ARE WE so special OR WE JUST THINK WE ARE?

al-khusousiyyah is a word we have been hearing so much lately in the newspapers and on the public media. As a word, al-khusousiyyah has a broad semantic field and a wide range of different shades of meaning, among them: authenticity, uniqueness, distinctiveness, peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, and many more. But, as a political slogan, it is an ill-defined concept, which is used as a bulwark against change by some people who want to maintain and give legitimacy to the status quo. Yet as a concept, the word is not defined and it is never made clear in what way we, as Arabians, are supposed to be special and unique, whether this means politically, culturally, socially, nationally, or religiously. The obscurity and indeterminacy of meaning makes the word an ideal trump card to be used when you want to silence the opponent and win the argument by fiat through appeal to sentimental rather than logical grounds. When pressed for clarification, people who talk about khusousiyyah and refer to it as a guide for conduct and a philosophy of life may anchor it to religious convictions, tribal customs, regional sub-cultures, or what have you. It is supposed to be the way we are used to do things in the past. And the idea here is that any change is a violation of the norm; it is deterioration from a pristine, original archetype, it is not being true to type. This verges on ancestor worship in that change is interpreted as being disrespectful of the ancestors.

The word is used to defend many abuses and many forms of malpractices. For example, our khusousiyyah gives us the right to oppress our women, regardless of what other nations and other cultures do or think. Democracy and human rights go counter to our khuosusiyyah. Joy and celebration of life is frowned upon because we should be austere and somber. We eat unhealthy food, we destroy our ecology, and we waste our resources in the name of khusousiyyah. We are uneasy about satellites, the internet and all modern means of communication that would impinge on our private culture and dilute our uniqueness. Our young people should not be allowed to travel alone to foreign countries lest they question or loose their cultural uniqueness and be infatuated by other life styles. When liberal voices are raised demanding change they are stifled in the name of khususiyyah. This is one of the strongest arguments used against a group of women who, over sixteen years ago, tried to drive their cars down the streets of Riyad. They violated our khususiyyah!

I have no objections against using khusousiyyah in the anthropological sense of cultural relativity, meaning that each culture is unique to itself and no culture is superior to the other. Or when it is used as a symbol of national identity to promote national cohesion and instill pride and self-respect. But when the concept is used as a political and ideological weapon against progress, development and change, then it becomes very harmful indeed. As a matter of fact, the way it is used in our region has a tinge of chauvinistic arrogance. It is as if we wanted to insulate ourselves and be happy and proud with our khusousiyyah and will not interact or deal with the outside world except on our own terms and conditions.

Even people with no clear vested political interest in maintaining khusousiyyah adhere to the concept as a self defense mechanism against the sudden onslaught of the modern world which barged unexpectedly as an uninvited guest on their private world and their private homes. This whole process was started by the coming of modern means of communication. We should remember that the uprising of Juhayman and his group came as a protest against the introduction of TV in Saudi Arabia. Even the ikhwaan of ibn Saud, the ancestors of Juhayman, lodged a strong protest against the late king when he introduced telephones and telegraphs. As a matter of fact, the whole fundamentalist movement in Arabia is basically a reaction against modernization, against the streamlining of the region with the rest of the world, the giving up of khusousiyyah.

The political establishment and the religious establishment both are allied in their championing of khusousiyya. They use it, each in its own way, to entrench their positions and strengthen their hold on the masses. Media and educational institutions which are financed by the government and run by the religious elite are diverted from their true and real functions of raising consciousness and providing useful information and education and turned into machineries for indoctrinating the masses who consent to the notion of khusousiyy either perfunctorily or outwardly out of fear and helplessness. But this alliance between the political and the religious establishments does not always go very far. Considerations of expedience, realpolitik and pressures, internal and external, may force the political establishment sometimes to make calculated concessions. This offers the religious establishment the opportunity to present itself to the masses and pose as the real champion of khusousiyya. Thus, khusousiyya becomes a political commodity that goes for the bidder who offers the highest price, in terms of more extreme rhetoric and more fundamentalist discourse.

The concept of khusousiyya is so loose, any form of oppression, extremism or chauvinism can be justified in the name of preserving and maintaining khusousiyya. It could reach the point of phobia and hostility to other cultures and other people. Everybody else becomes wrong and bad. It closes the door against searching for any meeting grounds or commonalities with others. As a matter of fact, it dehumanizes the other and makes of him a fair game. Strong feeling of superiority and righteousness of convictions gives very little room for cultural dialogue and understanding. On the local level, the concept could be narrowed down to the point where every body must be an exact replica, a carbon copy of the other, with no room whatsoever for difference in opinion or in life style. Even dress codes and personal appearance become regimented.

In all living things, speciation and differentiation are important means of survival. The narrower the latitudes of differences the narrower are the chances of survival under varying and unstable conditions. Social ecologies are not much different from natural ecologies. The givens of the modern world are based on diversity and complimentary. The world is no longer the flat terrain it used to be under primitive conditions. It is rugged and complex. The emerging global interconnectedness is turning the whole world into a huge bowl of cultural stew and it is getting more and more difficult to be left alone to your khusousiyy.  If you keep resisting, eventually you could get crushed.