Far and Away: Reporting From the Brink of Change (7 page)

When I met Farouq Samim my first day in Kabul, I was prepared for a working relationship with him as my translator and fixer, but it rapidly became clear that we might be friends. We were together for fourteen hours a day every day that I was in his country. It was a frightening time to be in that part of the world; the abduction and ultimate decapitation of the journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan was unfolding as I transited through Islamabad and Peshawar on my way across the border. To my surprise, however, I loved Afghanistan, in part because Farouq so loved Afghanistan and communicated his passion so compellingly. Farouq had studied medicine in Kabul under the Taliban, which meant that each day contained many hours of religious instruction and only a few of medical training. He wanted to understand how doctors worked in a developed society, so after I came home, I spoke to administrators at New York Hospital, who said they would welcome him for a two-month visit to observe procedures.

Then he filed a visa application, with which I attempted to help. We were repeatedly told that the chance of an unmarried, young Afghan man getting into the United States in 2002 was virtually nil. Farouq eventually gave up medicine because he had no chance to broaden his insufficient education in Kabul and had found his engagement with foreign journalists deeply rewarding. He won a media fellowship to study in Canada. Nearly a decade after my visit to Afghanistan, we succeeded in getting him into the United States.

American policy is focused on security, and the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims to whom visas had been granted, perhaps recklessly. I know why Farouq’s profile scared consular officers. But I also know that Farouq had helped many Americans in his homeland, and that a visit to the United States in 2002 would have strengthened his positive impression of our country. He would have returned home
with that gospel. He didn’t want to emigrate here and he didn’t want to blow up a building. He wanted to be part of the cultural exchange through which peoples come to know one another. I have more recently tried to get my gay, Libyan friend Hasan Agili a visa to come to the United States, where he could finish his medical education and help the sick and the desperate, rather than be deported to face the murderous gangs who await him at home. Such procedures have become no easier. When I was in Libya, the people I met who had an essentially pro-American stance had all studied in the United States, whereas those who were vehemently anti-American had not. This is not to say that a proliferation of student visas issued at the behest of Iowa State or UCLA will solve the world’s problems, but only that it’s hard to love a place you’ve never visited. A blanket policy of excluding visitors from “suspect” countries may ultimately damage our security, by preventing the people who would have spoken the best of us from finding out what there is to admire here beyond
Baywatch
.

After the Paris attacks of November 2015, cultural exclusion was put forward as our best defense, an argument that reached its nadir in American and European attempts to disenfranchise refugees from Syria and Iraq. Leading Republican presidential contender Donald Trump proposed that all foreign Muslims should be barred entry to the United States and that even American Muslims should carry special ID cards. This cruel demagoguery is contrary to our interests. Walling ourselves off from everyone else renders us odious to those who are excluded, providing incentive for them to become radicalized. Quarantining otherness breeds in those others an ignorance of us that engenders hatred, which soon becomes dangerous. It awakens an equally dangerous hatred in us. The central proposition of this book is that circling the wagons is not only impossible in a globalized world, but finally perilous. “Seek and ye shall find,” the biblical adage holds, but seeking is an early casualty of xenophobia. We sequester ourselves not in the well-guarded, imperial palace that American isolationists fantasize but in a festering prison.

My last book,
Far from the Tree
, deals with the nature of difference within families: how parents learn to cherish children who aren’t what
they had in mind when they set out to have kids. This book is in some measure about a similar process: embracing alien points of view and ways of doing things. I wouldn’t undersell the effort involved. If accepting unlike children is tough, this is tougher. Natural instincts propel parents toward their children; natural instincts propel us away from strangers who are different from ourselves. But that doesn’t mean that we have to go down the rabbit hole of affinity groups and “safe spaces,” where people who already share opinions “protect” one another from the intrusion of other points of view. In forestalling intimacy with the vast and bewildering world, we disenfranchise ourselves, no matter how our might proliferates.

Diplomacy is more often a skill than an instinct. We both engage with other countries because they are our allies and make them our allies through engagement. A capitalist society often defines that engagement in terms of money and military prowess, but those are inadequate models. Like all engagements, internationalism must be a rendezvous of human beings. The import of Japanese technology and Italian fashion has been gratifying; the ubiquity of Coca-Cola speaks on our behalf; and boots on the ground have increased American sway in some beleaguered nations. Yet it is in transnational civilian-to-civilian interactions that we find solutions to our disaffection. “If one does not understand a person,” Carl Jung wrote in his
Mysterium Coniunctionis
, “one tends to regard him as a fool.” Both parties lose in that scenario. In national as in personal relationships, it is easier to resolve tensions when you can figure out what the other is thinking. The art and culture and even the cuisines and monuments of other places can help us to do so; the people of those places help us most of all. America uses such soft power for suasion abroad, but often we do not allow ourselves the luxury of being persuaded by others. Travel is not merely a pleasant diversion for the well-to-do, but the necessary remedy to our perilously frightened times. At a moment when many politicians are stoking anxiety, telling people that it’s too perilous even to leave the house, there is new urgency to the arguments for going out and recognizing that we are all in the game together. The quest for freedom and adventure reflects the imperative of internationalism in these paranoiac times.

I am not suggesting that we can or should eliminate borders or nations, nor that we will one day crossbreed into a single, encompassing citizenry, nor that some Rosetta stone of cultural values will quell innate antipathies. Enemies often come from abroad, and both early and recent history are marked by plunder and conquest. Belligerence is wired into us, and utopian idylls of nonviolence have never brokered sustainable harmony on a grand scale. Equanimity is not a default trait from which we deviate only by circumstance. Having spent considerable time on the ground with members of the US military, I am grateful to the people who have developed armaments and the people who wield them on our behalf. More than that, I have seen how violence mediates compassion. Peace is most often achieved through intervention, not through ennobled passivity. Concord exists in contrast to aggression, but seldom obviates it.

How, then, to balance these contrary needs: to define an other, to recognize the threat that other might pose, to learn about that other as deeply as possible, and then to welcome that other as much as we safely can? People flee even when they have nowhere to go. As Justin Trudeau in Canada and Angela Merkel in Germany extend a hand of friendship to refugees, we are reminded how foolish it is to presume that those who come from a land full of enemies are themselves necessarily enemies. Having nowhere to go can be fatal; having somewhere to go is a precondition of dignity; providing somewhere to go is often a canny generosity that benefits both sides.

It’s hard to love one’s neighbor, and harder to love one’s enemy; indeed, the latter is sometimes an exercise of poor judgment. Social animals, we organize according to similarities. Embracing diversity may be an ecological imperative, a societal responsibility, and the ineluctable nature of a shrinking world, but ignoring the differences among people and cultures always backfires. Contrary to liberal expectations, some persuasive research suggests that children to whom race is never mentioned tend to sort themselves according to skin color, while children to whom the contexts of difference are emphasized are more willing to commingle. We are essentialists who achieve our identity primarily by contrasting it to the unfamiliar character of others. There could be no America without an abroad; if you could
demystify the abroad entirely, America as we know it would vanish. But we can segregate by our passports and still strive toward kindness among nations, recognize that the Marshall Plan worked at least as well as the firebombing of Dresden, and support as equals those who lack our advantages. We can separate the urgent need to identify our already existing enemies from the rank folly of making new ones.

After my husband and I had children, we began taking them with us on trips as soon as they learned to walk, because we wanted them to have a sense of the world as a large and varied place overflowing with possibilities. Children are malleable for a short time only, and whatever limits you set soon become their norm. We wanted that norm to include what is surprising, enchanting, uncomfortable, glamorous, disorienting, exciting, and weird about travel. They can decide to be homebodies when they grow up, but at least they will know what they are setting aside.

My daughter is eight and my son is six and a half, and both are already excellent travelers. When they were toddlers, people would say, “They’re far too young. They’ll never remember Spain.” But we don’t have current experiences only for the sake of future memories; adventures have their worth even if they are restricted to the present tense. While I anticipated that George and Blaine might not remember a particular place, I knew that I would remember taking them there, and that they would be shaped by the earliest possible understanding that people have varied customs and beliefs. When Blaine was three, I carried her outside a restaurant to see the sunset over the Place de la Concorde and told her about having seen the same sight with my own mother. “Oh, Daddy,” she said, “I’m so happy right now.” A year later, we were on the floor playing with her dolls, and she announced, “Emma is hungry. She has to go get something to eat.”

I said, “Well, where would Emma like to get something? Maybe from Central Market?”

“No, I don’t think so.”

“Where, then?”

“Paris.”

My son George has shown a particular interest in maps. He studies them for hours on end, tracing where one country abuts another. A New York cabbie announced to us that he came from Senegal, caught the eye of then five-year-old George in the rearview mirror, and said, “I’ll bet you don’t know where that is, little boy.”

George said, “South of Mauritania, next to Mali and Guinea.” The driver nearly crashed the taxi.

A few months later, we asked George where he’d go if he could go anywhere in the world. He thought for a moment before responding, “Syria.”

John and I were both alarmed. “Syria!” we said. “Why Syria?”

George said patiently, using an expression that has some currency in our house, “Someone has to tell those people that what they’re doing is inappropriate behavior.”

Traveling with my children offers three primary pleasures. First, their delight in new things kindles my own delight, returning freshness to a ride in a gondola, a Rocky Mountain vista, the Changing of the Guard. Many touristic clichés are overexposed because they are singular and spectacular, and children provide an excuse to enjoy them again. Second, the advantages of traveling make a worthy legacy: I am lucky that I was given the world so early. In passing that gift along, I rekindle my intimacy with my mother; taking my children to faraway places honors her memory. Finally, my children have returned a sense of purposefulness to my travel. I’ve been to so many places and seen so much, and sometimes it feels like a glut of sunsets and churches and monuments. My mind has been stretched by the world’s diversity, and may be approaching its elastic limits. In addressing the minds of my children, however, an urgent sense of purpose is renewed. I do not expect that George will settle the conflict with ISIL, but I think the knowledge he and Blaine and their half siblings Oliver and Lucy are accumulating will broaden their inherent kindness and thus increase the planet’s depleted stores of compassion.

I used to think that I was unusually reactive to the thinness of the air in a plane’s pressurized cabin. I cry on planes—at the movies I
watch, the books I read, the letters and e-mails I attempt to answer. Those surges of emotion have a quality of abrupt intensity that is most often associated with substance abuse. Sometimes, it’s a good trip, and sometimes, a bad one; sometimes, the emotionality is thrilling, and sometimes, deeply distressing. For years, I presumed that this hypersensitivity was affiliated with other physiological effects of altitude, such as the diminished ability to distinguish flavors—a mercy on most airlines. I sought research that would reveal whether more or less blood was flowing to which areas of my brain, how my pulmonary capacity was compromised by the angle of ascent.

Now I’ve come to believe that departure simply makes me sad, whether it points to someplace I’ve always wanted to see or to the home I have missed. Though travel can intensify life, it also evokes dying. It is a detachment. I grow anxious at takeoff not because of the air pressure and not because the plane might crash, but because I feel myself dissolving. I was brought up to value safety more than comfort, and comfort more than courage, and have spent adulthood striving to invert that hierarchy. Rilke said, “We need, in love, to practice only this: letting each other go. For holding on comes easily; we do not need to learn it.” As we climb above the clouds, I practice letting go of the place I’ve come from or the place I’ve gone. Though I am sustained in these departures by the prospect of arrival, separation always tugs me toward at least momentary regret. Even in that sorrow, however, I know that I failed fully to love home until I went repeatedly abroad and could not appreciate abroad until I had returned home time and again. Valediction is, at least for me, a precondition of intimacy.