Multiple Realities

One of the first lessons in Anthropology/Sociology is that we view the world by standards inherent to our own culture, known as cultural bias. We experience our daily reality in a society with its value system and norms. We want to believe that we have, throughout our lives, developed thorough understanding of ‘how things work’. We then extend understandings of our own reality to the rest of the world – as those are all we know of.

The mere exposure to differences usually only elicits judgements, rather than any kind of introspection. Take the example of several discussions I have with people in Malaysia – when we talked about how others have demanded their government to welcome more refugees, one common response is “Their country is rich but ours cannot even take care of its own people!”; when we discussed how foreign parents encourage independence of their children and respect their choices to travel and live abroad, some would say “We are more family-oriented – this is not our culture!” and when I mentioned how some societies take things slowly and do not define their lives with ‘career’ or ‘success’, people were quick to judge and said “That is why they are not developed!” Such attribution of differences to context, culture or state of development seems to be arbitrary, yet conveniently serves our existing interpretations of the world. Indeed, “This is the reality”, “This is human’s nature,” are sweeping statements I received while having discussion with others about changing societies, suggesting there is only one single reality for all of us.

Such presumptions are tenacious, as understandably, perceived realities based on personal experiences could not be changed overnight. While knowledge can transcend generations, experience unfortunately cannot. We forget that perhaps just one or two generations ago, our realities were entirely different (probably because most of us do not experience them) and it is only reasonable to continue such changes into the future. Human norms or cultures are far from static and subject to continuous evolution. For instance, people could not imagine the absence of nation-states, a concept which only applies worldwide following decolonization, which is less than a century for most countries, a short period in the context of human history. Before that, there might be forest people and fishermen, but there were certainly no Malaysians or Filipinos. How each society turns out can be of various factors but they are by no means deterministic. In fact, there is always a presence of contradictory values and behaviors in each society. So-called societal norms or culture are continuously being shaped actively – by media, education, politics, and traditions (“Manufacturing Consent” is the word used by Noam Chomsky).

This two-hour documentary detailed Noam Chomsky's scholarship on "Manufacturing Consent" - how media is manipulated to shape our views

Apart from cultural bias, there is also what I called the superficial bias - people made judgement based on what met their eyes. When people from a clean, organized place, visit a chaotic tourist destination with visible pollution and poverty, they are quick to decide on the inferiority of the society – uneducated, without civic awareness, irresponsible, etc. They might still appreciate certain elements such as the friendliness, the local craftsmanship, etc. but few are willing to take the serious efforts to move beyond the surface and understand the complexity beneath. They have made up their mind that they are superior and do not seek explanations by putting themselves in others’ shoes. The same people, however, might still be very interested in people’s lives and realities if they travel to a society similar to or even visibly better than theirs. Understanding others’ realities demands underlying respect and recognize that we have something to learn from all, especially those who are different. This leads us to look beyond first impressions, practice empathy and better comprehend others’ realities.

I personally experience different realities for the first time as a fresh graduate undertaking long-term working holiday to dozens of countries. In the Arab region (at the time infamous of war and terrorism thanks to the media), I was given the warmest hospitality and greatest kindness in the region, earning lifelong friendships and connections. Having imagined Western Europe to be rich countries enjoying material comforts, it startled me to see teenagers working and gaining financial independence at the age of 15, adopting thrifty strategy of hitchhiking and dumpster-diving unimaginable to us. Some of the materially poorer people I met in Southern Tunisia and Eastern Europe taught me that one does not have to be rich to be generous. Even when they have too little, they always choose to share all with me. I saw large family network at work, with each member taking care of patients, elderly and children – nobody was left alone. People continuously defy my presumptions about human societies.

The experiences raised serious questions regarding the reality I know of - one that idolizes monetary success. What is the good of material wealth - if people are becoming less compassionate, more competitive, more unsecured emotionally? While traveling, I carry all I have with me. My material belongings were my burden, literally. Without things I am used to having, I continued to live, happily and in a fulfilling manner. I met amazing people and live experiences that I would otherwise never do, during my hitchhiking and couchsurfing adventures. It became clear to me at the personal level that little attachment to materials is a form of liberation, not compromise. More importantly, having learnt about others’ realities, which are still plagued by hunger, death caused by preventable diseases, slavery, violent conflicts and a range of other nature and man-made disasters, I questioned myself what have I done to deserve the privilege, apart from being born from the right womb? I thought that the very least I could do is to stop contemplating about mundane things in my life, and experience others’ realities when given the chance, so that I could, at least temporarily, act on my belief that all human beings should be equal.

Hence, the significance of experiencing multiple realities are two folds – reducing discrimination and stereotypes on others; and recognizing the possibilities of changing one’s own reality. The awareness of multiple realities, however, is not a privilege only for those who travel (Instead, those who travel are not necessarily aware due to superficial bias mentioned above). In fact, one does not have to travel far to find different perspectives. A single society can present different realities to people of different gender, class, ethnicities, and religions. People construe their realities within the circle of friends and relatives they are in contact with, the kind of media they consume, the life styles and spaces they occupy. This is what the whole debates about ‘white privilege’ and ‘male privilege’ are about. People who struggle and go through hardship in life do not want to recognize that they are privileged – as they are unaware of how much worse it could be for others. In a Ted Talk by Rajen Makhijani, he showed a picture of a girl studying and another one of her graduating from school. He then offered two interpretations: the first one is that the girl is a hard worker and thus deserves her success; the second one is that she has access to electricity, books and a quiet space to study – she is really lucky! Both interpretations are grounded on completely different realities and yet, they co-exist.

Rajen Makhijani's ted talk give the perspectives of the poor

Understanding or at least acknowledging the existence and validity of multiple realities, and thus multiple perspectives, I argue, is one of the two most important recognition of our time (I will elaborate another in next essays). Because I reckon it is the starting point towards dismantling discrimination between self and the different others, which underpins our ability to address the root causes from issues of terrorism, refugee crisis, gender, hate crime, poverty to environment. Hence any dogmatic philosophy, teaching or religion is as dangerous as a dictatorship, as it denies others’ realities. Fundamentally, disagreement must be based on understanding of the others. If there is no mutual understanding, there is no disagreement but simply discrimination, which provides leverage for manipulation and justification of oppression. Throughout history, wars were raged and people were enslaved based on labels of ‘infidels’, ‘untouchables’, ‘barbarians’, ‘evil empire’ and these continue today. On the contrary, understanding opens up opportunities to reflect on your own beliefs, and extract those additional ideas useful to your own circumstances. It brings introspection and creates possibilities for changing realities for the better. There is a higher chance of peace and justice to prevail, and less opportunity of mass manipulation for personal interest and power.

“We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer.”

-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Chimamanda Adichie is an outstanding novelist who told the danger of believing in a single story.