On Being Human by Osman Latiff

There are many types of Otherness which advance ‘structural’ expressions of “Othering”.

The distances between us, like the “high gulf” in Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s poem in which “Two Scavengers In A Truck” come into close proximity with “Two Beautiful People In A Mercedes”:

“And the younger of the two/Also with sunglasses and long hair/About the same age as the Mercedes driver/And both scavengers gazing down/As from a great distance/At the cool couple/As if they were watching some odorless TV ad/In which everything is possible/And the very red light for an instant/Holding all four close together/As if anything at all were possible/Between them”.

The poem describes a “bright garbage truck with two garbage men in red plastic blazers”, the men look down into “an elegant open Mercedes with an elegant couple in it.” The men are “hunched back/Looking like some/Gargoyle Quasimodo”, while the wealthy man in the Mercedes has “shoulder-length blond hair & sunglasses”. His apparent opposite, Othered by our perceptions of those who exist on the margins of social class yards, is afforded a more plain description. Structural otherness, the separating and designating to that Other a substandard living space, an erecting of physical barriers to keep out the ‘untamed’ is vivid in the landscape of Hebron in Palestine. There are two roads leading to Masjid al-Khalil (Abraham Mosque) separated by a fence and barbed wire. One of the roads is clean and asphalt-paved, easily accessible for the elderly and children, guarded and pleasant. This road is for Jewish settlers. The other road is an uneven dirt path, littered and narrow and unsuitable for walking particularly for the disabled and elderly. The contrast is glaring. Roads designated for Palestinians are restricted by dozens of checkpoints and barriers, severely delaying access. The entrances to the checkpoints resemble the front of a maximum-security prison.

Apartheid in South Africa which forced segregation of Blacks in North America in the twentieth century, the Israel’s separation wall, the “Apartheid roads” in Hebron are all designed to remove others from the circle of human concern. This is to relay the message that those Others are not part of the society, not a part of who “we are”. Each is a structural expression of saying “you don’t belong”, creating an Otherised structural position within society.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) taught us that greatness does not lie necessarily in the extent of a person’s wealth, particularly if that wealth is not used in a responsible way, but that greatness lies in the richness of a person’s heart. The Muslim must never judge a person he comes into contact with by his clothing, by his physical appearance or any seeming abnormality he might exhibit. Each of these is superficial in contrast to the workings of that individual’s heart. It was the practice of many of the Prophet’s companions to exhibit a simplicity in their appearances despite their lofty social standings. The Qur’ān in fact teaches that:

17:37 “Do not strut arrogantly about the earth: you cannot break it open, nor match the mountains in height.” And 25:63 “The servants of the Lord of Mercy are those who walk humbly on the earth, and who, when the foolish address them, reply, ‘Peace’”.

It is befitting one to not carry himself in an exalted way nor to adopt a spirit of arrogance which would inhibit his approaching, communicating with or keeping company with those who exist on the margins of society. The Prophet (peace be upon him) in fact was described beautifully by Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī in the following way:

“He was the most forbearing of people, the most courageous of people, the most just of people, the most chaste of people. His hand never touched the hand of any woman unless he owned her as a slave or was married to her or was closely related to her by blood (mahram).

He was the most generous of people, who never kept a dinar or a dirham with him overnight.

If he had anything left over and he could not find someone to give it to before night came, he would not go home until he had donated it to someone who needed it. He did not take anything from that which Allāh had bestowed upon him except one year’s supply of the simplest provisions, dates and barley, giving all of that for the sake of Allāh. He was never asked for anything but he gave it, then he would go back to his annual supplies and donate from them to those who needed it more, then he might run out before the year ended. He used to repair his own sandals and mend his own clothes, and he would help his family in the home and cut meat for them. He was the most modest of people and would not look anyone straight in the eye. He would respond to the invitations of slave and free alike, and accept a gift even if it was a cup of milk, and he would reward a person for it. He did not eat food that had been given in charity, and he would respond to slave women and the poor when they asked him for something. He got angry for the sake of his Lord but he did not get angry for his own sake. He would adhere to the truth even if that resulted in harm for himself or his companions. He found one of the best of his companions slain in an area where Jews lived, but he did not treat them harshly or do more than what which is prescribed by sharīʿah.

Rather he paid a diyah for him of one hundred camels even though some of his companions were in desperate need of just one camel. He would tie a rock to his stomach to ward off hunger pangs, and he did not refuse halal food or and he would not eat reclining or at a table.

He never ate his fill of bread for three days in a row until he met Allāh, may He be exalted, as he would prefer to give away what he had rather than eat his fill, not because of poverty or miserliness. He would accept invitations to meals, visit the sick, and attend funerals. He walked alone among his enemies without a guard. He was the most humble and quiet of people without being arrogant, the most eloquent without being long-winded, the most cheerful of countenance. He did not worry about worldly matters. He wore whatever he found, and let his slave or others ride behind him on his mount. He rode whatever was available, sometimes a horse, sometimes a camel, sometimes a mule and sometimes a donkey. Sometimes he walked barefoot, with no cloak, turban or cap, visiting the sick in the furthest parts of Madina. He loved perfume and hated foul smells. He would sit with the poor and offer food to and eat with the needy, honouring the virtuous and softening the hearts of people of status by treating them kindly. He upheld ties of kinship without favouring his relatives over those who were better than them, and he did not treat anyone harshly. He accepted the excuses of those who apologized to him; he would joke but he only spoke the truth, and he would smile without laughing out loud.

If he saw permissible play he did not denounce it, and he raced with his wife. When voices were raised against him, he bore that with patience. He had slaves, male and female, but he did not eat or dress any better than they did. He did not waste time without striving for the sake of Allāh or doing that which was essential to better himself. He did not look down on any poor person because of his poverty or chronic sickness, and he did not fear any king because of his power. He called both of them to Allāh on equal terms.”55

So, in the viewing of a different world, a world in which spaces and boundaries can assert a self-identity, a sense of belonging, we must appreciate these also exist for the Other and not in spite of the Other. Doing this, involves an empathy founded on acknowledging the privilege that ‘space’ accords. Where war and conflict have to do with space and locations of space, those who resist also situate themselves within space defined by what they perceive about the conflicts they challenge. Brian Haw in 2003 chose to make the scene of his anti-war protest a site on the paved floor outside Parliament Square. The reason for his encampment was to protest against the war in Iraq and in particular how the war gave birth to many orphans in Iraq. We see in his self-confinement an actualising of the Other he identified with; the empathy he stimulated is discernible not only in ‘space’ restrictions, but in its way of ‘taking the place’ of the Other. In his protest, we appreciate how he sought to ‘show’ his spectators not only his act of protest, but also the broadened demarcations of self and Otherness in which the disparity in size between Parliament and his tent, between structure and cloth might connect to what he viewed as the disparity between victim and aggressor.

In a similar sentiment, at the holocaust memorial in Auschwitz, photographic testimony is positioned in a way that symbolises individuality and togetherness and offsets Nazi depersonalisation of its victims. Individualised entries can exist in a space arranged to reflect the scale of collective suffering, the collectivised experience of Jewish prisoners, as well as to emphasise their individual names and occupations. The space thus meshes an imagined collective past for the museum visitors with an individualised visual connection with single prisoners. One is confronted with an undoing of what had dehumanised those prisoners. Their clothes, shoes, suitcases, physical features of hair, handwriting, all serve to bring into proximity what was denied, abstracted and distanced. The site and space of the museum is of course altogether present in accentuating the memory of the holocaust though Auschwitz itself was anything but an isotropic space. It was instead fragmented with the endless movement of prisoners from sub-camps. Each displayed a photographic portrait of the prisoner including his or her name, under which is the prison number and details of ethnicity, date of birth, occupation before imprisonment, date of deportation and date of death. The arrangement of the portraits suggests solidarity, as well as an equalising in victimhood and the finality of death at Auschwitz. They serve as a testimony to a ‘present’ life, sullied though still complete and not yet physically, emotionally and mentally decimated by camp life. The wall of portraits offsets other photographs and drawings which do graphically portray the latter. Rachel Aliene Corrie who was an American peace activist working with the Palestinian-led human rights and non-violent resistance group International Solidarity Movement (ISM henceforth) challenged a structural otherness in her work to defend the homes of Palestinian farmers. She travelled to Israel in January 2003 and then to the West Bank where she received training from the ISM. She would frequently gather with several American and British activists resisting the demolition of Palestinian homes. On March 16, 2003 during the Second Intifada she gathered with other activists outside the home of a Palestinian pharmacist when she was crushed to death under an armoured IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) bulldozer. Her statements which shed very important light on ‘self’ and ‘other’ considerations and the way they relate to space, identity and identification are taken from Let Me Stand Alone: The Journals of Rachel Corrie, made up of journal entries and emails later selected for publication by her parents.

On January 29, 2003 whilst Corrie was stationed in Gaza she observed and commented on how limitations of space, restrictions of movement, of sensory relationship with land and the way children are affected by violence come to have an important bearing on landscape and landscaping for the Palestinians. This is a jail that the jailkeepers decided was too big, so now they are squeezing it smaller. The people here live within the smell of the ocean but they can’t go see it anymore. “What is there beautiful? We could go see the ocean. One thing beautiful. Now I cannot see the ocean. What is for the children that is beautiful? An eight-year old named Ali died the day before I came. He just wanted to look at the tank – see the tank – and they explode his head.”56 The expanse of the ocean is set against the constricted land of Gaza. The suffering of its people is exacerbated through their denial of vision of a landscape that they believe is inherently theirs. While ‘landscape’ of any land is made up of the same societal processes, ‘landscaping’ understood as a verb is about the way in which land is transformed by human agency, creating unique spaces upon which sites are located.57

For the residents of Gaza, this means that though they can ‘smell’ the ocean they cannot ‘see’ it and it is this inability of natives to enjoy ‘what is’ beautiful for their children that informs her empathetic outlook.58 Demarcations of Self and Otherness for Rachel here are receptive; she does not espouse mutuality in relations between her and the Palestinians, it is instead unilateral. Rachel’s inclusion of child victim Ali in her account serves to juxtapose the failing to see the ocean with seeing ‘the tank – and they explode his head.’ She uses her letter to accentuate destruction in what she observes by juxtaposing the natural with the mechanical.

The impression is that nothing is ‘seen’, both beauty and cruelty are meshed together into a domain in which things are only felt. Rachel reflects on her privilege as a ‘white-skinned’ person who can see and witness, and whose feelings mandate a transcending of Self/Other boundaries. The Gaza City that Corrie describes is actually ‘lost’ ‘in the field of vision’, dislocated in vision and memory. Since the Gazan children know the ocean is there, but cannot see it, they have a dislocated visual attachment but still retain the city through sensory attachment of smell, and points of landscaping they believe are inherently Palestinian. We question whether we can know if Corrie mirrors Ali’s vantage point? What is Ali’s smell of the ocean in comparison to Corrie’s?

Corrie again juxtaposes the way space and its temporalities are considered by the Palestinians she observes whilst they play: “Children play behind us and we yell, “La! La!” when they try to wander out into the rubble to play with us – because somehow even though you are born in a cage and you have never lived without shooting all night, you are still able to play.”59

Her description of a ‘cage’ denotes restriction; in the physical confinement that she witnesses she is able to juxtapose ‘cage’ and ‘shooting’ with ‘play’, drawing on the mutual iconic codes by which her audience can relate to children. Corrie’s description of children who have a sensory relationship to a land that has become ‘imagined’ and cagelike is insightful for what it tells us about Self/Other perceptions. Both descriptive accounts are her own perceptions, and an adult perception, of what children in Gaza are experiencing.

In a letter to her mother dated January 19, 2003, Corrie is able to further transcend the dominant discourse of suffering and victimisation by inverting ‘self’ and ‘other’ boundaries:

“I think white people sometimes suffer in the United States from a system that still privileges us over people of color; men suffer from the system that privileges them over women; and Jewish Israelis suffer (much more than white people and men in the U.S.) from a system in Israel that privileges them over Palestinian-Israelis and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Nevertheless, the system remains a racist one.”60

Corrie’s words, a representation of unipolarity between dominant and subordinate, seem to stem from empathetic considerations informed in her 5th grade school speech in which she instructed: “They are us, we are them.”61 She sees this normalising of Self and Other as prerequisite to empathetic considerations. The togetherness that Corrie describes is a salient motif in the work of activists who realise the need to transcend geo-political temporalities to reshape ‘self’ and ‘other’ perceptions. In the following comment, Corrie constructs Self/Other identity through place-making wherein the destruction of ‘orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees’ allows for an empathic consideration at a particularly personal level; by drawing on ‘Uncle Craig’ and ‘Grandma’ “I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed - just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labour of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could. I think Uncle Craig would. I think probably Grandma would. I think I would.”62

Corrie seeks to convince her mother by merging conflict responses of Self/Other binaries.

Corrie’s drawing together mental landscapes from Palestinian and American settings disallow an embracing of an idealised system as a mere cultural fashion. By aligning herself with both landscapes, we do not sense a ‘distance’ from the causes of the environmental destruction she describes. Corrie describes how any consideration of the sacred landscape of Gaza would necessitate a reflection of the ecological responsibilities of those who live there. Corrie’s references to her grandfather reflect the necessity of experience as a determinant of empathy.

She submits that ‘Grandma’ could well understand the plight of the Palestinians since she has experience of what they might feel at the loss of their olive trees.

In her letter, she also engages the theoretical and practical reality of bodies moving through areas, locations and obstacles by situating native residents of Gaza, herself and her relatives as present and absent actors. The language Corrie uses to describe feelings of injustice and the right of the Palestinians to resist draws extensively on her own or what she considers universal responses to rights of belonging. Corrie therefore intimates that for both Palestinians and Americans, there is an emotional sense of belonging to agricultural landscapes, ‘care’, ‘cultivation’ and ‘grow’ becoming keywords that shape the political form of her solidarity. The ‘labour of love’ she describes required to ‘make things grow’ is an interesting description in light of how it correlates with the maternal symbolism used by Palestinian farmers.63