I recently blogged an interesting review on Clint Eastwood's two newest films on Newsvine. The review appeared in the fascinating e-mag nthposition that always makes for a great read, particularly on intercultural issues.

The review's conclusion, comparing the two films, was:

It appears, Eastwood suggests, that a culture that prefers flags to letters, a culture which offers up symbols as opposed to simple human expression - the culture of my own father - is doomed to estrangement.

Fascinating point. But what exactly is at stake here? I agree about the chief issue springing to mind when talking about symbolic and "simple" forms of human expression. But what precisely is so "simple" here? Can we really talk about a letter as a non-simple, simple that is, human form of expression as opposed to the symbolic form of Japanese communication? I admit I fail to see the substantial difference between the two realms.

I would have less problems agreeing with a view that would oppose the generally symbolic form of expression of the written language in whatever alphabet to that of the human voice in direct, immediate personal exchange. But then, the distinction seems to move again, as also oral expression certainly is a form of metaphoric or symbolic exchange of meaning. Nevertheless, orality pragmatically differs from written expression in several ways, for instance its intuitive, improvised nature lacking the planned structure of the written word.

One would have to look at the fundamental differences of the Japanese language and those of the Indogerman roots to make out the core issues here. Nevertheless, I do agree that they will exist. I just think that it would be too easy to draw the line where the review's author does.