Here's Pico Iyer's interview with Ratna Omidvar:
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Pico Iyer in Toronto
Pico Iyer redefined travel
writing with his Video Nights in
Kathmandu. Nearly three decades ago, he was among the first to help us know
the evolution of a global culture, its fluidity, its impermanence, and its
seeming rootlessness even though the American pop culture appeared to be its
fountainhead.
By far, his most influential
work, of course, is The Global Soul,
which laid the foundations of understanding how immigration was shaping the
world, and was shaping its new identity. In this book, Iyer argues, “in the
modern world, which I take to be an International Empire, the sense of home is
not just divided, but scattered across the planet…I begin to wonder whether a
new kind of being might not be coming to light – a citizen of this
International Empire – made up of fusions (and confusions) we had not seen
before: a “Global Soul” in a less exalted (and more intimate, more vexed) sense
than the Emersonian one.”
Iyer came to Toronto early May
to deliver the inaugural lecture at the Global Diversity Exchange (GDX), “the
think and do tank based at the Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson
University and funded by Maytree. Under the leadership of founding Executive
Director Ratna Omidvar, GDX identifies and amplifies the links between
prosperity, diversity and migration and anchors these in policy, research and
practice.”
Iyer expanded upon the themes that
are dear to him, and which he has discussed in his works during the last three
decades. Migration, he said, has transformed the world gradually, and in the 21st
century, in some respects, we are all migrants and we are all minorities. The
new reality is that soon migrants would constitute the third largest nation in
the world, although they would be dispersed across different countries, and it
is these migrants who are shaping global consciousness.
He cautioned that although immigration
has changed the world, it is not in a position to bring about an end of some
inherent characteristics that determine identity. For instance, tribalism isn’t
going to go away. If globalism has made some walls disappear, people have
created new ones. He emphasized that it would be simplistic to contend that the
new globalism was making the world homogenous and flat; in fact, the world is
becoming more complex. Referring to the McLuhan ‘Global Village,’ Iyer
contended that it “is a consoling term;” however, “we’re living in a global
city…where the sound is gangsta rap.”
Iyer is a self-confessed
admirer of Canadian experimentation in globalism. “No country is looking at
globalism more honestly than Canada,” he asserted. He reiterated some of the
contentions he had originally made in the 2001 lecture he delivered at the
University of Toronto (Imagining Canada:An Outsider’s Hope for a Global Future).
I quote two representative
passages from the original lecture that captures the essence of his position
about the triumph of globalism in Canada, and Toronto.
“Now,
as I walked around what seemed to be a concrete, physical version of what Wired
magazine, in honour of Marshall McLuhan had called “mosaic thinking,” I felt I
was seeing in some respects, a liberated England and an elevated America that
seemed ideal for an Indian who came at once from everywhere and nowhere. I
recognized the skepticism I heard in many voices, but it seemed free of the
bitterness it might have carried in England. I responded to the earnest
optimism and hopefulness of the place, but it didn’t feel as heedless of the
past, and of grounding realities, as California often did. History was a given
here, I suspected, as it was in The
English Patient, but it didn’t have to be a confinement. I found myself
exhilarated, too, by the quick wittedness and intelligence of a culture that
seemed free of the competitive bustle and noise. I might expect to find in New
York. Here, I thought, was all Manhattan’s software without so to speak, its
hard drive.
I came
away with a sense of possibility I hadn’t felt as I’d traveled to other of the
globe’s defining multicultures, whether in Singapore or Cape Town or Melbourne,
on the one hand, or in Paris and London and Bombay, on the other. On paper, at
least the logic was clear: Toronto was the most multicultural city in the
world, according to the UN’s official statistics and it was also, statistically,
the safest big city in North America and, by general consensus, the best
organized. Put the two facts together, and you could believe that a
multiculture could go beyond the nation—states we knew and give a new meaning
to that outdated term, the “Commonwealth.” Add further my sense that Toronto
had the most exciting literary culture in the English-speaking world, and you
could believe that it not only offered an example of how a country could be
even greater than the sum of its parts, but presented visions of what that
post-national future might look like.”
Among the two other
observations Iyer made, and which must have resonated with the audience were:
· I want to be defined by my passion and not by my
passport
· Home is where I’m going, not where I’ve come
from
Subsequent to his lecture, Doug
Saunders, the eminent Canadian journalist, chatted with Iyer.
Here's Pico Iyer's interview with Ratna Omidvar:
Here's Pico Iyer's interview with Ratna Omidvar:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment