I can already tell this is going to be a complicated "rant" about the concept of Duty and Obligation in Eastern societies and in Arab ones in particular...
Whenever social concepts such Duty, Obligation are tackled, I like to think of them as social, religious, political, legal, family, personal constructs...in which the historical (political, religious, legal, social) narrative of any particular society is a dynamic one which feeds into the personal narrative and is in turn fed by it...
Anyway, I like to keep things simple, I always need to remind myself this is a blog and not a dissertation.
So am going to tackle Duty and Obligation today. A tough subject because it branches out into so many different areas, from the political, to the religious, to the social, to the family, to gender, to the personal...and am having a tough time knowing where to start.
I will start with my own observations. I think that is a safe place to start with.
I have noticed that in Arab societies (as a system) and by extension in Arab families,(as a system) Duties and Obligations play a very important role in maintaining the social order, the status quo. This is not a value judgement, it is just an observation.
I need to say though, that I will keep away from the Legal definitions of Duty and Obligation and stick to Cultural ones, even though these two concepts derive much of their raison d'être from the body of Law, and in this particular case from an odd mixture of both Secular and Religious law, but where in my opinion, it is the religious law that overrides in the social interactions...and in turn becomes a "culture". A passed on culture from generation to generation, with varying intensity - meaning in simple terms that People of an older generation or of my generation would view and consequently act upon the concepts of Duty and Obligation differently from a younger generation who has been brought up with a "modified" version of that same culture...
This is another bracket of nuances that need to be kept in mind but still an important one, because it points out that these systems, contrary to perception, are not rigid closed ones and they are in a state of flux...in the end it is always a question of degrees and not of fundamentals and I find that to be true for all societies...therefore to speak of Eastern/Arab societies as exclusive systems of their own, and hold them in comparison to Western ones as totally opposite systems, can prove to be a pitfall full of misconceptions.
But again, I need to keep to the subject matter, and get back to my personal observations, and obviously it is in comparison to other systems as other cultural constructs. And somehow comparison is unavoidable...
If one takes for example what is considered a "traditional, conservative" society and again I have a problem with definitions here, because concepts such as traditional, conservative, modern, advanced, free are also political cultural social constructs...and it all depends on who is doing "the looking" so to speak.
I am getting stuck here, because from that perspective, who is to say what is what ?
So I find myself, as am pondering these concepts, constantly withholding any value judgement at whatever cultural construct am dealing with, be it East or West. But is that really possible?
I do not think it is "scientifically" possible at all, when dealing with societies, because the subjective element, the personal narrative (culture, history, background, education, status, political affiliation, beliefs, gender, religion...) or the anthropological map of the onlooker, researcher, subject, always play a role in how he/she defines, perceives, explains, researches, tackles, expounds, observes, any particular construct, any particular system...
Of course, I have not even started writing about Duty and Obligation, because I realize that it is an impossible task to keep it objective, an impossible task of not comparing, and an impossible task of no reference to any personal narrative...
Which of course, in turn lends a big interrogation mark on the whole concept of social "sciences" and how it subsequently serves political decisions when dealing with Eastern, Arab societies.
Since all is a construct and a non objectively verifiable one, who is to say who is right and who is wrong ? Who is advanced and who is backward ? Who is secular and who is conservative ? Who is modern and who is traditional? Who is free and who is unfree ?
Can it be that at the end all is simply Power based ? and if so, where does this Power derive its legitimacy from ? Where does a predominant Culture derive its power from ? Be it in nations, in society, in the family, in the couple, in the relation between parent and child...
It does span from the most general to the most particular, and a predominant culture be it at global level (as in globalization) on on societal level, on a family level, or whenever there is a semblance of a system of interaction, derives its power from a position of Authority.
Whether that position of Authority is based upon power derived from money, status, age, role, gender, position, does not really matter...because from the most global to the most particular, in the end, it is Authority that ensures the maintenance of the social order and its status quo. And the Concept of Duty and Obligation are tools of Authority.
Authority is not necessarily a negative or a positive thing, it just is...again, the personal narrative (perception, experience, inherited beliefs held to be true, injunctions, family, tribal, collective history carried inside etc...) is very much at play in how one sees and defines Authority...
So one might speak of a benevolent/positive Authority or one may speak of a malevolent/negative Authority. And what defines Benevolence and Malevolence but a personal subjective experience when in contact with that "Authority."
I realize I may be going around in circles, but am not really...because when I come to think about it, nothing is fixed...how so ?
Well again, one's perception of Authority is very much marked by previous past experiences with Authority (whatever that Authority is) and beliefs about Authority (and again, belief and experiences feed on each other - another micro system, another circuit in one's head if you like)...
I will give a simple example to illustrate; If X has in the past been badly beaten up by a cop, every time he sees a cop, he will react to that Image of Authority of when he was beaten up. X has also developed a whole set of beliefs in relation to cops derived from his personal experience of them. In the end, X will have a conditioned response, which in turn will, in all likelihood make it that X will act/react in a certain way, thus confirming a self fulfilling prophecy i.e all cops are bad i.e all Authority is bad.
I do realize that this is a very simplistic example, and things are more complex than that...and one may argue that cops are small, racist tyrants, upholding a system of oppression etc...but one still calls on them when one is mugged, robbed, raped, murdered...
The example given was really to show how the personal narrative feeds into the system and is fed in turn by it...
And again, I like that idea of a dynamic where the objective, external, out there, feeds on and is fed by the subjective, internal, personal, in here... This idea is very appealing to me, because this state of flux, this fluid state is permanent, nothing is a closed rigid system but our perception and experience of it and to me that means that all is open to change...
I am not sure I will be do part 2, but why not...I can keep on "ranting" as much as I like.
