Photo by Joel Burgess on Unsplash
The beauty and diversity of world culture, with its immediately-evident distinctions and nuances, is a wonderful medium for life to deliver some of the lessons it has to teach us.
Living in a world seemingly dominated by Western culture and ideals, we instinctively label traditions and beliefs held by other world cultures as 'different' or 'alternative' modes of thought.
Although not done with any intention of malice or disrespect, what we may not realise is by assigning these subtle categorisations, we inadvertently place each culture and it's associated principles on a hierarchy, where the ways of the West sit above all other trains of thought derived from other world cultures, which are consequently seen to be 'secondary'.
This creates within our culture an unconscious dichotomy of thought - a very Western approach to philosophy with its heavy reliance on logic, emphasis on eliminating ambiguity and the assignment of precise definitions - which introduces attitudes of either/or, right/wrong, where, of course, the 'primary' lens of the world must be viewed as the benchmark to align with.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
For those of us lucky enough to have travelled and witnessed different parts of the world, it isn't simply about experiencing the beauty of other lands and cultures, but more importantly, what we can take from these vastly different experiences; an accumulation or collection of worldly wisdom, if you will.
"The value of travel is not just the travel but what the travel makes of you." - Robin Sharma
A quick reflection of our travel experiences can be a personally-tangible way for us to restore a sense of malleability to these rigid ways of thinking.
A good example is the double (some times triple) cheek kiss observed in many European countries. In Europe, this form of greeting brings a 'human', but not (necessarily) intimate element - openness, welcoming, affection, love - rather than the closed, transactional handshake which we're more accustomed to in the West. This way of greeting another is not reserved only for family and friends but expressed to everyone, and is also not gender-specific; male-to-male cheek kissing is just as acceptable as it is female-to-female or female-to-male.
This is just one of many examples that we can observe, and perhaps accept that this seemingly strange behaviour is seen to be a perfectly normal day-to-day occurrence in different parts of the world.
However, if we imagine the same behaviour back at home, where you were greeted in the boardroom with multiple cheek kisses by a number of corporate executives, you may be taken aback by this or even consider contacting human resources to file a sexual harassment case.
Furthermore, if you are a heterosexual man and were greeted by another man this way, you would likely recoil and resort to physical violence towards the man for threatening your sense of manliness or questioning your sexuality.
But if you were born and brought up in that particular culture, it would hardly ever occur to you to even question such behaviour.
So why do certain behaviours, deemed 'incorrect' or 'wrong' in our every day lives, almost immediately become 'acceptable' or 'okay' as soon as we step across imaginary lines which determine national borders?
So readily are we willing to shift our views from black to white, or at worst, consider physically harming another human being, on the basis of logic which could not be explained with anything other than "just because..." or something in a similar vein.
"To travel is to discover that everyone is wrong about other countries." - Aldous Huxley
The example above is only a broad, generalised exploration of cultural nuance, and how differing beliefs and traditions can be subjectively placed at any point of a spectrum of 'acceptability' or 'correctness', simply depending on the lens it is viewed from.
However, this view does not only exist across geographic borders and cultural populations but is also present at a more granular, individual level as well.
Even individuals who have grown up within the same societal conditions, people considered family or friends, will not always share the same modes of thought and beliefs.
It is obvious to point out, but you could think the logic followed by a colleague is unfathomable, that your parent's beliefs are out-dated, that some of your friend's personal preferences are downright shocking, etc.
But aside from cultural traditions, there are such a wide and varied array of influencing factors that each contribute towards determining what one believes, as well as the rationale which leads to such beliefs.
The environment that someone was brought up in, the level of attentiveness from those providing primary care, who provided primary care, the types of experiences one was subject to; simply to name the obvious few, but far from exhaustive (noting that these considerations would be taken to determine the influencing factors that constitute the influential figures within your own life, ad infinitum).
Again, applying the same principle, when someone says something or acts in a way that, to us, is utterly outrageous and goes against everything that we believe, this comment or action is viewed and judged solely through our own lens of perception.
To put it another way, we are able to perceive a particular version of 'truth' from where we stand; or rather, our version of the truth.
But just as individuals who identify with different cultural ethnicities are brought up in different circumstances and grow up experiencing life in a completely different way, so too, do individuals within the same community setting.
Every single experience a person has, no matter where they were born or how they were raised, is each a small building block that creates a unique individual.
This amalgamation of experiences paints the lens of one's own version of 'truth', and no one combination is exactly the same as any other; it is completely unique.
In this way, it is near-impossible to ever fully understand another's point of view or perspective, given that you have not experienced everything that they have experienced in life, and vice versa.
"Everyone sees what you appear to be; few experience what you really are." - Niccolò Machiavelli
If everyone has their own 'version of truth', who, then, should be considered 'correct' and who 'incorrect'?
Are there really such things as 'universal truths'?
In the end, does 'being right' even matter?
Given that every individual has their own version of what the 'truth' is, debates attempting to discern 'right' from 'wrong' would seem quite meaningless and inconsequential.
It may be a cue for us, instead, to aim our focus inward, to recognise that the possibilities that perception can produce are infinite, and it is ignorance and closemindedness which can act as a fog which shrouds us from this realisation.
The point may not be attempting to completely understand everyone and everything within the universe, but instead, to acknowledge that what is 'utterly false' to one can be 'absolute truth' to another.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle