Richard N. Frye
Appropriately referred to as “dean of the world’s Iranists” by other scholars, Richard
Nelson Frye, of Harvard University, has researched and taught the cultural history of
Iran, Central Asia and the Near East for over six decades.
Nelson Frye, of Harvard University, has researched and taught the cultural history of
Iran, Central Asia and the Near East for over six decades.
Apologia pro Vita Sua
I grew up in a dinosauric world where education was supposed to produce
persons who aspired to be Renaissance scholars, rather than the highly
specialized technicians of today. I use the word technician advisedly, since
numbers now dominate all fields of knowledge, and one has to be a technician
to understand the complexities of contemporary life. I do not wish to imitate the
complaints of the aged, for one cannot, or should not, return to the past. Yet
experiences and events of the past may, even in a small way, inform the endless
search to improve life here on earth. That is why I wrote my memoirs, to portray
a life with its foibles as well as accomplishments. For even personal history
should be recorded and not forgotten, since one cannot judge the effect on
readers who may learn something or even be entertained by experiences of one
individual.
As I contemplate the changes which have occurred in the course of my life
several stand out as causes for worry as well as hope. The first is the community
and humanity which became eroded in the Western world, especially after World
War II, but which continued in the Middle East almost to the end of the century.
The trust and hospitality which was expected of one in the past has become a
skepticism and isolation of the present. Doctors no longer have patients, only
customers. Lawyers have no clients, only customers and old bonds of respect
and trust are broken. Technology has made life easier in many respects, but the
machines are replacing the human element in decisions. For example, when one
finally reaches a human being on the telephone to ask a simple question, after
punching many buttons and listening to canned messages, one may be
dismayed to find that the human has become machine-like in answering your
question. It seems we must all fit into one mold in order to survive.
On the roads of formerly traditional societies today no one stops if your car has
broken down, because, just as in the USA, it is expected that some official
organization will find you and help. This is both efficient, safer and less costly of
time and effort, but the loss of friendly, human contact is sad. I would not think
of stopping at anyone’s house in Afghanistan or Iran today to ask for a bed for
sleep and a meal as in the past. Facilities now exist, or soon will, to take care of
the traveler, and more and more they are becoming standard all over the world,
just as airports have to follow similar rules and regulations. It is the sterility and
sameness everywhere of so many facets of modern life that brings back
nostalgia for the ‘good old days.’ Much of the past was far from admirable, but
the human touch, I believe, is worthy of preservation and even development in
the fast present world of haste and globalization.
Second of the changes from the past is the demand for speed. If one is asked
for something today you are expected to deliver today and not tomorrow.
Instant communication is wondrous and amazing and not to be disparaged, but
must one always keep pace with the ever faster tempo of life dictated by the
ever faster machines we invent? Science should never be restricted in its quest
for more knowledge about the universe, but we need more time to investigate
what is happening to our selves, our feelings, our humanity in the age of
machines.
So, since aged persons love to preach, my message to future generations is to
guard one’s individuality and humanity while controlling the technology which is
changing one’s life. While we must respect and preserve the various cultures in
the world, or at least the worthwhile parts of a culture, at the same time one
should reject the concept of a clash of civilizations. Throughout history we have
had rather the clash of fanatics who seize power and incite peoples and
civilizations against one another. Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia saw his power
slipping so he had to rouse the people to conflict. Since most of the population
of his country had one language, one history, one society and culture he had to
find some facet with which he could inflame the people, and it was religion. In
Central Asia Karimov, president of Uzbekistan, feared for his power and sought
something to stir up the population. They had the same religion, Uzbek and
Tajik, so language became the basis of his key to incitement. Such fanatic rulers
must be stopped and made to abide by laws which do not permit the life-long
holding of power.
Just as the genes of all people are almost 99% the same, so people all over the
world have the same aspirations and problems, and their differences are basically
cultural, which differences can and ought to be respected. But the tide of
globalization cannot be stopped nor should it. Work towards a world court, a
world army and police force, a world currency and a world government, but hold
onto local cultural differences.
RichardFrye.org |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |