Bridging the gap between the East and the West cultures is enormously challenging. The philosophies of the two, viz., the Cult of Harmony and the Cult of the Person respectively, both embrace views of extremely different deities, so to speak: the Harmony (Environment) and the Person (the Individual).
The Cult of Harmony places a high value on oneness, speaks of tranquility and quiet blending with the community and the willingness to sacrifice it all for the sake of peace and unity. In analogy, it is similar to the phenomenon called Centrifugal Force (moving away from the center or axis) wherein the community is the universe of every individual and that everything he/she will do must be in congruence to the demands of the society. Hence, his/her efforts are moving away from himself/herself just so he/she could give to the benefit of the community.
The Cult of the Person, on the contrary, pays considerable premium on the Self, whose welfare and self-actualization is the cynosure of the community. The idea holds the same in the Centripetal Force (moving towards the center or axis) where the person is magnified to be the center of the universe and everything else simply orbits around him. The efforts of the government, for example, are geared towards the center, i.e., to the benefit and welfare of the individual. His/her sense of worth is derived from his/her productivity or ‘usefulness,’ provided all needs are met.
In light of the foregoing, a question now remains to be answered. Is it possible to integrate the two cultures? Can there be a cross between them? Can we bridge the gap?
Let me first establish safe foundations here. The two cultures hold extreme beliefs and in this regard, I opine that anything extreme is dangerous. That is to say, anything in excess is detrimental. It is no different to freedom that is tied with responsibility. Everything has boundaries and to traverse that boundary is to invite ruin. Being on opposite ends of the spectrum, the two cults possess positive and negative attributes, a plus and a minus. It is their lack of moderation that would account to their destructive end. Considering this therefore, the two beliefs are actually in no way serving the good of their cult to the highest.
Having stated the intrinsic differences and the road where the cults run parallel, then a cross or a bridge can now be made between them.
To point, I certainly believe that it is possible to integrate the Eastern and Western cultures. As mentioned, they are extreme opposites, hence, moderation in practice and a virtue of compromise would be the key. It affects the issues at hand. For example, in the ‘quest’ for space or privacy, inordinate demand for personal space, (i.e., the Cult of the Person) can lead to health and mental disturbance thus depriving a person of his/her capacity to truly belong. Each and everyone of us seeks to attain a certain level of intimacy with someone and this need is something innate, not acquired. Especially so in the event of tragedy and personal loss where giving free rein to one’s emotion and grief could be most important if one were to survive a crisis. Which leads me to say that suppression of the same can also affect the person adversely, if not detrimentally.
There is always a place for everything. The need to give and allow space is one, in order to gain more of wisdom and courage. Sometimes in the stillness of our soul we grow in wisdom and strength. To give a person his space is to treat him with respect. To treat him with respect is to truly value him.
In a different light, the Cult of Harmony traverses the boundary of self-giving to community. Again this extreme way of life poses a dangerous threat to one’s individuality and inherent rights. A balance is warranted. Undue sacrifice for the community, in the name of harmony yet at the expense of the person, will inevitably hurt both the system and the person. Soon we must realize that a person also lives for himself/herself. He/She is a separate living entity - with own personality, legitimate needs, dignity, and deserving of repect. He/She has a rightful place in the community where his/her voice must be heard. Subservience can sometimes hinder self-actualization which everybody owes to himself/herself. It is nature dictated and nobody must be deprived of this freedom and choice. To ignore this truth is to violate the divine law that has imputed value to every human being.
These cultural extremes can merge in harmony if only we could see where they fit and serve the individual and the community. There is no need for a tug-of-war, pushing and pulling one another to the extreme. Both cults are equitable only in the light of sound and fair practice where all positive attributes are taken home and the negatives discarded. Whatever brings wholeness and well-being to the society and individual must perpetuate in either cult. Conversely, we must avert actions that could debase human worth or the community. Neither of the cults must gain advantage over the other. We simply weed out what will work from what will not and try to avoid falling into the snare of excess and pit of self-destruction.
There is always a constraint, a certain limit to every act or behavior which has a propensity to be committed in excess. This is the rule. Perhaps this must operate if we yearn for a life free of unreasonable fanaticism and devotion to either cult. We must be free, as extreme as it is, from any web of manipulation that any of these cults might possibly exert upon us.
Another way of bridging the gap between the East and the West cults is by demonstrating genuine respect for another’s culture. Case in point is when an occasion calls for certain cultural behavior, one must be careful in passing judgment or expressing personal biases. Maybe all that is demanded at the moment is simply respect and understanding to areas that include cultural heritage, ancient beliefs, strange festivals and holidays, social norms, unheard of oral traditions/sayings and manners of behavior. At any rate, all these zero-in on acceptability sans judgment. The idea of cultural immersion can be a good tool to help someone understand where the other person is coming. It can likewise keep us from gauging people against our set of norms and expectations. Preconceived notion and mindset about a particular individual must be eliminated consciously if one is serious in attaining cultural understanding and meaningful communication. Needless to say, these ‘negatives’ have nothing to do with building bridges and everything to do with creating gaps between and among people of diverse cultures.
In the end, it is not about being transformed or molded into a new culture. Rather, it is simply giving respect to where respect is due. There is no need to lose one’s identity. Cognizance alone is not enough. We must find some psychological complement lying underneath our differences. Only when we are able to perceive this similarity with people of different culture, and in the process become mutually comfortable, can we finally say that we have indeed bridged the gap.
