Global Hybrids Go Home
During the height of the globalization age in the late 1990s, many leading Zeitgeist watchers were celebrating the rise of the “New Cosmopolitans,” a term coined by business reporter G. Pascal Zachary. A new civilization was being born out of the increasing flow of money, products, ideas, and most important, people, across the borders of decaying nation-states. In this post-modern globalized society, the new determinants for business, political and cultural success were national diversity and a “mongrel” sense of self, Zachary proposed in The Global Me: The New Cosmopolitan Edge, in which he challenged the central tenets of Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” paradigm.
In The Global Me, Zachary provided the readers with a tour of the New, New Brave World and introduced us to fascinating characters, ranging from high-tech entrepreneurs to international aid workers, who posses the attractive mix of “roots” and “wings”—that is, hyper-mobile “global hybrids” with “transnational identities,” who won’t stay put in one place, who experience “the breakdown of the unitary self, the rising appetite for diversity, the growing taste for gumbo, the proliferation of voluntary attachments to places, practices and communities.” These individuals with roots in more than one nation and with wings to fly anywhere and anytime were “the fruits of the new patterns in migration and mobility,” Zachary wrote. “They are the future.”
Or perhaps they’ll be recalled one day as historical transient figures, the beneficiaries of the proverbial 15 minutes of fame in the brief pre-9/11 episode of globalization. The are the visitors who may have outstayed their welcome into our vanishing cosmopolitan Zeitgeist, their wings being cut as they are deported into the real world of rising nationalism, ethnic rivalry and religious tensions, returning to their roots, where they like it or not.
In many ways, Tarek Khalil (Haaz Sleiman), a Syrian of Lebanese (father) and Palestinian (mother) extraction, who plays the djembe, an African drum, in jazz bands in Manhattan, in Tom McCarthy’s “The Visitor” (2007/I), which has just opened nationwide, is a global hybrid in the making, the ultimate multicultural fantasy-child of your friendly Western liberal intellectual who seem to be confident that if only, if only Tarek wouldn’t have been deported from America and would have been allowed to spread his wings in this country, he wouldn’t have ended-up flying, like some other illegal immigrants into the, say, Twin Towers in New York. Instead, Tarek would have composed a musical fusionist symphony, combing Arab tunes and African melodies that would have helped bridge different civilizations. He wouldn’t have been humiliated in an ugly detention center for illegal immigrants in Queens but would been hailed as a cultural icon at Lincoln Center, as outsider who came in and succeeded in injecting new blood into America’s decaying cultural veins.
After all, unlike Mohammad Atta, Tarek who is so, so cool, adorned with a fashionable three-day stubble of a beard (very non-Osama-like) and wearing Obama’s short haircut, is a “good” secular Moslem. “I’m a bad Moslem,” he explains as he drinks a glass of red wine (not whiskey! And he doesn’t smoke…). Tarek is fluent in several languages, including English, French and Arabic, and knowledgeable of world affairs, including the intricacies of economic globalization. He is married to the sexy and trendy Zainab (Danai Gurira) from Senegal who is also “illegal” and who despite her model-like looks and figure is also very brainy and a “good Moslem” (she doesn’t drink alcohol). And let’s not forget that the peace-loving Tarek is also in a habit of giving a high-five to his Israeli pal Ze’ev (Tzahi Moskovitz) who works with Zainab, selling hand-make trinkets to condescending and globally illiterate Americans (who think that Senegal borders South Africa) in an open market in Manhattan, a mini-model world trade center, if you will.
And then there was Tarek’s late dad, a dissident journalist who had been jailed and tortured by the Assads in Syria, leaving behind Tarek’s mom, Mouna Khalil, played by the Israeli-Palestinian Hiam Abbass, who gives an excellent performance (Oscar?) as a refined Levantine lady who exudes a quite dignity and a certain stoicism coupled with Arab bigotry (“She is so black,” is what she has to say about her new daughter-in-law). Mouna straddles two worlds–East (she misses the smells of the Damascus’ markets) and West (she wants to see “Phantom of the Opera”)—but seems to feel comfortable in neither: she lives as an illegal immigrant in Michigan after the American government had refused to grant her family a political asylum. Tarek, on the other hand, feels secure in New York as the child of the many worlds to which he belongs, that like in the case of other global hybrids help him to be who he is—the creative cosmopolitan. Who gives a damn about a Greed Card? “New York=The World” is Tarek’s home and he hopes that everyone out there will join him in drumming his American-Arab-African version of Kumbaya.
His unlikely student in this movie is Walter Vale, played by Richard Jenkins who is close to perfect in the role of sombre middle aged and widowed economics professor who teaches college in Connecticut. Walter represents the all-too-familiar very educated and very white man, a caricature of your unfriendly, cold, calculating, stuffy and snobby WASP, who is very uncomfortable in his own skin. He is also a member of the nation’s globalizing elite: He is writing a book on globalization, he reads the Financial Times every day, and he is presenting a paper on the integration of developing nations (“Like Syria and Senegal,” Trek points out) at a conference at NYU where he mingles with other Council of Foreign Relations types.
During one of his infrequent visits to an apartment he owns in Manhattan, Walter discovers Tarek and Zainab, who apparently had been scammed by a conman named “Ivan” (Russian mafia?) from whom they thought they were renting the flat. Instead of calling the police, Walter allows the two illegals to stay in his apartment. And while Tarek plays the African drum in the apartment they now share, the rhythm-challenged Walter, who for years has been trying to learn the play the piano, is drawn to the beat of the African instrument, and after a few lesson from Tarek, the two end up playing the drum in Central Park with a bunch of drummers from Third World locations–Latinos, Africans, Arabs, Asians. Hence the real power of cultural globalization seems to be finally having an effect on Walter. His body sways to the African music, and he breaks out of his mental WASPy shell.
Unfortunately, one evening as they return from one of their “concerts” in Central Park on their way home, Tarek is arrested by somewhat thuggish Homeland Security officers. While Tarek is detained, his mom and Walter commute between the detention center in Queens and the flat in Manhattan. The reserved American and the warm Syrian-Palestinian seem to be sharing moments of tender love against the backdrop of Manhattan–we can see the Statue of Liberty and are reminded that the Twin Towers are not there. But then Tarek is deported and Mouna decides to return to join him in Syria. They both seem to be returning to their roots, whether they like it or not. No more flying on wings for them. And Walter is left behind, a bald, white man, sitting in the subway station and banging on the drum, being transformed into his own unique version of the global hybrid, a visitor in his own land.
“The Visitor” is more than just a film about and illegal immigrant facing the pr-9/11 political blowback and a maze of bureaucratic nightmare. The personal journey of Tarek represents a critical facet of the globalization process. It suggests that while this political, economic, and cultural revolution can help make individuals more productive, more prosperous, more mobile, it cannot ensure that these same individuals will abandon their old civilizational identities. If anything, the powerful encounter with the West, which is the main driving force behind globalization, challenges in a very painful way those who absorb the new ideas and who are in constant contact with political, economic cultural centers of the West. Instead of assimilating into the new global civilization, global hybrids like Tarek or for that matter, the members of the Arab and Moslem communities in Europe end up feeling that they are under attack. They respond to the perceived – or real – attacks, by returning to their old roots and by trying to protect them. And if they try using their wings and fly, they sometimes do crash into skyscrapers in Manhattan.
Comments
I’ve met many of these “New Cosmopolitans”. The truth is, there is nothing cosmopolitan about them at all. Most of them are just trying to fool themselves into believing that they have risen above their own culture to become global citizens yet display every single stereotype associated with their home culture.
A low degree of self-awareness is a pre-requisite for all new cosmopolitans.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It suggests that while this political, economic, and cultural revolution can help make individuals more productive, more prosperous, more mobile, it cannot ensure that these same individuals will abandon their old civilizational identities.
But from your synopsis it sounds like the reason for the character’s “returning to their roots, whether they like it or not” is not any internal contradictions in their lives in New York, but the simple, contingent fact that the US government arrested Tarek, presumably because the US isn’t globalized enough. Otherwise, Tarek would have lived globally ever after in New York. The cure for globalization, it seems from the synopsis, would be more globalization.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
On second thought, it seems that the real main character, the real “visitor”, is Walter, who (at least partly) transcends his faux-globalization with the help of drumning lessons and some authentic Levantine love. At the end he’s no longer a visitor, or at least not as much as he was. Not a “visitor in his own land”, but an authentic member of the “global community”. So it’s a happy Hollywood ending, really. Long live globalization.
Anyway, see ya later, I’m off to the mangal for Independence Day.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What do we want? Global diversity or cosmopolitan global sameness. We can’t have both.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In other words, “We’re all Gypsies now.”
Incidentally, transnational merchants, thieves, beggars, artists, artisans, experts, and the like are nothing new. As Yuri Slezkine observed, the world has long been divided between peasants--rooted to place and the soil--and what he terms “mercurians.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A very good analysis of a movie that sounds quite silly to me.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It’s important to stress that the “message” that the director is trying to send in The Visitor is probably not the same as mine. He clearly identifies with Tarek, while Walter is supposed to be the detached observer who under the influence of the events, is being forced to get “involved.” From my perspective, and this is in response to Ploni Almoni, in the real world—9/11, terrorism, anti-immigration/Arab backlash, etc.—globalization as an ideology of transformation remains a fantasy. And those who are the middle—who try to assert their cosmopolitan identity while preserving their ties to their roots—are bound to fail. And when Walter tries to cross over, he also find himself in a dead-end. He should have continued with his piano lessonss.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Very interesting piece (more interesting than the film itself, given your description). Needless to say, the leftist defenders of multiculturalist ideology never anticipated that the day would come when many immigrants to western nations would refuse to assimilate liberal democratic values if that meant the end of their cultural identities. Leftist liberals are all for tolerance as long as everybody accepts leftist values in tow. Why should immigrants accept a western identity of “tolerance” which is increasingly being imposed by the state on populations that can see through the artificiality of this whole process?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Hadar, I figured you were consciously counter-reading the film, and I’m definitely more sympathetic to your reading than the intended one, or I wouldn’t be reading this website. I agree 100% with what you wrote in your follow-up comment too. It just seems that when we read this story “our” way we’re cheating, because we’re relying on our own external premises rather than anything internal to the film itself. But if your summary gives an accurate indication of the quality of the movie, it doesn’t deserve anything better.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
See my “Obama: a Global Hybrid?” on @TAC http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/05/08/obama-a-global-hybrid/
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The discussion above is (1) ignorant of history, (2) ignorant of the spiritual side of man, (3) and ignorant of economic reality. #3 has been a weak point among so-called “conservatives” (but see Burke’s Thoughts in Time of Scarcity), but ignorance of ## 1 & 2, strong points for real conservatives, proves that this website and its authors are not conservative at all.
1. As to the history, Gringoland has always been a collection of cultures—and by culture I mean an ethnos with folkways. My Borderer/Backcountry ("Scots Irish") ancestors fought bitterly against the New England Puritans, the Delaware Valley Quakers and Pietists, and the Tidewater Cavaliers and Sand Hill Scottish Highlanders. But for Hadar, Havers, Roach, Piatik et al. Shay’s Rebellion, The Whiskey Rebellion, and the Regulators are probably the names of villages in China.
The issue is just where a culture’s border is, the line between who belongs and who doesn’t and where one is supposed to assimilate. The Borderer Backcountrymen? Piedmont Carolina? North Carolina? SE Gringoland? The whole of Dixie? The whole of Lincoln’s forced country? Western Civilization (thus including Hispanics)? The world?
Aside: folkways can be shared without losing one’s own folkways.
2. The spiritual side of man is also ignored and is replaced with the above mentioned writers’ xenophobia and nativism and the corresponding Chinese Exclusion Act, the New Orleans lynching of Italians, NINA signs, quotas to keep Jews out of Harvand, and the Smoot-Hawley tariff. It is a fact, and one that real conservatives need to emphasize, that the local community, when its folk are attached to it, produces strong, deeper, and more stable personalities, whereas the cosmopolitan is often a man with the depth of a pizza pie pan. “Five miles wide, one inch deep”. This is the real danger of cosmopolitanism, ignored above.
3. And the Economic: Like it or not, the market is a world market. To go back to nothing but a local or “national” economic is not only economic Luddite-ism, but also a recipe for economic collapse and destitution. And the world market mandates that entrepreneur know what people in other countries might want to buy. And that means familiarity with other cultures. And it also means learning some foreign languages and hiring people for other cultures.
So the real dilemma is that for spiritual souls we need localism, and for full bellies we need cosmopolitanism. The dilemma was resolved, In fact, in the past in certain localities whose good burghers could be both fiercely loyal to their localities and still trade in a world market: places like Ghent, Brugge, Antwerp, Amalfi, Pisa, Genoa, and Venice. I suspect India will follow suit.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Yes, Sid, the dilemma between localism and cosmopolitanism is “resolved” by pea-brains like you who support the Confederacy, ultramontanism, and the ancien regime all at once. What you stupidly call “folkways” is now a construct of the managerial state, which finds useful idiots like yourself very important when you blather on about universalism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Man, those multi-culturalists! I recall the story of one Jewish dude who apparently was not satisfied with his local folkways. He imported a melange of ideas from Greek philosophy and Eastern religion into them and came up with some weird hybrid mix. His followers, after his death, immediately became “rootless cosmopolitans,” trotting all around the Mediterranean world, asserting that the culture you came from didn’t matter as long as you accepted their new “globalist” creed. They sucked into their “ideology” an incompatible blend of Greek philosophy, Roman civic and political ideas, and Hebrew revelation.
Good thing that nonsense had no lasting impact on the world!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid and Gene:
I’m a free market guy and support the idea of globalization as a process—and not as a form of religious awakening that will transform reality and our perception of it and create a new cosmopolitan civilization. So I don’t buy into the notion that globalization will allow us to overcome religious, ethnic and cultural differences, and I’m not sure why we want that to happen. Creative cosmopolitan types will continue to exist, but they will not be “standardized,” in a sense of becoming a recognized type or class. In fact, their social and cultural alienation are source of their creativity. The Jesus analogy was clever. But, Gene, will you welcome a new synergy between Christianity and Islam, for example?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A simple test of the major premise of cosmopolitanization-as-a-fate, would be if the number of nations is getting smaller. On a moving average though, there has been a proliferation of new sovereign polities, perhaps every one of which, wins much greater loyalty than its more cosmopolitan predecessor (e.g. USSR, Yugo., Somalia, Czecko.,Serbia with Montenegro and Kosovo, etc.). If fate is operating, it would seem to be in the other direction than the believers in universal brotherhood and cosmopolitan loyalties have been telling us. Prosperity seems to prefer un-cosmopolitan Japan, Taiwan and SKorea, and directs growth toward monocultural China. Diversity-celebrating America depends abjectly on the dollar support from monocultural Japan and China.
May the State department itself be slapped down into the most complete humiliation by its faith, and be forced to recognize Somaliland, Puntland and Jubaland!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.