The Language of Musāyara in Arab-Moslem Culture

Journal of Modern Education Review, ISSN 2155-7993, USA April 2016, Volume 6, No. 4, pp. 271 278 Doi: 10.15341/jmer(2155-7993)/04.05.2016/006 Academic Star Publishing Company, 2016 http://www.academicstar.us The Language of Musāyara in Arab-Moslem Culture Omar Mizel 1,2 (1. Department of Education, BU University, Israel; 2. Al Qasemi College, Department of Education, Baqa al Gharbiya, Israel) Abstract: This paper presents an analysis of how cultural impacts language and communication and the importance of understanding this connection in the context of cross-cultural communication with Arab-Moslem peoples. A brief overview of the Arab-Moslem worldview is described followed by a discussion of some of the key sociological analyses of cultural communication. Finally, the use of musāyara, the unique style of indirect communication that is ubiquitous in the Arab-Moslem world is introduced with the goal of awakening the readers' awareness to the importance of cultural familiarity and sensitivity in general, and specifically when interacting with Arab-Moslems. Through presentation of the origins, reasons and uses of musāyara the complexities and challenges in intercultural communication are elucidated. Key words: Arab, Musayara, culture, Islam, communication 1. Introduction To understand Arab culture and the Arab as an individual, one must understand the concept ofmusāyara, the unique indirect communication style used among Arabs. Literally translated, musāyara means to accompany. In practice, it means to conduct a dialogue with others using a style of communication that takes great care not to offend or challenge the other, is never confrontational, is often loquacious and always indirect. Paradoxically, to the Western mind, musāyara can be perceived of as underhanded, manipulative and/or excessively rambling and tedious. Therefore, because of the stark contrasts between communication styles in Arab and Western culture, it is imperative that Western educational management philosophy develop an understanding of the musāyara paradigm if Western educational reforms are to be implemented within an Arab cultural context. Stemming from pre-islamic times, musāyara is rooted deep in Islamic culture. It can be surmised that this linguistic device arose out of the need for closely-knit tribal communities to develop a system of stylized communication that would promote and protect social harmony. That this communication ethos was explicitly incorporated into developing Islamic society is manifest in its Adab Literature beginning in the 8th century.(adab in Arabic derives from a word meaning to invite someone for a meal, and this writing style can be compared to the English concept of polite letters or the French belles-lettres and implies politeness, culture and enrichment.) (Arabic Literature, 2011). The unique indirect communication style used by Arab -Moslems. Omar Mizel, Ph.D., Associated Professor, Department of Education, BU University and Al Qasemi College; research areas/interests: education. E-mail: omarmizel@hotmail.com. 271

2. The Moslem Arab Worldview 2.1 A Sociological Perspective A basic tenet of Arab culture is that there is no separation between state and religion, a concept foreign to modern Western (Christian) thinking and philosophy. Hence, being a Moslem does not simply mean the individual maintains a specific set of theological beliefs, but rather, that s/he adheres to an entire way of life prescribed by a worldview that is the result of an amalgam of customs, behaviors and beliefs, including: pre-islamic social-cultural traditions that were integrated into Arab culture; Islamic religious writings and oral teachings attributed to the Prophet Mohammed; secular Arab works of jurisprudence, philosophy and literature that are nevertheless informed by Islamic religious beliefs (Ayish, 1998). Thus, the gestalt of the Islamicsocio-culture must be comprehended as being composed of elements that stem from both secular and religious sources that jointly constitute Ad-Dīn, i.e.,a complete way of life. 2.2 Secular Elements The following key concepts/values deeply influence of the Moslem way of life although they largely derive from unwritten tribal laws and codes that pre-date Islam: genealogy (nasab), paternalism (abawiyya), honor (sharaf), dignity (karama),andverbal eloquence (fasaha, balāghah) (Ayish, 1998). From this abbreviated list one can easily see that Arab-Islamic society is one in which paternal lineage, the extended family and endogamous marriage determine the individual s socio-cultural and political alliances and status. Honor and dignity are deeply embedded values, and indeed, the merit and worthiness of the individual are inextricable from the concept of honor. There is a special code of honor applied to women entitled ird, which governs women s modesty as expressed in behavior and dress. Violation of this code can even call for honor killing actual murder of the woman by her father/brothers to ensure the family s honor is maintained. From the pre-islamic period linguistic eloquence, in poetry and in prose, has been highly esteemed in Arab culture, and over the centuries there has evolved what can be termed a science of eloquence in both written and spoken Arabic, which is a rich, deeply nuanced language. 2.3 Religious Fundamentals Under this rubric are not only theological convictions (and their accompanying behaviors), such as tawhid the doctrine of the Oneness of God (Tawhid 2011), iman faith, ibadah worship, and ilm knowledge, (i.e., referring to the epistemology of Islam), but also the idea of the umma the nation. This is a belief that Moslems belong to a world community without borders that is the manifestation of the epitome of the harmony and perfection of God s creation. (Ayish, 1998). (This is similar to the way that Jews conceive of themselves as a people with a national mission/destiny, and not only followers of a specific religious creed). Together, the above-described religious, secular and sociological concepts and precepts constitute the foundation of the Moslem-Arab view of the world and the cultural context that informs Arab-Islamic society. 3. The Sociology of Communication The communication style known as musāyara can best be understood in the context of cultural communication models as developed by a number of theorists over the years. One useful model is that developed by Hall (1976)who coined the terms high-context culture (HCC) and low context culture (LCC). Briefly, these 272

terms refer to how extensively a given culture relies upon context when communicating. In a high context culture, many things are left unsaid, as it is assumed the interlocutor knows and understands the cultural framework. In Hall s words: People in high-context systems expect more from others than do the participants in low-context systems. When talking about something that they have on their minds, a high-context individual will expect his interlocutor to know what s bothering him, so that he doesn't have to be specific. The result is that he will talk around and around the point, in effect putting all the pieces in place except the crucial one. Placing it properly this keystone is the role of his interlocutor. Thus, HCC communication styles work well with in-groups, i.e., groups of individuals who share values, experiences and expectations, from whence they draw inferences regarding the topic under discussion. In juxtaposition, a LCC culture values logic, facts, and directness and thus many details and explanations are supplied in verbal interchanges. LCC communicators assume little about the interlocutor's implicit cultural understandings, and so they are explicit, straightforward, and precise in speaking with others. The differences in these two paradigms can be summarized as follows: Table 1 Low-Context Cultures Explicit, direct verbal communication. Communication in HCC and LCC Societies High-Context Cultures Implicit, indirect, embedded meanings in communication. Values individualism. Values collectivism. Low commitment to relationship. Task more important than Investment in cultivating long-term and permanent personal relationships. relationships. Utilizes linear logic. More focus on verbal communication than body language. More use of metaphor and suggestion than logic Much nonverbal communication. Other researchers have delineated the differences in cultural communication styles using different semantics, such as Levine (1985) who talks about clarity which he calls univocality versus ambiguityin communication patterns. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) proposed that the different communication styles derive from the contrasts between what they call Doing versus Being cultures. Specifically, Chinese, Japanese and Arab cultures are viewed as Being cultures, where importance is attached more to who and what the individual is (his lineage, tribal status, etc.), that to what he does. A simple way of conveying this concept is by example: the Arabic equivalent of the question How are you doing? is literally What is your condition? to which the appropriate response is to say Thank God for his blessings (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). Dodd (1992) generated the terms configurational (non-linear) thought framework versuslinear thought framework. He claims that cultures based upon non-linear configuration utilize simultaneous bombardment and processing of a variety of stimuli, so these people think in images, not just in words, decreasing the need for explicit verbal details, instructions, etc. (Dodd, 1992). Ting-Toomey (1985) emphasizes the HCC individual's concern for the group and how in a cross-cultural negotiation they tend to be indirect and nuanced, which confuses and frustrates opposing LCC negotiators. The direct and even confrontational style used by LCC negotiators is intimidating to individuals from HCC societies. The table below briefly contrasts some of the terminology and descriptions used in models of cultural communication styles (other than Hall s): 273

Table 2 American versus Arab Communication Styles (Zaharna, 1995) Researcher American Verbal Style Arabic Verbal Style Levine Kluckhohn Strodtbeck Dodd & Univocality, direct, to the point simplicity valued objective emotionalism avoided Activity/Doing Emphasis on action to connect between word and deed Linear One theme Organized with beginning Object-oriented Ambiguous, indirect, circular embellishments valued subjective deliberately use emotion Being & Becoming Emphasis on relationship words for social effect Configurational - Non-linear Not necessary to have single theme Organization and end not important Not people & event-oriented In addition to the characteristics and styles noted in the above table, the language of musayara differs from that of typical Western communication. A brief comparison of the characteristics of the language of musāyara with Western linguistic style follows: Table 3 Musāyara-speak Repetition Imagery Exaggeration Descriptiveness and verbosity Vagueness Comparison between Musāyara and Western Linguistic Styles Western linguistic style Simplicity Accuracy Understatement Action words Specificity of terms Among non-western researchers is Arab psychologist Dr. Marwan Dwairy (2006), who describes cultures as being located along two continua: Figure 1 Individualism Collectivism Liberalism Authoritarianism Geert Hofstede Cultural Continnua as Quoted in Dwairy According to this schema, Arab-Moslem society is located along the collectivist-authoritarian dynamic, and is thus a society which values family integrity, hierarchy, saving face, social harmony, and interdependence over individual achievement, competition, equality, self-fulfillment. In collectivist cultures there are authorities and the ruled. For example, the father is the authority in the family, he alone makes the rules, does not consider the needs of his individual family members and expects full obedience. The collectivist-ruled, i.e., generally women and children (or students in a school), passively submit to the norms and rules of authority, often at the expense of suppressing their own needs. He describes musāyara is a way of life in which the individual adapts himself to the expectations of others by hiding his true feelings and thoughts. An extreme variant form of musāyara is termed taqiyya or nifāq. Originally referring to the permissibility of lying/deception to protect oneselffrom religious persecution, this concept arose among Shia Muslims in the face of oppression by their rival Sunni Moslem brethren, from whom they concealed their true beliefs. Over the centuries 274

this concept has spread to much of the Moslem world and serves to justify deceitfulness and dishonesty, especially in relations with non-moslems. Ibrahim (2010), says of the pervasiveness of taqiyya in today s Islamic world: Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era. In addition to taquiyya, there are several other terms, representing various motives for concealing one s intentions, used in conjunction with musāyara, including: Mujāmala To get something from someone. Mudārāh To lure the unbeliever to Islam. Mudāhanah Literally, this word means to camouflage one s true intensions. 4. The Goals of Musāyara Musāyara is a ubiquitous form of communication within Arab society, and its use is pervasive throughout the Moslem world. Historical linguistics and sociology attribute its development to the need to find a means of avoiding and/or solving conflicts affably in small, kinship-based societies in which there is a high degree of interdependence between community members. On the level of the individual musāyara can be conceptualized as an expression of social conformity, or imtithal in Arabic. Social conformity can be defined as an innate need to adapt to and internalize social norms out of fear of negative repercussions/sanctions/social ostracism on the part of society. It is well documented that for the most part there are negative consequences to non-conformity, such as social rejection, chastisement, ridicule, even death (see example regarding honor killings in Secular Elements 上方 ) (Epley & Gilovich, 1999.) Thus, being part of a group/community in effect compels the individual to conform to its norms. Social conformity can thus be seen as a force that preserves social order by clearly delineating expectations and identifying obligations of group members. Following these rules and norms enables the individual to belong to a group. Belonging (as first articulated by Abraham Maslow in his seminal 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation ) is seen by many psychologists today as a basic need of human beings, second in importance only to the needs for physical sustenance, safety and security. Solving problems by avoiding conflict is the prime aims of musāyara. For example, an Arabic adage explains that musāyara is needed to protect friendships and warns that speaking the truth leaves one without friends sai ir al achrein v t hene. Doing musāyara requires emphasizing and reinforcing personal relationships through courtesy and positive concern for the other. Negative messages may be communicated but only in a highly indirect manner which, can however, be easily understood by insiders, i.e., members of one's group who share the same social-cultural context. Following is a brief overview of descriptions of musāyara by some of the well-known researchers in the field. Katriel and Griefat (1980) describe musāyara as involving the following: Engaging in acts of social compromise that are intended to preserve social harmony by getting the parties to a potential conflict to reach an agreement by taking the needs of the other into consideration. Built into the ethos of musāyara is a degree of surrender, even self-effacement and acting with a modicum of appeasement/self-renunciation in terms of money, time, effort, status, or freedom of expression. However, 275

musāyara is only relevant if this does not involve any insult to the individual s honor. For example, if a male feels his masculinity is questioned he may react aggressively, even violently, foregoing any pretense of musāyara. A style of interpersonal communication that dictates etiquette and manners and thus provides a formalistic means for parties to a conversation to express themselves. This typically implies allocating a large block of time, attention and focus to the conversation while engaging in circuitous, indirect speech. Dwairy (2004) feels that musāyara and a conflicting behavior entitled is tighaba have developed in Arab society to enable the individual to deal with the challenges of living in a close-knit group. Istighaba means to allow an individual to express personal ideas and negative opinions, as long those who are the subjects of these sentiments, towards whom one must display respect (e.g., parents, teachers, social authorities), are not present. Thus, musāyara an expression of conformity and submission and istighaba a means of challenging authority, voicing one s individuality work together as a system of checks and balances enabling individuals to air their dissatisfactions without incurring sanctions. This subtle play between overt and covert systems exists in the collectivist-authoritarian Arab society in a variety of contexts, including in gender roles, parent-child dynamics, teacher-student relationships, and others. Mari (1978) looked at musāyara from a different perspective; he claims it arose to be used in majority versus minority contexts where its function is to prevent opposition or resistance to the majority. He describes how the more musāyara is prevalent in such societies, the less likely it is for the minority to rise up and revolt against the majority. This, he claims, is an especially common situation in societies where the minority is poor and subject to tyranny and oppression. The self-effacement and abnegation that are intrinsic to musāyara act to suppress desires of the dominated minority to object to their situation, even verbally. On the contrary, musāyara facilitates a culture of accepting one s status as the downtrodden. 5. Musāyara in Action In pragmatic terms, musāyara-speak utilizes two formats: (1) linguistic restraint and (2) linguistic aggrandizement, or effusiveness (Griefat & Katriel, 1989). Linguistic restraint requires that the speaker adhere strictly to specific rules of conversational etiquette, such as: never interrupting, never changing the topic, always avoiding confrontation or challenge, never raising one s voice nor increasing the speed of speech. Conversational effusiveness uses exaggeration and dramatization. Typically, this involves repetitions, interjecting blessings, an almost fawning politeness, and sometimes addressing the other in an especially endearing, intimate way, such as calling an uncle my father to express especial closeness, esteem, respect. These interchanges usually require allocating a large block of time, attention and focus to the conversation while engaging in circuitous, indirect speech. Katriel and Greifat (1989) have categorized four general types of musāyara, as follows: Musāyara of respect: Used in situations involving social inequality, hierarchical relationships, this refers to how lower status individuals behave towards, and address, higher status individuals, e.g., young people vs. their elders, women vs. men, a villager vs. the tribal sheikh. In general the deferring individual the one with lower status will employ linguistic restraint, evasion, non-response. This clearly requires a degree of surrender and self-relinquishment on the part of the individual doing musāyara. 276

Musāyara of magnanimity: This, too, is musāyara used in unequal social situations, but the reverse of the above: it refers to how individuals speak with those of lower status. This bears a resemblance to the Western notion of noblesse oblige. For example, although normally a man does not treat children or women with deference, he might do so under specific exigencies; if the child or woman is sick. Indeed, this is often referred to as musāyara of the weak or sick, which may also be used with strangers, because they are considered fish out of water, and so deserve special indulgence, understanding. Political musāyara: This use of musāyara is not related to social status, but rather promotion of self-interest. In the words of one of the researchers interviewees, this is musāyara of the small politics of everyday life. Musāyara of conciliation: This form of musāyara is applied specifically in conflict situations, used between social equals who are in a confrontational situation. Typically, this is seen when outsiders to the conflict enjoin one or both of the parties to act with musāyara to preclude escalation of the situation. A summary of the differing forms musāyaracan take follows: Table 4 Variations of Musayara, in What Situations They at Used, Between Whom, and to What Aim Type of musayara Situation/purpose Population Function Status Qualities Respect Inequality, hierarchy All members of society Maintain social harmony Low towards equals or higher standing Reserve, requires linguistic eloquence Magnanimity Inequality between dialogue partners Socially weak (low status) vs. strong (high status) Exhibit concern and kindness High status vs. Low status Respect, concern, hosting foreign guests Political Equal & unequal relationships Majority/ Minority To protect personal interests Daily situations Power struggle, acquire something from someone Conciliation Conflicts Equal parties Conflict resolution Disagreements between individuals Return situation to prior harmony/ preserve honor Mudārāh Influence others Moslems vs. non-moslems Accepting others Believers towards non-believers Opposing evil, making the other a believer Taqiyya Minority towards majority Shia vs. Sunni sects, Moslem towards non-moslem Out of fear of majority, loss of status Special ethnic, religious groups Praising the government/ majority to protect oneself Nifāq (lie) Fear of truthfulness Believers vs. Heretics Seek approval Especially weak groups Can lie to an enemy as a ploy 6. Conclusion While Westerners may see musāyara, and its variants, as flattery, deceit, obsequiousness, etc., in fact, its social sophistication can be compared to the concept of Interpersonal Intelligence as articulated by Gardner in 277

1983 (this term was later replaced by Emotional Intelligence by Goleman (1995), who proposed that human intelligence can be defined as a psychobiological potential to process information so as to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in at least one cultural context (Gardner, 1998). Musāyarawas developed by people to enable them to solve conflicts and live harmoniously within a close-knit community, and its expression and usage are valued within an Islamic context. References Ayish Muhammad I. (2003). Beyond western-oriented communication theories: A normative Arab Islamic perspective, The Public, Vol.10, No. 2, pp. 79 92. Dodd Carley H. (1992). Dynamics of Intercultural Communication, Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown. Dwairy M. (2004). Culturally sensitive education: Adapting self-oriented assertiveness training to collective minorities, Special Issue of the Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 323 335. Dwairy M. (2006). Counseling and psychotherapy with Arabs and Muslims: A culturally sensitive approach, in: E. Ivey, Allen E & Sue, Derald Wing (Eds.), Multicultural Foundations of Psychology and Counseling, New York: Teachers College Press. Epley N. and Gilovich T. (1999). Just going along: Nonconscious priming and conformity to social pressure, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 578 589. Gardner H. (1998). A multiplicity of intelligences, Scientific American (Special Issue), Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 18 23. Goleman D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence, New York: Bantom Books. Hall E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture, NY: Doubleday. Ibrahim R. (2010). How Taqiyya Alters Islam s Rules of War: Defeating Jihadist terrorism, Middle East Quarterly, pp. 3 13. Katriel T. and Griefat Y. (1989). Life demands musayara: Communication and culture among Arabs in Israel, in: Ting-Toomey S.& Korzenny F. (Eds.), Language, Communication, and Culture, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 121 138. Kluckhohn F. and Strodtbeck F. (1961). Variations in Value Orientations, Evanston, Il: Row Peterson. Levine D. N. (1985). The Flight from Ambiguity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mari S. K. (1978). Arab Education in Israel, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Ting-Toomey S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture, in: Gudykunst W., Stewart L. and Ting-Toomey S. (Eds.), Communication, Culture and Organizational Processes, Beverly Hills: Sage. Zaharna R. (1995). Bridging cultural differences: American public relations practices & Arab communication patterns, Public Relations Review, Vol. 21, pp. 241 255. 278