Certain people -- such as shamans and (as it happens) many Zimbabweans -- tend to relativise the ego in a way that Westerners do not. A Westerner (especially of the bourgeois type) sits firmly upon his ego, and makes his serious pronouncements from the centre of his ego. He is as divorced from his body as he is from a sense of nature. A shaman is inclined to doubling his or her identity by setting up a point a foot or two away from the ego and its desires, in order to enjoy the spectacle of its madness. A sense of irony is born of this capacity to spectate on one's self.
To relativise the ego is a way of tacitly admitting otherness within one's circle. The other may think and do some strange and (hence) amazing things, but this strangeness is not a threat because its danger has already been reduced by this habitual relativising of all things egoistic.
The bourgeois individual does not tend to understand this. (I say this from experience). He sees the jokes that take place as a form of relativising the egos of others. But rarely does he understand that the shaman also relativises his own ego -- what Nietzsche would call "its proud leapings"-- in relation to his sacrosanct sense of a different, inner "self". He honours his sense of the sacred by adopting such a perspective.
A bourgeois individual, regrettably, finds such an ironic posture -- especially one that is adopted habitually -- to be very alarming. He does not make sense of it very easily at all, and so various ideas run through his head: that the particular shaman is pathological, that the particular shamanistic individual is malicious, that he is trying to play games. That's a mistake, for in fact the Zimbabwean or shamanistic fellow is relativising both your and his own ego, with ironic humour, in order to make you feel relaxed about him. He does this so as not to appear to threaten, but to show that despite differences that may be very salient, you and he still have a sacred "self" in common. And therefore, you have much in common!
Whereas the bourgeois idealist is likely to think that is shamanistic companion is casting moral aspersions, the precise opposite reality is in fact the case. The one who relativizes his ego couldn't care about making moral estimations. He is only keen on making practical estimations about his current situation in relation to dominant power structures. Whether or not you are abiding by the laws that govern your conscience is the least of his worries. He wants to know that you and he are both ironic in relation to the predominant structures of power -- that is, you are a foot or two removed from automatic self-identifications with power. This ironic doubling is the means by which a shamanistic spirit engages the other in relation to the issue of how we relate to power. It's a way of gauging common understanding, and forming alliances.
The kind of person who has only disciplined his mind narrowly but without permitting playfulness as a form of daily practice will invariably not understand this point. Rather, he will persist in his culturally conditioned views, deeming that what is at stake in all forms of communication must necessarily be his own position in relation to morality. Actually, his companion is much more interested in where he happens to be positioned (often despite his best intentions) in relation to power.
5 comments:
I think it depends on the Westerner and the Zimbabwean. I've run into both who were dominated by conservative Christian ideology and been, well like what you describe as 'Westerners'. I think this is because conservative, Christian ideology has a symbiotic relationship with the narrow individualism which is endemic in the industrialised, capitalist political-economies.
That said, I much prefer the Zim way of relating to others (as you describe it) to the narrow individualist/shields-up way.
Yes -- actually there is a lot of variation even among those who grew up in Zimbabwe. We might all be hybrids in some way. My writing above does not aim to be scientific but allegorical.
I agree that ego-splitting and relativism is culturally determined. I think it’s more of conceding for volatility and variability of ego for greater opulence to a human encounter that those from the Zimbabwean background do in contradistinction to the Westerner’s. In the Zimbabwean upbringing to be able to relativise ego is held to be the hallmark of good socialisation. But like Mike notes it will depend on what other worldviews have gained preponderance.
Well, yes it will depend on the Zimbabwean and what else they have learned. I was doing a bit of literary hypostatising in that text.
What I see, though, and sometimes experience, is that Westerners do expect you to say everything you feel and think. If you do not wear some aspect of your personality on your shoulder, they think it doesn't exist. It may nonetheless exist, and you are just storing it up for an emergency. This is another huge source of misunderstanding. Just because I fail to posture that I am a certain way, or have certain values, or goals in mind, does not mean I do not have them. The other person will not know unless they ask --- and if they do ask, I will certainly tell them.
But for the other to be in a position to ask already presumes that the relationship has developed a degree of maturity. This is a linear progression and takes time.
But the typical Westerner thinks he sees you just as you are. So he blurts something out about what he thinks he sees -- and this is very risky for him! He is walking into a minefield and doesn't know that most of what is there he doesn't see at all, yet.
Thats true Jennifer. You are expected to have all that you are displayed like on your forehead.And if you dont seem to too strongly transmit this on to every human encounter then it is held that maybe you dont have beliefs of your own. Its a very flawed deduction and failure to read into the ego in its totality, for what is brought out is situational and a microcosm of who Iam. Allowing for this fluidity and otherness is as much a rich social kit, not to be underestimated.
Post a Comment