, we think as Westerners, whether we like it or not. We are shaped by language, thought, logic, and philosophy rooted in Greek and Roman (Latin) civilizations. Most of the world is. English, for instance, dominates global communication and business.

In his intellectual autobiography, "The Unended Quest", Karl Popper reflects on his ideas —such as the paradox of democracy and tolerance— which he explained, developed, argued for, and defended. At the age of 16, he writes, he realized that the words used to explain things were often undermined and that one should not insist too rigidly on their definitions.

How can one contradict such a giant of analytical philosophy as Popper? Can I? For instance, when ISIS invaded Syria and overthrew Assad (who fled), the media referred to these jihadists as "rebels," even though they were —and still are— officially recognized as terrorists of the worst kind. Am I missing something?

Karl Popper was wrong on one point. Although words are undermined —Jean Paulhan wrote a book subtitled "Terror in Literature", in which he argues that some writers manipulate words like terrorists— it is still necessary to call a spade a spade, thus avoiding confusion. True, Popper was only 16 when he grappled with this problem. A large part of his life was still ahead of him, so we should not hold it against him —at least not on that point. But Bhaktimarg Swami is old now; I cannot excuse him for being so stubborn and unpleasant when corrected on such a crucial subject.

I’ll say it again, as it’s a point I’m particularly focused on at the moment: the language in which we express ourselves controls a significant part of how thought evolves, much like rails for a train or roads for cars. (A. Korzybski) Thus, the choice of language is not neutral; it influences how a message is received and interpreted.

Bhaktimarg Swami, who was born in Canada, spoke in English while in India, where a good portion of the audience were native-born Indians. For a senior devotee to suggest that all cultures are equal and that none has more influence than another is poor pedagogy and detrimental to teaching. It misleads students and the audience. While all cultures have intrinsic value, their unequal influence in the world must be recognized and understood. This kind of teaching prevents students from developing a critical awareness of power relations between cultures and from understanding how their own culture shapes their perception of the world. ■