A cross-cultural effort to promote understanding between the people of Iran and the United States.
Part 2
By Kourosh Ziabari and Dave Eriqat

I owe to Dave Eriqat unendingly. He was among the first Americans who had paid a cordial homage to my call for the establishment of a coalition for resisting ignorance and unawareness. I wrote an article about the friendship of Iranian and American people a few months ago, and Dave emailed me to set up this friendship in practice. He is a veteran computer programmer and freelance journalist, with whom I built the construction of a mutual, cross-cultural endeavor to promote bilateral understanding between our nations.

Our governments have been at odds with together over the past 30 years; the longstanding affability of Iran and U.S. soon turned into a staunch hostility following the victory of Islamic Revolution in 1979 which toppled the unpopular, U.S.-backed Shah of Iran. Since then, Iran and U.S. became Tome and Jerry!

Nevertheless, the communal relationship of people on the both sides, particularly in the terms of cultural exchanges has never been flawed. Academicians, athletes, journalists, artists and common tourists have been commuting over the two sides perpetually to unveil the concealed realities of "Great Satan" and "The Axis of Evil" impartially.

The new U.S. President won the hearts of Americans with his brilliant, gleaming motto of change and has chanted his eagerness to sit face-to-face by the Iranian president and break the hoarfrost of 30-years animosity several times.

Given the gradual preparation of grounds for a stable reconciliation between Iran and the U.S., we, I and Dave, decided to explore our countries profoundly and disclose the obscured realities of them for the other side.

In the first part of our common effort, Dave interviewed me to figure out about Iran from various angels: culture, lifestyle, politics, economy, tourism, arts etc. What follows is the second part of the same project, in which I interviewed Dave to introduce a real America to Iranians from his viewpoint. I categorized my questions into 9 categories and each category comprises some relevant questions.

By reading this interview, you will catch an almost clear and tangible view of life in the U.S. from different dimensions and understand the details of what happens in the 4th largest countries of the world through the questions of a so-called journalist from the 18th largest country of the world.

a) American Lifestyle

KZ: In most Hollywood movies which the Iranian TV channels screen, we encounter single-parent homes; families in which either the father or mother is missing due to divorce, death, struggle etc. What's the reality of American family? How much are the parents committed to the basis of family? Can you give us a proportion of single-parent families?

DE: Single-parent families are quite common in America, primarily due to divorce. Americans readily divorce, remarry, divorce again, not taking the “until death do us part” portion of the marriage vow very seriously. I believe that today something around half of marriages end in divorce, and perhaps half of families are single-parent ones, a much higher rate than when I was a child. Back then, two-parent households were the norm where I grew up. In those days, the mother stayed home and took care of the house and children and the father went to work, from which his income alone could support the family.

KZ: Is divorce and remarriage something ordinary in American culture? Do the parents separate as soon as they encounter struggles, misunderstandings and inconvenience with each other? 

DE: I partially answered this question above. Yes, it’s easier for people to simply separate when they encounter problems than try to work them out, especially since there’s no stigma against divorce like there used to be. Fifty years ago a divorced woman, for example, was highly stigmatized and shunned. Not today.

A major cause of divorce is financial difficulty. For example, if one wage-earner loses a job and the couple starts to fall behind on their mortgage payments, and the bills start to pile up, their relationship suffers immensely, often resulting in divorce. The overriding factor, however, is that for the last few decades the standard of living in this country has been quietly declining, leading to more frequent financial difficulty. Again, when I was a kid, divorce due to financial problems was rare because families enjoyed a robust standard of living. One of the perversities of American culture is that people are expected to be “independent.” So if a couple experiences problems, especially financial problems, they are expected to work them out themselves. To ask for assistance from family is humiliating and an admission of failure, even if they had family members who were in a position to help out, which is not necessarily the case. So this feeling of isolation adds to the stress associated with such problems.

Another cause of divorce, oddly enough, is government policy. Forty years ago divorce was stigmatized. Even being single, especially for women, was viewed with slight suspicion. But a woman having a child out of wedlock was downright scandalous. In fact, there was a song by Diana Ross and The Supremes from the 1960s, title “Love Child,” about the stigma associated with out of wedlock births. Between then and now the government greatly expanded the welfare system, especially with regard to single mothers. In effect, the government gives single mothers on welfare a sum of money that’s based on how many children they have! So the government is effectively encouraging these welfare mothers to have more children. In fact, if there’s a father around to help support the children, the mother will receive less from the government, so the government’s policy is encouraging single motherhood as well. The fact that single mothers can be supported by the government, whereas before they required a husband to support them, has helped erase the stigma associated with divorce, single motherhood or even out of wedlock births.

One final contributing factor to divorce is women entering the workforce. Again, forty years ago not many women worked. They were generally supported by a husband. Beginning in the 1970s there was a huge surge of women entering the workforce, which liberated them in a sense and enabled them to support themselves without a husband. So single women today have two ways to support themselves that were largely unavailable forty years ago: by working or going on welfare.

KZ: What components are considered the moral and ethical fundamentals of American society? Which elements do the American people reckon as morale? Are the dressing codes and norms included in American ethics?

DE: This is a difficult question to answer because the moral values in this country have changed markedly over the last few decades and are in flux even now. Let me answer the question by describing the moral values “then” and “today.”

When I was a kid, forty years ago, values like integrity, honesty, bravery, piety, compassion, loyalty were highly valued. The television shows of that era reflected those values. Today, most of these values are “relative,” devotion to them varying depending on the circumstances. People claim to be religious but don’t seem to exhibit the behaviors dictated by their religion, such as compassion and love. People claim to be honest, but don’t see anything wrong with telling “white lies” or pilfering office supplies from their employer. People say they have integrity, but look at all the people hired by our new president who can’t seem to abide by the very laws they are hired to enforce! People are loyal only so long as they can profit. Companies lay off employees as soon as their profits decline and employees leave their employer as soon as they get a better offer. People are “brave” only when shielded by armor and armed with overwhelming weaponry. Today, agreements must be put in writing or they are unenforceable, whereas in the past you could trust someone’s word and handshake. For example, I did consulting work for a company for over fifteen years and never had anything but a verbal agreement with the people running that company. They never had any doubts about my loyalty or integrity, and I never had any doubts about theirs. Then a few years ago the company was purchased by a conglomerate run by lawyers and accountants. Today, after over fifteen years of loyal service, they insist I sign a fifteen page contract! I have not changed; the company has not changed; the only thing that has changed is the culture.

KZ: How is the quality of relationship between children and parents in the American family? Is it much important for the parents to be respected by the children in all terms of verbal and non-verbal demeanor? Do the American parents reprimand their children if they use aggressive or impolite language?

DE: Here is another area that has changed markedly over the last few decades. When I was a kid, children respected their parents. Any disrespect or foul language was met with strict punishment. Not only that, children were expected to behave in public, under threat of punishment, even in public if need be. Today, parents are exceedingly permissive, tolerating not only abuse and disrespect from their children, but tolerating their children misbehaving in public.

Why the change? To some extent it’s a cyclical cultural phenomenon in which values swing between strict and permissive. But there’s also been a politically-motivated trend to remove control from parents and give it to the state. Parents have been systematically disempowered. For example, today it borders on child abuse for parents to spank their children, but it was common when I was a kid. Children are also encouraged by the state to tattle on their parents if they do anything illegal or even merely peculiar. In other words, the state is trying to encourage in children a fealty to it rather than the children’s own parents. The increasing use of foul language in video games, television, movies and music has made it “acceptable” for children to use today and is largely tolerated by parents unless carried to extremes. Even then, however, the child will likely receive only a mild reprimand. Finally, school teachers have little recourse anymore. Again, when I was a kid, any teacher could punish a student as they would their own child and the student’s parents would probably have thanked the teacher! Today, teachers dare not punish misbehaving students out of fear of legal reprisals or job loss. So children have little in the way of strict boundaries anymore and are free to behave as they wish.

KZ: Is it much important for the family to meet the daily meals on a single table? Does it indicate rudeness or insolence if all of the family members do not sit at a same table for eating? 

DE: The family meal is largely a thing of the past. At breakfast time one or sometimes both parents often grab a granola bar and a cup of coffee and head to work. That’s partly because they have long commutes to drive so they have to leave home early and spend considerable time sitting in heavy traffic. So the family doesn’t usually eat breakfast together. Lunch is almost never eaten together since the children eat at school and the parents eat at work. Dinner is often eaten as a family, but it’s not uncommon for a family member to be absent. A parent might have to work late, a child might be eating with a friend or engaged in some school activity. It’s not considered the least bit rude for someone to be absent from a family meal. Today, a lot of families don’t cook much at home either, preferring to go out as a family and have fast food or order a pizza to be delivered at home. Another thing that’s changed the eating habits of Americans is the microwave oven. Even kids can “cook” a meal for themselves today by pulling something frozen from the freezer and putting it in the microwave oven. That “self-reliance” takes the pressure off the parents to stay at home and cook for the family, which was the case when I was a kid, before microwave ovens were invented.

KZ: What materials and appliances are ubiquitous in American homes visibly; a hallmark presence of a special item which the American families are bound to preserve, like carpets in Persian homes?

DE: The preeminent appliance in American homes is the television, which has nearly assumed the status of a religious altar. Nearly every home has at least one television and some homes have a television in nearly every room! I believe some people even have televisions in their bathrooms. The second most favored appliance is probably the microwave oven. Interestingly, the two go together, as people vegetating in front of the television can run to the kitchen and microwave some kind of snack food during a commercial break!

A lot of homes have clothes washers and dryers, although drying clothes on an outdoor clothesline is not uncommon, especially in the rural area in which I live. Interestingly, some modern housing developments, wishing to maintain their aesthetic appearance, actually prohibit the U.S.e of clotheslines as unsightly. That attitude unveils the energy-centric attitude of American culture: it’s better to consume some energy than despoil the pristine appearance of the community. A lot of homes also have automatic dishwashers.

As to heirlooms, they are rare anymore. Decades ago families passed down heirlooms: rugs, quilts, furniture, paintings, photographs, and so forth, although what constituted an heirloom differed from one family to the next. One family might treasure an old photograph of the family; another a quilt made by a distant relative; another a piece of furniture passed down through the generations; another an old wedding dress worn by many a maiden.

In today’s shiny new, transitory culture, those things have little value. Another commentary on our closing era of “affluence” is that we value new things more than used. We discard anything old and used and replace it with something brand new. I’m somewhat of a Luddite (one who rejects modernity), because I prefer to surround myself with old things and actually fix and refurbish things if possible, rather than buy new things.

b) Religion and ethics

KZ: According to stats, as of 2008 there are 6 to 7 million Muslims in the U.S.. How is the quality of their co-existence with other Americans? What's the feeling and perception of American people when seeing Muslims going to mosques, or doing ritual customs publicly?

DE: Muslims here enjoy complete freedom to practice their religion and culture. I have many Muslim family members who associate with others of their kind, attend mosques freely, have no trouble finding ethnic foods, and so forth. Of course, they live in cities. In the countryside, it would be much more difficult for them. Not only would they face a greater likelihood of discrimination, but there are no mosques, ethnic food stores or venues in which to associate with others of their kind. Many own small businesses. In fact, it’s a popular joke in American cities that convenience stores are often owned by Arabs, Indians or Pakistanis. There are lots of restaurants serving Arab and Persian cuisine. They are typically owned by Muslims and popular with ordinary Americans.

It wasn’t always so easy, though, even in the cities. As recently as twenty years ago, Muslims were a rare sight and were openly discriminated against while simply being in public, if wearing identifiable clothing. Today people think nothing of it, at least, in the cities. If a Muslim woman were to walk around the town where I live with her head covered in a scarf, she’d raise a few eyebrows, but that’s about all. Were a mosque to open up around here, it might cause some consternation among the largely Christian people, but they probably wouldn’t oppose it.

The only time Muslims face difficulty is when there’s some kind of “incident” in which Muslims are implicated. Then Americans are quick to look for appropriate scapegoats and Muslims face a spike of discrimination, although it usually abates after a while.

KZ: How much time and investment do the American media outlets dedicate to the propagation of religion? Is there any major TV program or newspaper section which introduces religious customs, traditional beliefs etc?

DE: No, the business world here is pretty secular. Part of it is financially motivated. There are several popular religions, so showing favor to any one will alienate practitioners of the others. In addition, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from favoring any religion, so that mentality pervades American culture. Religion is generally deemed a private matter, although certain religions, notably Christianity, keep trying to influence public policy, and, in fact, many public laws have their roots in the Christian religion. For example, it’s illegal to sell alcohol in my county on Sundays, which almost certainly stems from the Christian religion.

It’s generally accepted that people here are religious and believe in god. It’s just not talked about in the media. Actually, Americans are among the most religious people on the planet if polls can be trusted.

KZ: How is the contribution of Muslims to the official body of US government and its affiliated organizations? Are there any prominent Muslim figures in US who hold important offices or titles?

DE: Muslims don’t have a lot of influence or visibility here. It has been reputed that our new president is or was a Muslim, but I believe he has denied it. I believe there was recently a cabinet-level official or prominent member of Congress who was a Muslim, but no name comes to mind. The fact that I cannot name anyone offhand reveals how underrepresented Muslims are in American politics. America seems to harbor a certain amount of antipathy toward most of the Muslim world. If our president was at one time a Muslim, I’m sure he felt compelled to deny it on those grounds alone. It does sound kind of strange that Muslim Americans would be tolerated, yet we would harbor antipathy and suspicion toward Muslims outside our country, but that seems to be the case.

KZ: The conversion of Americans to Islam and other monotheistic religions have surged dramatically in the past years. What's the main reason in your view?

DE: I sense a great dissatisfaction among Americans with the established political, religious and economic systems. That alone might account for them wanting to try something new. After all, we in America love to try new things. The conversion to Islam may turn out to be little more than experimentation for most, a fad. I don’t sense that there’s a huge groundswell of interest in abandoning Christianity in favor of Islam. This country will probably remain staunchly Christian, unless the Muslim population grows disproportionately.

One thing that might be driving Americans from Christianity to Islam is their sense that their religion has become a fraud. As I mentioned earlier, many people are religious in name but not in deed. The same is even more true for some churches here, some of which are little more than businesses operating behind an evangelical facade. I could see sincere people becoming disillusioned by that fraud and searching for something more honest and meaningful.

KZ: Violence and immorality in the American media, especially the movies and among the extensive cartel of celebrities, has been a major icon and symbol for the lack of ethical principles in the society of U.S., though it might be incorrect and many American people cling to certain moral notions. How do you interpret that?

DE: I’m not quite sure how to respond to this question because I’m not sure if violence and immorality is a reflection of American mores or a cause of their decline. It’s probably a little of both, as these relationships often develop a feedback loop in which one feeds the other. In any case, these negative qualities did not arise in isolation, but are related to the other factors I mentioned above, including absentee, permissive parents; a domineering government, which is inherently violent; a pervasive corporate presence, which is inherently immoral; a defunct school system; weakened religious institutions; a decreasing standard of living and job security; and a weakened, fragmented family structure. As you might imagine, the combination of all these factors would tend to dissolve the moral foundation of any society. Moreover, these factors didn’t exist forty or fifty years ago, but arose only in the last few decades. I can tell you that depictions of senseless violence and immorality were not common in the media forty years ago, quite the opposite. Television programs and movies depicted noble qualities which seem quaint and embarrassingly naive by today’s cynical standards.

KZ: Unlike the Islamic nations and some European countries, there is no gender separation in US for any field and purpose. Have this perpetual mixture had any negative impact on the base of family, ethics and morality in US? Did the American society suffer from its borderless freedom and openness of relations at all?

DE: The impact of women entering the workforce was very significant. Among other things, it almost doubled the pool of available workers, which I believe has played a role in the decline of wages ever since. Now, I don’t want to sound like some chauvinist. I see nothing wrong with women in the workforce. But let’s face it: if you double the number of workers, they are going to command lower salaries. What’s more, with both parents working, as is often the case today, the children do not have the supervision I had as a kid. I personally think that has played a large and under-acknowledged role in the decline of our moral fabric. Again, it’s simply intuitive: if nobody is supervising the children, how are they going to learn good values? Personally, I think what we should have done is for every woman entering the workforce and man should have left it. That would have kept the proportion of workers the same, maintained higher wages and left somebody at home to take care of the children. I also have long believed that it’s almost counterproductive for both parents to work. Doing so, they need two cars, they have to pay for child care, they have to pay somebody to clean the house or take care of the yard, they will probably end up in a higher income tax bracket, they spend more money eating out, plus the children grow up without supervision. All in all, it doesn’t seem as if two parents working actually accomplish much. Personally, I’d love to be a househusband, supported by my wife! I would happily cook and clean and take care of the yard and the kids.

One correction I would make to your assertion, however, is that there is a distinction between men and women in the workforce. Women typically earn about three-quarters as much money as men for the same work. In addition, women aren’t always welcome in every profession, especially those traditionally regarded as “men’s” work, such as construction. Women may enjoy grudging tolerance in such occupations, but will often leave because they don’t feel welcome. There is also the proverbial glass ceiling which prevents women from rising high in the executive ranks of companies. And some companies, such as a huge, well-known retail chain, are notoriously discriminatory against women as store managers.