It’s been 40 years (in 15 days’ time to be exact) since we put a man on the moon. Neil Armstrong took his giant leap for mankind on the 20th of July 1969. At that time, the phrase “global village” was in its infancy having only just been coined by Marshall McLuhan a few years before. In his books McLuhan described how distances in the world were shrinking thanks to the advances in electronic technology and the rapid exchange of information; the term would stick until the advent of the “information superhighway” and Internet.

The phrase “global village” is now mostly used to refer to the Internet itself and the manner in which exchanges thereupon have made the world a much smaller place. What is interesting is that recent studies are finding that the Internet’s contribution to the formation of a “global village” may still be only an illusion and that many people still think in very “local” terms. These studies are based on the use of e-mails. Apparently, the frequency of e-mails diminishes in proportion to the distance between sender and receiver. We are likely to send more e-mails to people living close to us and our community than to someone far away.

It’s weird isn’t it? You have technology at your disposal that allows you to remain in close contact with people in Canada, Ecuador and Laos at the same time, but a very, very high percentage of the e-mails that you send are sent to your office mates in the same block or people in the same town. When I came across this fact I was a bit diffident, but then I reflected on my own e-mailing habits and noticed that it is very true.

Not only that, my Internet habits are very “local” themselves. Morning coffee is normally drunk while browsing Maltese newspapers online first, my blog-roll second, and then the less local (but not too distant) “foreign news”. Current foreign favourites include Turin-based La Stampa, Milan-based La Gazzetta, and of course good old BBC. It’s not like I have taken to reading the Boston Herald or the India Times on a daily basis. News aggregators usually do the trick for that by pointing out the main headlines around the world in an instant.

Name calling

The research on whether or not the “global village” is really “global” has now shifted to an interesting field. Researchers are examining whether there have actually been shifts in naming traditions with the advent of the Internet age. This research is based on the assumption that the Internet has affected the choices of names in different states. What researchers found was the contrary. With the advent of the Internet preferred first names in specific states were actually reinforced - their popularity increased rather than diminished.

The global village is not, it seems, as global as we might have thought. The words parochial, local and conservative spring to mind. The noughties began with the bang of 9/11, and we have been busy building confusing barriers of diffidence and intolerance ever since. Somehow, the disharmonic growth into some kind of global community stopped somewhere along the line and we find ourselves facing rather anomalous demarcation lines instead.

Which brings me to that tiny contrada in the global village that is our island. We are a rather peculiar people in that we tend to look at the word through a window constructed in the Mintoffian era and left to its own devices throughout the reign of the party that could once describe itself as Christian-democrat. The world is Malta-centric according to us and woe betide any foreigner who fails to think in those terms.

It gets worse. Our conception of ourselves, our nation and what makes it is about as convolutedly confused as the contents of a minestra. The “debate” on all things Piano that has been raging brought so much of this to the fore and more. Class divides, romantic nostalgics of inexistent eras (or fabricated historic myths), pompous bile-spouting snobs, and a nation of architects. It was splashed (and is still being splashed) on whatever medium was available. Maltese Relativism triumphed once more and while Publius and Paul were not even allowed an amicable chat beyond City Gates, we had to succumb to the virtual reality equivalent of the Maghtab mountain.

De gustibus (or taste)

“Even those who privately harbour a notion of the operative principles behind architectural beauty are unlikely to make their suppositions public, for fear of committing an illogicality or of being attacked by the guardians of relativism, who stand ready to censure all those who would dress up individual tastes as objective laws.” – Alain de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness.

The “guardians of relativism”. They are all over the place and J’accuse has long been pointing out that they are more dangerous than a busload of people infected with pig flu. It was never a case of if but when – the issue of whether relativism would become a full-blown epidemic on the island. From the hoi polloi to the self-appointed guardians of public opinion, wit and intelligence, they would all speak from their separate pulpits and pronounce their fatwas on dissenters. Depending on social class (or caste), the fatwa would take different forms but the end result would be the same.

There’s a Maltese proverb that says that for every hundred persons you would find one hundred opinions. The proverb aptly describes the past week’s disquisitions on the Piano Plans. We had hoi polloi from all walks of life declaiming their opinions on the matter. Where was La Valette and his sword in all this? Why did we employ a foreigner to plan changes to our jewel and why did he not respect that most Maltese of architects Barry? Why is there no real gate? Why this? Why that?

Then there were the hoi polloi of the other sort. Of the kind who believe that because they attract a (sadly) numerous group of adulators who enjoy a mud-slinging contest as much as your stereotypical flag-waving party fanatic, then they have the god-given right to decide who can speak and when. At one sad moment this week Astrid Vella of the FAA was being criticised for not giving her opinion on the Piano plans. In the world of the relativists you are condemned either way. A bit like the witch-hunter’s test by drowning.

While Astrid was busy committing gaffes of her own in Qormi, J’accuse dared to pass an uneducated comment of his own on the blog. We dared express our general agreement with the Piano plans, but before you could say “x’qerda” (how boring), one of the guardians of relativism traipsed over to the blog and fulfilled his duty as a nitpicking minion by commenting with what he thought would be a right royal ticking off. Needless to say, it is beyond the comprehension of these guardians of relative nonsense that J’accuse’s admission of total ignorance in all technicalities architectural would not have changed Piano’s plans one iota... what’s more, we actually like them!

Wit’s end

Whether you come across loud bullies or individuals attempting to spread their negative karma all over the place, relativism is hard to escape. One of the subjects on J’accuse this week was Dario Fo and his little adventure in Assisi. The Nobel Prize winner has suffered a temporary setback while touring with his latest show entitled “Giotto o non Giotto?” During this show Fo queries whether the famous painter Giotto is actually the person to have painted the famous affreschi in the Assisi basilica. According to Fo, the painter was too young to have painted them himself.

The show that was meant to take place in the beautiful piazzale in front of the upper basilica in Assisi had to be cancelled when Bishop Sorrentino refused permission. For once, it was not Fo’s notoriety for irreverent material that had incensed a representative of the Church but rather the very denial of Giotto’s authorship of the paintings. Sorrentino refused to allow a show that, according to him, would “destroy the magnificent illusion for the last poor Assisi folk”.

Fo is not the first to contest Giotto’s authorship of the painting, and neither the mayor nor the friars of the convent had found anything wrong with the show. Fo’s comment on the Bishop’s decision is interesting. “Questo è il segno dei tempi. È davvero un’espressione di quel retrivo conservatorismo culturale per il quale ogni alterazione dello status quo diventa un atto di blasfemia.” A quasi-fascist inability to discuss and confront ideas – it is really a sign of the times. The global village is currently overrun by the idiots – they are loud and they are popular

Brevity

I’ve long thought that the print version of J’accuse is rather long. Having been reminded of that by a prime unwitting guardian of relativism, I’ve decided to make this a first shorter article in the hope that summer will be full of brief pills of trademark J’accuse wisdom (relatively speaking).

I am off kayaking down the Liesse tomorrow. Hopefully, I will survive the 24km trek in the company of other employees of the Court of Justice. A pint or two of the best Leffe beer should be enough of an incentive to get to the end. Meanwhile, allow me to use these lines to congratulate the Lilywhites for their victory over the Icelandish team whose name escapes me. (Keflavik methinks). I was hoping for a second round tie with a Luxembourgish team but the pitiful performance of the locals does not bode well.

That’s all this week. Next time I’ll be writing and reading in Malta as the summer breaks kick in.

Jacques still thinks Piano’s plans rock – subterranean gallery and all – on http://www.jacquesrenezammit.com/jaccuse. Comments – brief or long – are welcome.