Cultural variety

                                          (Japanese picture of man in boiling water*)

As a continuation to two previous posts about words and cultures, culture is relative to a specific society not only in form but also in connotation. Formally speaking culture includes the artistic achievements of a group but also the mechanisms of daily interaction. So, the type of music loved by people is an example of culture but so is the manner of saying hello, whether that is by shaking hands, bowing, kissing cheeks, or using words alone. Thus, it is clear that all human languages must include some way to express culture.

For a linguist, an additional distinction is the attached connotation. For example, the word “culture” when applied in the United States, France, Israel and Russia can imply very different purposes. Modern America was settled by immigrants that were poor and quite often uneducated, even illiterate... Thus, a reference to culture is a way of distinguishing one person from another, generally negatively. Describing a lover of opera as cultured can either be praise or derogatory, i.e., elitist, depending on the point of few. Not only that, its multiethnic society has espoused a vision of blending as compared to maintaining traditions. Thus, the expression “they come from another culture” is an alternative phrase for “they don’t behave like Americans”. The American ethea of anti-intellectualism and melting pot, notwithstanding the existence of exceptions to these tendencies, adds a connotation of different to the term culture.

By contrast, France glories in its Culture. French people are proud of its artistic icons, whether in literature or the visual arts.  The country even has a special institution for them, the Pantheon. The average French person mentions Victor Hugo, Marcel Proust, Claude Monet and Edith Piaf with pride. Even those that would never read any of their books beyond what is required for the Bac or go to a museum would think twice before stating so. France is the cultural leader of Europe, at minimum, in terms of literature, art and food. Unlike the United States, culture in France, or at least its appreciation, is a unifying factor.

Israel too was founded by immigrants but they came from many communities, each with its own Culture and culture. The dogma of wiping out the diaspora and imposing the new Israeli stamp on all of its citizens, applied for its first 25 or so years, is slowly but surely disappearing. Today, Israelis talk about culture to explain differences in food, music and wedding arrangements. In practice, most couples reflect mixed ethnic background except for the ultra-orthodox. This requires negotiation of cultural issues such as which foods to eat on holidays, the level of spiciness and frequency of family visits, to name just a few matters. Culture in Israel is of part of the dialogue of everyday life.

The Russian use refers to both the high-brow and, more commonly, the communal aspect of culture. As the French, Russians are proud of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky, to name a few. However, the most common use of the word culture is the negative term некультурный человек  [nekulturni cheleovek], meaning an uncultured person, better translated by the term barbarian. To clarify, this expression does not refer to the lack of familiarity with Shostakovich’s music. Instead, it describes crude (by Russian standards) behavior, a lack of social savior faire and open greed. It is hard for a foreigner to decode this term as it encompasses so many unspoken rules.  For example, to the best of my knowledge, Ivan the Terrible was a некультурный человек but Stalin and Putin are okay.  It is possible to be unbelievable cruel but remain cultured. So, when a Russian accuses you of being uncultured, you have apparently crossed some (ultraviolet) red line.

Dictionaries may agree upon the definition of culture but people stamp their own opinions and perspectives on the term. There is a wonderful scene in Shogun in which several Japanese calmly discuss how they are so much civilized than the shipwrecked English sailors, which are being boiled alive at the time. One person’s culture is another person’s primitivism.

*Insert captions under pictures to allow access to the blind. Picture from wikipedia.

Number theory

Numbers have significance well beyond their quantitative meaning.  For example, the term 24/7 is universally understood to mean around the clock without mention of the units, i.e., hours and days per week. The challenge for translators and non-natives is understanding the localized meaning, which may or may exist in the culture of the person trying to understand the term. Misinterpretation can lead to confusion at best and wrong conclusions at worst.

The most obvious number issues are quantities, dates and time.  Some languages, notably English, use the decimal point to distinguish the whole numbers from the decimal and lower numbers, e.g. 5.547 percent is 5 and 547/1000 percent.  By contrast, the comma is used to divide between each three places in whole numbers, e.g. 7,890 is seven thousand and eight hundred and ninety. By contrast, the French, among others, reverse this convention such that 5.547 is five thousand, five hundred and forty-seven while 7,890 is 7 and 890/1000 percent.  What a difference a punctuation mark can make.  The date issue can be critical.  The United States is almost the sole country that places the month before the day with most other countries starting the date of the month. Thus, translators often write out the name of the month to avoid any potential confusion. Europe traditionally has used a 24-hour clock such that each hour has a specific number. For example, 12:00 and 24:00 are clearly different times.  By contrast, in the United States, while few institutions use “military time” as the 24-hour clock is referred to, most people add am or pm or morning and evening. The problem is even Americans are confused whether 12 am is midnight or noon (it is the latter). 

In some cases, each county has its own variation of important numbers.  For instance, to call for an ambulance in the United States, you dial 911 while in France it is 112, Israel 101 and Russia 02, to name just a few.  For those who still have perfect vision, in the United States, you have 20/20 vision, meaning that you can see a certain image at 20 feet while France you have 10 vision and Israel 6/6. As they say, to each his own.

The United States has some of its specific terms.  A company filing Chapter 7 or 11 is going bankrupt. 9/11 is day of mourning that will not be forgotten for many decades. Any baseball fan knows that a 300 hitter is pretty good (for those not in the know, he gets a hit 30 percent of the time) while a 500 team has the same number of wins and losses.  In colleges, any 101 course is introductory, e.g., Economics 101 is the initial course. On the financial front, most Americans file a 1040 form of some type and know that the IRS requires it if they may not know how to fill it in. For that matter, Israeli get a 106 form from their employer every year reporting their income and deductions for the entire tax year. You got to be there to understand.

Culture also has added significance to numbers but the effect is often generational. Depending on the age, people may remember Adam 12, a patrol cop show from the 1960’s, Room 222, a TV program about a school in the early 1970’s and Beverly Hills 92010 for those a bit younger.  In terms of books, 1984 is a well-known book by George Orwell. Of course, all living generations know that 007 is a spy.

If I live until 120, as they say in Hebrew, I will probably witness the appearance of num(b)erous digital terms. Some will stick while others will be forgotten as in Bug 2000. Yet, numbers are here to stay.

Russian certified cruelty

Having just translated a Russian Federation academic certificate and its accompanying transcript, I got a glimpse of how merciless a supposedly bland certificate can be, at least to American eyes.

To explain, I am a graduate of an American university, UC Santa Cruz, affectionately known as Uncle Charley’s Summer Camp, as well as an English institution, Leicester, quaintly pronounced lester.  I even have official graduation diploma to prove it. On these hallowed pieces of paper, my name, degree, subject and year of graduation are listed. What they prove is subject to debate but it is safe to say that I proved that had enough patience and discipline, not necessarily intelligence, to “meet the academic requirements for the degree.”

Of course, the diploma itself does not state how long I took or how well I did or even what at what age and which date I began my studies. As an illustration of the possible variations, during the Vietnam era in the United States, since college enrollment could be delayed by being drafted, one way to avoid serving in the army was to stay in college. Doonesbury’s classic character (whose name escapes me and Google search) gave new definition to the term 10 year plan as he kept on changed major just before completing the last course until he distressingly discovered that there were no majors to switch to. So, most diplomas merely inform the reader of the completion of the requirements.

I am aware that the Latin term cum laude does occasionally appear on Western certificates but I apparently hanged around the wrong group of people. My brother got this supplement while I did not receive it, deservingly so. In any case, I always had the impression that the term was used by owners of dogs named Laude to get them to go home after a walk. As Tom Lehrer would say, but I digress.

By contrast in that merciless motherland that is the Russian Federation (aka Soviet Union and Russia, by generation), students have no secrets. All of the embarrassing facts appear on the certificate leaving the student nowhere to hide. First, the critical eye notices that date and particulars of the previous academic degree. So, if you went back to college some ten years after high school, you have a lot to explain. Then, the certificate viciously informs the reader that the program should take x amount of years and this particular student took y number of years. That could really raise a red flag among employers, not a good thing. The most damaging detail on a Russian academic certificate is three nasty letters before the certificate number: всг and вса. These translate as Russian Diploma of Specialty without Excellence and Russian Diploma of Specialty with Excellence. In other words, at a glance, without even looking at your transcripts, the employer can tell if you enriched the university or the university enriched you.  Try explaining that away.  Alas, students are held strictly accountable. Such cruelty!

Democratic uncertainty

Jean-François Revel in his book The Totalitarian Temptation (1977) wrote in regards to democracy (and love) that there is no accepted definition but instead clear symptoms.  In other words, the proof that a country is a true democracy is whether it is a free press, safe environment for opposition, protection of minorities and exchange of leaders, to name a few. Of course, there are intermediate states between ultimate democracy and absolute dictatorship but an analysis of all the political conditions quickly demonstrates which citizens actually have rights.

Pseudo democracies have always existed.  The Soviet Union, Mexico and India had regular elections while Hitler was an elected leader, albeit only once. Such countries generally have constitutions and legal codes that formally but not in practice allow protest and opposition.  Modern examples of fake democracies include Turkey and Russia. In these countries, the same leader has ruled for more than a decade, as president or prime minister, with any effective opposition leader being arrested or, as Putin has done, assassinated. The press is effectively government run.  Of course, the established leaders are quite popular. In fact, one sure sign of a non-democracy is when the ruling party received more than 80% of the vote.

Worldwide, today's democratic politics are quite volatile. Many countries conduct elections in an environment of non-tolerance or even hate between the competing parties.  While the tone of the discussions in these countries can be disconcerting, especially in terms of racism, the mere existence of a public debate on key issues and its presence on all forms of media without fear of a legal or extralegal penalty provides hope for the future. The United States and Europe will emerge stronger as the candidates and the public discuss and determine their place in the world and the role of immigrants in their societies. In Israel, the call for increased control of the press by the ruling party is worrying but the court system and major parties still promote freedom of speech. India and Mexico, formerly fiefdoms of their ruling parties, frequently replace ineffective governments to the benefit of their countries. Brazil even impeached its president, an unlikely event a few decades ago.

According to Heisenberg's theory of uncertainty, an observer can have total knowledge of location or direction or partial knowledge of both but not complete knowledge of both. In other words, the closer you look at the trees, the harder it is judge the forest and vise versa. As a foreign observer watching the political processes occurring worldwide, I appreciate democracy and relish the viewing of them even if the actual content of the public debate is disturbing or insulting. In such societies, controversial issues are resolved for the public good, not for the benefit of a specific party or leader. As Revel said, in practice, with all of its imperfections, democracy is much better for people than totalitarianism.

Puttin’ Putin in his (historical) place

I recently translated some articles on Putin, the elected dictator of the Russian Federation.  It brought up two seemingly separate memories.  Once is a book dated written in 1978 by Alexander Yanov describing the Russian new right in the then-called Soviet Union. He discusses the ideology of the right-wing opposition to communism, as personified by the Solzhenitsyn, noting its absence of any enthusiasm for democracy and pluralism. The other is a joke about Russian thinking: a Russian peasant, when given the choice of anything he wanted on condition that his neighbor gets twice as much, chose to have one eye removed. My thoughts during this translation were how Yanov was correct about the historical cycle of Russian politics and how tragic it is.

To explain, Yanov noted the bipolar behavior of Russian national politics from extreme terror by an individual (Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Stalin, to name a few) to irresponsible leadership by small class of elite (Moscow boyars, post-Soviet industrialists). He noted the historical lack of ruling elite trusted by the mass of people to act in the overall good of the country.  As a result, populist leaders, such as Putin, have had no problem gaining support in suppressing any organized opposition to totalitarianism. He contrasted this with the UK, where the British aristocracy had (barely) enough wisdom to see that the only way to guarantee their dominance was to ensure a decent life for the common folk. 

This consideration for the general welfare in England allowed for the gradual development to complete democracy. By contrast, Russia is once again in its dictatorship mode, creating “equality in poverty”, i.e. nobody has any real freedom. For those that would like to see a confident, not paranoid Russia and believe in the intellectual potential of Russians, this situation is a depressing tragedy, a bit like watching a drug addict trying to kick his habit.

I would to find some good Russian expression putting some silver lining to this cloud, but, alas, Russian proverbs tend to be as pessimistic as the current political situation.  Instead, I will do as most Russians have historically done, wait patiently until something changes but without any great hope.

Heads of state

An alien arriving on our planet would have a hard time understanding who the boss is in the countries of the world.  Titles and powers seem to have no consistency and are completely dependent on the country and year.

For example, the United Unites has a president and a vice president but no prime minister.  The president has all of the executive powers but delegates funeral visits in foreign countries to the vice-president, probably in application of the principle of out of sight, out of mind. Following the long reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a president is limited to two terms of four years, i.e. eight years of power, which is much healthier for the president and the country.

By contrast, France has a president and a prime minister, but the president has all the powers and changes the prime minister like many women change their hair stylist.  After all, someone must be responsible for the high employment and taxes.  Designed for the larage ego of General de Gaulle, the term of the presidency is six years and limited to two times, i.e. 12 years, 50% more than in the U.S. As a result of this long exposure to toxic power, most French presidents start believing they are Napoleon.  At least, the French president does go to the funerals of foreign leaders, at least most of the time.

England has a prime minister and a royal figure, generally a queen in the last two centuries.  The former is the true political leader of the country while the latter mainly handles ceremonial details and provides sufficient material to the tabloids so that the government can do its business without undue interference from the media.  This system seems to be more stable than the opposite system used in many European countries until World War I whereby the royal figure had the power and the prime minister was a bit of an errand boy.  Granted, Bismarck and Metternich were rather efficient gofers for Prussia and Austria but that was not the rule.

Israel, like France, has a president and prime minister but has the opposite relation. The Prime Minister has the power while the president goes on fun trips abroad and entertains the foreign diplomats.  Alas, Israeli presidents in recent decades been very deficient in distracting media attention from the government.  On average, elections occur every two years or so.   On the other hand, Israel tends to stick with the same prime minister for many years.  Apparently, the devil you know is preferable. By contrast, the news generated by the presidents has been less than flattering to Israel.  From Ezer Weizman’s politically incorrect comments about various groups in society to Katzav’s conviction for rape, the situation has gone from bad to worse.  Fortunately, the current president is humorously irrelevant, a clear improvement.  At least, he says the right things.

The confusion gets really thick in Turkey and Russia, where there are presidents that used to be prime ministers. They both had to resign from the latter role because of constitutional terms limits and then got themselves elected as presidents.  The situation would be much simpler, if not better, if they just did like many African presidents, elect themselves for life.  That way, we all could now who really runs the show.

So, the variations in nomenclature for the 1^st citizen of a country are numerous and puzzling. For that matter, we humans seem to like it that way.  What difference does it make?  There are no visiting aliens anyway, right?

Pride and Prejudice

Experts and non-experts often describe the behavior of both people and nations using the same terms.  A country can have its ego broken or act childishly.  Likewise, their relations with their peers are often affected by deep, long-standings perceptions of the world.  In the case of a country, clearly each citizen may have a somewhat different concept of the world around him or her, but some kind of underlying approach or consensus often dominates its culture.

For example, the United States carries with it this ingrained belief that America and American values are good and beloved.  This naivety may result from the perception that God is on its side in reflection of its heritage of being a haven for overly fervent Christians or from the sheer lack of personal knowledge of the rest of the world resulting from the fact even today many Americans have never left the country.  This faith is not by definition negative either since that the optimism has made it a pioneer in many fields of endeavor. On the other hand, American presidents, products of this ethos, always seem to be shocked that the rest of the world doesn’t want those American values, lies to America and solves political and diplomatic disagreements by violence, to name just a few disappointments. So, to be American is to believe in Pangloss’ optimism and expect that same from others.

Russia, currently known as the Russian Federation, has a completely different history.  A product of an Asian people, the Tartars, married to Europe by Peter the Great, it has always has a love-hate relationship with Western culture. These two poles are reflected in its two historical capital cities, Moscow and Petersburg (Leningrad).  In practice, Russian feels strong in its place in the Asian world, imposing its will with ruthlessness if required, as what happened in Chechnya.  By contrast, its relations with Europe, and by extension to the United States, are characterized by an inferiority complex, resulting in defensiveness.  Like a child unsure of itself, its behavior to the West goes from aggressive, i.e. threatening to invade Europe after World War II, to passive, the most famous example being Stalin’s agreement with Hitler.  Russia’s leaders, whether tsars, general secretaries or presidents, have to show its people that they are strong vis-à-vis the West while hiding its relative economic weakness.  Dealing with Russia is like handling a very prickly pear.

Israel behaves like an orphan.  On the one hand, it wants to be one of the nations. On the other hand, it doesn't feel like the rest of the world wants it to join that club.  This conflict leads to a perpetual internal debate whether Israel should be a “light to the (other) peoples” as the Bible says, showing them the ethical way to behave or do what it wants since it makes no difference anyway.  Israel and Israelis are baffled by the international criticism of its policy toward Arab countries and the Palestinians in particular since, in its eyes at least, it gets blamed even when it tries to do the" right” thing in European and American eyes, whose vision is quite impaired according to local opinion.  Israel is the tough kid with a wounded soul.

Thus, while a country is made up of a multitude of individuals, some kind of group pathos seems to pass on from generation to generation, creating a repeating pattern of international behavior.

I would be interested in hearing your reactions and psychological profiles of other countries.

A country in a picture

Looking at an advertisement for a French language learning program, I realized the exclusive club to which France belongs: countries that have a picture of a building that is identified with that country worldwide.  That list includes the following:

The United States – the Statue of Liberty

England – Big Ben

France – the Eiffel Tower

Russian – the Kremlin

Egypt – the Pyramids

Israel – the Western Wall

Greece – the Acropolis

It should be noted that many important and/or ancient countries lack any true internationally recognized symbol, including Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, Ethiopia, Japan, and Austria, to name just a few.

This exclusivity brings up the question of the requirements of a dominant national construction symbol.

Clearly, the edifice must be large, but not too large for the eye to frame.  As any visitor to Paris knows, it is possible to take a quite presentable picture of the Eiffel Tower from half of Paris.  Thus, that steel monstrosity is large enough to appreciate without requiring a helicopter to do so.  By contrast, the Great Wall of China is only distinguishable from countless other defense walls by its sheer length, best distinguished from space, not practical for the average tourist.

In addition, the building itself must be unique in purpose, not just a finer version of a relatively common building.  The Statue of Liberty is completely unique as are the Pyramids. By contrast, the Reichstag building in Berlin, the Sydney opera, or the Canadian CNN tower, clearly distinguishable from their lesser peers, are still not unique enough to make a universally clear link to its country.

Finally, the building must have some national, as compared to local, symbolic meaning.  The Western Wall represents for Israelis and Jews a reminder and a call. The Kremlin symbolizes Russian power and independence.   Contrast those meanings with a Venetian gondolier on his boat.  The image is clearly linked with Venice, which in turn is clearly linked with Italy.  Yet, it would be hard to say that this boat scene represents Italy.

A universally recognized national building is a major undertaking, taking its toll in blood, sweat, and tears, not to mention a huge amount of money.  Still, in this case, a picture is worth more than a thousand words.