@nolongerheartbroken asked:
Hi, I’m writing a story where one of the main characters is coded as being from Iran/the Sasanian Empire (fantasy world) on his mother’s side (his dad is Welsh), and his character arc is about him becoming more confident, particularly to do with being more assertive and hyping himself up more, due to a perceived “failure” from his childhood.
I understand that the etiquette of Taarof is important in Iran, and can show up in ways like initially denying offers or downplaying your achievements. I want this character to be able to embrace his cultural heritage, and I also want him to be able to be really direct with what he wants and celebrate his achievements without considering others and how they feel.
The impetus for his surge in confidence is his ability to choose himself and what he wants, but since this is in conflict with how he acts based on Taarof, it might come across like his confidence is due to upholding less of his culture (and that’s not what I want to come across at all).
Is there a way to portray this character arc without erasing or misrepresenting his culture? For example, how might he explain Taarof to one of the other characters, especially if they think it’s a sign of him not being confident?
Note: In this post, I use Taarof as both a noun and a verb. If you’re not familiar with the Iranian etiquette of Taarof, this post won’t make much sense to you, so I recommend looking it up first.
Taarof is a social etiquette, and social etiquettes are context-dependent. They only work within the society that uses them.
It’s not clear from your question where the story takes place, and whether the character was raised there or has recently migrated from a different country. I’m going to answer assuming that your story doesn’t take place in the Iranian-coded fantasy country, but rather in a different country where Taarof isn’t the norm.
Culture clash and adaptation
A character who was raised with Taarof and then moves to a society that follows different norms will probably experience some culture shock at first. They will try to taarof and run into trouble (and/or hilarious situations). But as any Iranian who has migrated to a different country can attest, people adjust. It doesn’t take that long to realize that this social etiquette doesn’t work here and stop using it. Nobody wants to go hungry because their host took them at their word when they declined the food they were offered, and then they were too embarrassed to admit they didn’t mean it (true story).
It seems likely to me that, after an initial shock/adaptation period, your character will learn the new country’s social norms and change their behavior accordingly, because Taarof is a two-way street. You don’t do it if the other person doesn’t do it back. It would be like playing a game with people who follow different rules, or having a conversation with people who speak a different language. It’s not just that it puts you at a disadvantage. It simply doesn’t work.
The utility of social etiquettes
People use social etiquettes because they work. They’re a set of rules and norms that ensure social interactions run smoothly.
Here’s a concrete example:
According to the etiquette of Taarof, when you’re having lunch at a restaurant with friends, you have to offer to pay for everyone. The social script goes like this: Person A offers to pay. Person B protests and says they’ll pay. Persons C and D jump in and try to pay as well. Everyone gets out their wallets and tries to get their card to the waiter first. A melee ensues. Everyone else in the restaurant who’s not familiar with Taarof looks on in horror. The restaurant learns its lesson and bans all Iranians from ever eating there again.
Jokes aside, here’s the key: it’s a social script. It works because everyone involved is “in” on it. Everyone knows the script and follows it. As a result, it usually works out that over the course of several lunches, each person takes a turn paying and it ends up equitable. And if on a given day, Person A can’t actually afford to pay for everyone’s lunch, they can still offer, to be polite, and rest assured that they won’t have to follow through if they don’t fight too hard for it.
This would not work if only person A was trying to taarof and the others were oblivious to it. Person A would end up paying for everyone every time. Or maybe their friends would become uncomfortable with the situation and stop going to lunch with them. Either way, Person A would very quickly realize that Taarof doesn’t work here because it produces unwanted results and stop doing it.
Going back to your question: it’s true that culturally, Iranians won’t boast about their own achievements because that’s considered rude. But that doesn’t mean nobody’s accomplishments are ever mentioned. Instead, people will compliment each other and elevate each other. So the end result–everyone is acknowledged–is achieved anyway. But instead of each person talking themselves up on their own, people talk each other up. Different social etiquette, same practical purpose.
The same goes for declining offers. It’s considered rude to immediately accept something that’s offered, even if you want it. You’re supposed to decline, but it doesn’t end there. The other person will then offer again (you’ll decline again) and then another time, and finally you’ll accept. So, if you really need your friend to give you a ride to the airport, they will. You’re just being polite by declining their help at first, and your friend knows it, so they’ll be polite and insist. Again, it’s a social script that works because everyone participates. The game only makes sense if all the players follow the same rules.
Assertiveness, confidence, and Taarof
Just because people interact according to the etiquette of Taarof doesn’t mean they’re not confident or assertive. When I’m invited to a traditional Iranian house for dinner and I taarof, it’s not because I’m not assertive enough to say I’m hungry. It’s because I know how this game works, and I know that I will be offered food multiple times and I will be considered rude and greedy if I accept everything right away. (Also, self-preservation: if I tried to eat everything I was offered by a taarofing host, I might die.)
Similarly, when I refrain from talking myself up, it’s not because I’m not confident. It’s because I don’t want to look rude and pretentious when I’m the only one doing it. And trust me, if someone wants to make sure an achievement of theirs is acknowledged in that situation, they will find a way to make it happen without breaking etiquette.
Code-switching
If your character is in contact with other people from the Iranian-coded culture, they will probably behave according to the conventions of Taarof amongst themselves, because it’s part of their shared culture. But when interacting with people for whom Taarof is not part of their cultural norms, they will behave differently. This is behavioral code-switching.
Now, if the character was born and raised in this country instead of recently moved there, then there won’t be any culture shock or adaptation period because they’ll have grown up immersed in both cultures. The behavioral code-switching will happen naturally. They’ll know to taarof with relatives and acquaintances who share the Taarof-based culture, and not with anyone who doesn’t.
Cultural values
With that being said, there is a difference between behavior and values. If the character was raised to value humility, they’re not going to stop valuing it just because they’re in a different country. They might be put off by what they perceive as* a lack of humility in the people they’re interacting with, and possibly judge them for it. And even once they learn to behave differently in order to adapt to the society they’re in, they might still not like it. Their internal monologue might show that it feels off and unpleasant to them to behave this way, but they’re still doing it because that’s what the situation requires.
*I say “perceive as” because, again, values are different from behavior and it’s possible to express the same values in different ways depending on social norms. In the previous restaurant example, Person A who was raised with Iranian values might believe that generosity is shown by offering to pay for everyone’s food, and might think that Western culture is selfish. Meanwhile, the friends who had a more Western upbringing might think Iranian culture is dishonest. Both of those conclusions are flawed because they’re using one set of social norms to judge a behavior that’s rooted in a different set of norms. But it’s very common to pass this kind of judgement on cultures we don’t understand, so it’s something you can use in your story to make it more realistic if the cultural discrepancy is great.
In summary
Keep in mind that your character will know to code-switch and won’t randomly taarof with people who don’t do it back. If you want to portray this aspect of your character’s culture, you can show them interacting with people who share that culture. And when they’re interacting with people who have a different culture and don’t taarof, use the character’s internal monologue to show how they feel about it.
The character arc you want where your character becomes more confident and assertive can happen regardless of how they behave culturally, because it’s first and foremost an internal transformation. When it comes to manifesting it in the character’s actions, you’ll have to remember that confidence and assertiveness will look different depending on who they’re interacting with and what set of social norms they’re using to navigate that interaction.
- Niki
Niki provided a ton of things to consider around etiquette and adaptation, but I’d like to pose a wildly different question to you:
Why is it important for your character to follow a character arc that is individualistic?
The first thing that struck me when I read this ask was that you had taken an extremely Western mindset—the concept that you “should” be assertive, and bold, and be an independent individual—and placed it within an Indigenous culture (Welsh people are colonized and Indigenous even in modern day) and a West Asian culture, both of which skew collectivist.
A collectivist-based story arc will look wildly different than an individualistic one, and I don’t see that level of cultural sensitivity in the ask.
Part of writing a diverse character is thinking about what a realized character arc would look like within their culture. How would somebody from a collectivist society make up for the perceived failure of their childhood? How would they go about building their individual identity and realizing who the best version of themselves is?
There’s a reason Niki answered as if the character does not live in a society that has collectivist principles: it’s because the character arc isn’t one that jives with a collectivist culture.
If they live somewhere else, then maybe it’s fine, but this arc is automatically assimilatory because it prioritizes and prefers an individualistic mindset over a collectivist mindset. Yes, it’s possible to show he’s Iranian in other ways, but to me it looks like you haven’t thought of what “overcompensating for a perceived mistake in childhood” would look like in Iran, or even in Wales.
I say “maybe” it’s fine because individualistic cultures fall on a spectrum just like collectivist cultures, and when you’re looking at individualism you have to keep in mind that not all individualistic cultures will even value being loud and bold and assertive.
You can take a look at websites like Hofstede Insight’s Compare Cultures tool to see what the score is for different countries you’re pulling from (unfortunately it does not have Wales as an individual country and instead lumps it into the United Kingdom, which will skew English and therefore skew colonizer).
To someone collectivist, this reads like a corruption arc. And maybe this is the midpoint of his arc, where he tries to go super assimilatory and… doesn’t get satisfaction because it’s betraying what he was taught.
It’s possible to be collectivist and selfish, yes, but why is it so important that everyone be an individual? Why is it so important that you ignore what others feel and only do what you want at all times? Why is that considered the “healed” way, when healing is not a one size fits all?
I’d suggest looking up concepts like “toxic individualism” which is getting populated with tons of articles as the pandemic rages on, like this one from psychology today: How America Fell Into Toxic Individualism. It details how “me first, my feelings above all else” has made it so difficult for Americans to take the public health measures required to stop the spread, which requires some basic degree of collectivism to do.
Individualism is fine in moderation; collectivism can become just as toxic as individualism when it gets to extremes. But having an arc that so heavily hinges on being selfish and individualistic is falling into Western-centricism and is, at its core, painting a Western emotional arc onto at least one non-Western society.
So I ask again: have you thought of what healing from slights looks like in a collectivist culture?
You’ll probably find a more accurate, more resonant story if you at least look for the answers to that question.
~Mod Lesya
Ask published Oct 2021