The New York Times has Tom Friedman; now the Wall Street
Journal (WSJ) has someone like him afflicting it with a curse I describe as
being oblivious to the applicability of a cultural algorithm when discussing a
subject. This is shown in an editorial that comes under the title: “Mubarak's
Trial” published on June 4, 2012. Here is what gave the editors of the Journal
away: “the revolutions that turn out well tend to be those that put
reconciliation before vengeance. (See South
Africa not Iran .)" What? What's that again?
Name dropping without adequate explanation is like engaging in the confused use
of an algorithm in the wrong place, my dear WSJ.
First let me say something about the word algorithm. It is
one that is usually associated with computers because it has to do with
calculations, logic and automated reasoning. It comes from the name of a
Persian mathematician “al-Khwarizmi” who was the first to immerse himself in
the study of doing mathematics by breaking the operation into small steps that
lead to the correct answer when the steps are implemented one at a time and in
the proper sequence.
A simple example that illustrates the idea of an algorithm
is to multiply say, the number 37 by 12. The best way to teach this to a child
is to explain that while the 7 is a 7, the 3 is actually a 30 because it
occupies one position to the left of the 7. Thus, to say 37 is to mean 30 plus
7. The same applies to the 12 where the 2 means 2 but the 1 actually means 10.
Consequently, to multiply 37 by 12 means to do:
2x7 + 2x30 + 10x7 + 10x30
which results in:
14 + 60 + 70 + 300 = 444
To do this by hand on paper, you first write the number 37
and below it, the number 12. You draw a line and begin the algorithmic ritual.
To do this, you multiply in your head the 7 by 2 which is 14. You write down
the 4 and carry the 1. You now multiply the 3 by 2 which is 6 and add to it the
carry of 1 to get the result 7. This is what you write to the left of the 4.
You now have the number 74 which represents the value of 2 times 37. You still
have the 1of the number 12 to deal with. Thus, you multiply the 7 by 1 which
gives you a 7. But you do not write it below the 4. Instead, you write it one
space to the left of that because here, the 1 actually represents a 10. You now
multiply the 3 by 1 and write it down to obtain the number 37 which actually
means 370. In fact, you could have started by writing a 0 below the 4 of the 74
then write the 37 to the left of that. You now add the two numbers 74 and 370
to obtain the final result 444 of the multiplication 37 by 12.
When it comes to working with computers that do not think
like humans, we may break the action into small steps such as those above. This
is because, using switches in formations called AND, OR, Exclusive OR, we can
only whip up circuits that will add binary numbers: zeros and ones. To get
these circuits to multiply something like 37 by 12, we write an algorithm that
instructs the computer -- one step after the other -- to do a series of
additions, and thus reach the correct answer.
Believe it or not, after many decades of studying the
various human cultures I had the privilege to live with, I came to the
conclusion that a culture is but an agglomeration of cultural rituals that
fundamentally resemble the mathematical and logical algorithms we use to
instruct computers. In essence then, even though we think differently from the
computers, we still rely on a whole bunch of cultural algorithms in the same
way that a computer relies on algorithmic subroutines.
These subroutines are functions that can be called up with
names like multiply, divide, take the square root and so on. In culture, name
dropping is a trick some people use to say they are aware that a subroutine
applicable to this situation exists. But unlike math, culture is far from being
an exact science; it is at best a fuzzy sort of math. Because no two situations
are exactly alike, the cultural subroutine must, therefore, be modified to suit
the new situation. Name dropping alone will not work; a thorough explanation
must accompany it.
In the case of habitual name droppers, such as Tom Friedman,
you should dismiss right away what they say because you know they could never
explain how and why this subroutine applies to this case. If he were to write a
paragraph showing where the parallel coincides and where it diverges, he would
make you laugh your head off. As to the case of the Wall Street Journal, the
very mention that the Egyptian revolution had any sort of resemblance with what
happened in South Africa or Iran
demonstrates a profound ignorance as to what these three occurrences were all
about.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal can pretend all they
want that they know something I should know without their explanation, but I
shall not be intimidated because they have the duty to tell me what is on their
mind whether or not I know it or should have known it. Simply put, Friedmanism
does not wash with me.
I hope you, WSJ, now have a clear idea from all this what I
mean by the subroutine I call Friedmanism.