I cannot believe this is the last blog reflection of the semester. So much has happened, yet so little time has elapsed. Honestly, I am going to miss posting on this blog. Although sometimes the weekly reflections were hard to elaborate, overall it was fun to share my opinion and arguments with my fellow GloSchos. As I prepare to write my final essay for the class, it is very rewarding to see the progression on my posts every week.
As to the class, it was a great experience, and managed to introduced me smoothly into the world and how it works. Through different theoretical and practical situations, such as readings, movies, simulations, I experienced new knowledge. Yet, every time we learnt something new I realized that I had more questions than answers. If I may add a final thought about the class, it should be how much it has expanded my perspective of the world. I want to thank my companions on this 15-week journey, my fellow GloSchos, for allowing me to challenge myself through their knowledgeable and profound posts. Last but not least, thank you Professor PTJ for an amazing semester, full of original and thought-provoking classes.
0 Comments
On p. 245 of the novel _Horizons_, Ahni Huang declares: "The only way to keep them safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Do you agree with her? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary "Horizon" refers to the line where the earth seems to meet the sky. Also, the word can be used to describe the range of perception or experience of a person. The book written by Mary Rosenblum relies heavily on the limited horizons people can have when they enter the conversation on a simple "us" vs "them" mentality.
The story introduces the reader into a complicated world set in the distant future. In this post-apocalyptic world the earth is divided into states that participate as members of a central forum called the World Council while orbiting platforms act as colonies. The Council is where all the decisions about the Earth and the orbiting platforms are made, enforced by the Council Security Forces (CSF). It is important to mention the little say members of the orbiting colonies have over the matters disputed on the World Council. The story revolves around Ahni Huang, member of the Huang family (although she is actually daughter of a Zhen), and Dane Nilsson, who lives in NYUp and seeks independence from Earth. Other secondary characters such as Koi (the evolved kid), Laif, Li Zhen and Noah support the main characters on their quest to unravel complex political intrigues and ultimately gain peaceful independence for the orbiting colony. A radical group named Gaiists attempts to cause an open conflict between Earth and the platform by dropping a massive rock on the World Council Island. These environmentalist group desires a clean Earth and to stop the "stealing" of resources by the Upsiders. In addition, Ahni's Mother crafts a carefully planned web of levers to regain power from her husband, further complicating the political intrigues. In the end, NYUp gains independence through peaceful means while keeping trade and tourism between Upsiders and Downsiders alive. The direct context involving the quote said by Ahni on page 245 takes us back to the beginning, when she meets Dane for the first time. There she is surprised by the weirdness of the genetically manipulated boy named Koi. Later, Dane explains to her that he is not a "creature" made in some lab, but a result of low-gravity and evolution. Back to page 245, Ahni is talking with Li Zhen, after Aliya has already been killed, in order to get him to join her. Li Zhen also has a son who has evolved due to the low-gravity conditions, and is afraid his son will be seen as a monster and killed by the CSF. This leaves Li Zhen with no other option than to join Dane, Laif and Ahni in their movement for independence. The most important "us" vs "them" conflict is present between the opinion of Upsiders and Downsiders with regards to the evolved humans. On page 44 Dane tells Koi that Downsiders are afraid of him because he is different. He also mentions that while Upsiders will get used to weird humans, Downsiders would never accept them. This statement is confirmed later on when Aliya is killed by CSF forces and the media is not made aware of it. Judging from history, colonizers are not open-minded when they encounter "different" humans. Instead, they regard them as "creatures" and either subjigate them or eliminate them. Before his trail Dane feels the same when he thinks of the "millennia of xenophobia and genocide" that weighed on Earth. Downsiders lacked the ability to realize that the evolved kids were still human despite their differences in language and appearance. This behavior resonates with Todorov's interpretation of the Spaniards reaction to the Indigenous populations. There is a tendency of "Othering" the different to the point were it is no longer human. These is what happened back in the Conquest, and its the exact same phenomenon described by Rosenblum. Therefore, I agree with Ahni's statement that the only way to keep the evolved safe was by forming the sovereign platform of New York Up. Even though it is not part of my answer, I do want to make an honorable mention to Rosenblum's inclusion of "Fake News" and mainstream social-media (named Con in the book). Con, used to spread false information on Laif among other political intrigues, greatly resembles modern-day interaction between politics and media. This book was written in 2006, when Twitter was just beginning and concepts such as "fake news" where not as colloquially used as today. So, I find it amazing that the author was able to elaborate a political world that is still relevant twelve years later. Also, I think that speaks not only about the author, but to the unchanging, common themes of world politics and domestic affairs. I want to address Corwin's post. More specifically, the conversation between Corwin and Mimi in the comment section.
Corwin says that: "neither other people nor ourselves can truly judge us to be a foreigner from our home country or culture." Yet, the phenomenon of othering members of their own home country has been present throughout history, in worst case scenarios leading to fatal consequences, such as ethnic cleansing. The idea of nationality and culture are constructions, which people tend to adopt subconsciously. These constructions can be altered to the point where the otherness is so great that a member of the community is excluded and considered a foreigner from their own nation. Despite the existing possibility of cultural alienation, I do not believe that Mimi's statement, "many times when that cultural identity is so tangled they have no other choice than to admit to having no cultural identity," can be accurate. Yes, there is a growing sense of globalization and an unprecedented mixture of cultural elements worldwide. People who experience different backgrounds might never feel identified as part of a single community. Regardless, it is impossible to assume that an individual can relinquish every sense of having a cultural identity. Instead, considering that they have felt as foreigners their whole life, they manifest mixed cultural elements that make them appear foreign to the country they are residing in. Take for example myself. My house is decorated both for Día de Muertos and Thanksgiving at the same time. My family, which has lived both in the US and Mexico, has adopted cultural elements from the two countries. On one hand, many of my friends in Mexico consider my celebration of Thanksgiving as an American tradition. On the other, living here in the US I can't feel completely identified with the culture. This middle ground, one that Maxim and Alycia have experimented in more impactful ways, does not mean that we have no cultural identity. Its the exact opposite, our cultural identities are stronger because we can understand different cultures as if they are our own. Todorov said: "without becoming an Indian, Cabeza de Vaca was no longer quite a Spaniard." Here is the middle ground. One where an individual retains subconscious cultural elements while not considering himself as part of only that country. Where someone can seem as an outsider, while still being able to understand the culture as his own. '''The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect' (I myself, a Bulgarian living in France, borrow this quotation from Edward Said, a Palestinian living in the United States, who himself found it in Erich Auerbach, a German exiled in Turkey)."
I didn't get to write my post on Todorov's quote, but I wanted to reflect on it. Todorov speaks about how a man perceives his country. I found very interesting that while he acknowledges the strength of a an who loves every nation, the author praises the man who has no feelings for any country. The later has the ability to look objectively at the events world-wide. Just as I had expected, going back to Mexico allowed me to look at the situation there from a different perspective. Yet, I can't say I'm able to detach myself from the feelings and look at the whole objectively. There are many mixed feelings back home; about the new president, the migrant caravan, the insecurity, etc. But one thing that sticks out is the constant creation of "Other" to blame for the problems. No one wants to take the blame (and I insert myself as part of this). Everything is someone else's fault. Hopefully in the years to come the people of Mexico will start to realize that progress can only come from a united country, and that the negative separation of the "Other" leads to hate. In about 48 hours I'll be arriving to Mexico City. Even though only a few months have passed, I feel like I've been gone for years. I am very excited to go back to the place I have called home for all my life, and for the first time, know that it is just vacations. Leaving out my family, friends and food, what I'm most excited about is how out of place I'm going to feel. I'm going to be able to look at my city from a different lens, almost as an outsider. Especially after this week's discussions on "The Other" and the Conquest.
Both Miranda's and Mimi's posts made me reflect a lot about the relation between what we are taught and the real narrative. Miranda focuses on Thanksgiving and the education she received in Massachusetts. I can agree that my experience with history education is similar, as Westernized ideology tends to be the loudest voice. There is a common trend to leave out the "uncomfortable" facts of colonization, to the point where the Spanish explorers/colonizers can be praised as heroes. The process of colonization in Mexico, just as in many other former colonies, should not be oversimplified in the history textbooks. The "simplification" of facts many times has served oppressive and classist governments to rise and further divide the people. Personally, I'm a very religious person and a practicing Catholic. Yet, I'm also aware of the way it has been manipulated to legitimize horrible actions. Mimi's post talks about the ways religion was perceived by the Aztecs and the Spanish. The influence of these perceptions has impacted Mexico's history for years. On one hand, we are a country who proudly recognizes the division of state and church, of religion and education. On the other, we are a country culturally attached to Catholicism, the after life and other spiritually focused traditions. Depending on how it is presented by the politicians, Catholicism can create an internal "Otherness" or unite the population. These manipulation on religion, bordering the suppression of the people's free-will, are also instruments that can be used by governments to control the people. What I'm trying to get to with all of these is the importance of education. And with education I'm not just referring to the one imparted by the government. People in Mexico, and all over the world, should have the resources available to objectively inform themselves. While I recognize this as an ambitious statement, there are may steps we can take to get closer to it. Being open-minded is the first one, and I'll try my best once I'm back home for the break. I want to end the post with a quote from one of my favorite filmmakers and, even though it is not deep or complicated, it depicts a reality of today's political environment. “Now more than ever we need to talk to each other, to listen to each other and understand how we see the world[...]” – Martin Scorsese The Spanish conquest over Tenochtitlán represents the clash of opposites. Two cultures with very different ways of understanding the world, at war with each other. The Spanish conquistadors, drastically fewer in number, ultimately conquered the Aztec empire. How did they achieve this? Was it, as Todorov asks, by means of signs? Or is there something else?
The author puts a great emphasis on the "otherness" that both Aztecs and Conquistadors faced, but positions one culture over the other. On one hand, he mentions how the Aztecs, unable to process the differences between themselves and the newcomers, accepted them as gods. (pg. 76) The Aztecs were no longer able to gather sufficient information about the invaders because it was out of the reach of their language. A language that was focused on the past being the same as the future, a search of knowledge to understand "what are we to know?" The Aztec codes represent a constant cycle that allowed them to understand their world, yet made it impossible to improvise. (pg.87) Another important aspect of their language is the veracity that it carried, adding to the lack of ability from the Aztecs to deceit the conquistadors. Todorov connects these linguistic elements with the defeat of the Aztecs. On the other hand, the Spanish first reaction is to perceive the "other" as inferior. This reaction is based on the Western concepts of language, considering the Aztecs as "barbarian" just because they don't share the same language construction. (pg. 76) The conquistadors use the information at their hands to decide "what is to be done?" and act accordingly. (pg. 110) One clear example of this is Cortes's use of Quetzalcoatl's myth (very much in a Machiavellian sense) to trick the Indians into believing he is a god. (pg.116) Todorov describes these and many other linguistic "advantages" from the conquistadors as key to their victory over the natives. Regardless of the evidence presented by Todorov, I do not believe that the Aztec where defeated by means of signs. On the contrary, I find the signs ultimately irrelevant to the outcome of the conquest. Just as the Aztecs had a limited reach due to their cultural formation of language, the Spanish fall victim to a similar problem. The conquistadors also accept omens and lack the vocabulary to describe certain aspects of the Indians. (pg. 108) Some of them even lack the ability to communicate "man to man" as seen in the previous chapter with Columbus. Therefore, the claim by Todorov that Cortes and his companions were superior due to their language leaves out many other variables present in the conquest of Tenochtitlán. Other problem with Todorov's interpretation comes from his viewpoint. He writes from a purely Western perspective. For example, he discards the Mexicans' cultural construction of "La Malinche" as the impossition of European culture over the Indians. On the contrary, he introduces her as a symbol of understanding and assimilation amongst cultures. Despite the altruistic aim of this statement, the reality of the oppression and destruction caused by the Spanish towards the Aztecs takes away the "understanding" part of the statement. (pg. 101) The overall assumption of the author that Aztecs were not able to defeat the Spanish based on their culture, instead of providing a voice to the "Other," continues the Western ideals of European superiority over "natives". The fall of Tenochtitlán, as in any other war, is a sum of multiple factors. Both cultures had to balance new and unprecedented information with their past knowledge. Both the Spanish and the Aztecs suffered defeats and claimed victories during this war. The Spanish, while technically outnumbered, recruited allies within the surrounding chiefdoms. The Aztecs, while supposedly superior in number, lost men at the hands of disease. Based on the number of factors ignored during the chapter, I do not consider the explanation that the Aztecs were defeated only by signs as accurate. Instead, a more in-depth exploration of the fall of Tenochtitlán is necessary to explain the impacts of the "Other." This week's content was very interesting and thought provoking, to say the least. What I noticed the most is that we couldn't have decided a better time and a better city to study world politics. When the discussions about theory are able to go beyond that and get mixed with the current events (especially with this two eventful weeks for the U.S. and the world) is when I really start to understand the relevance they carry.
Embedded liberalism, at least from my perspective, is over. The world is undergoing yet another change. And every change period brings about two new things: opportunities and instability. As the tension in U.S. politics grows, threatening to divide the country over some of its most fundamental principles, other nations are undergoing the same struggle. As Elyssa mentions in her reflection, small political events, such as a municipal election, can have massive repercussions all around the world. Also, countries that used to play a big role in world politics are having to slow down their global role and instead take care of their internal problems more and more. Yet, other nations that have established a more solid internal policy and politics are reaching towards the "opportunity" side that comes with change. Some of these nations are a threat to the liberal world order that has reigned over the world for a while now. Sooner or later the U.S. has to realize that the biggest threats to a nation always come from the inside, in the form of division and hate amongst its own citizens. As a country with so much influence and power in the world stage (political, economic, military), its politics NEED to reflect that level of responsibility. If it fails to do so, soon the world will notice this and other nation will take on the mantle of world leadership. Have recent changes in the organization of the global political economy meant the end of the postwar "embedded liberal" order, or are they an example of "norm-governed change"?
Considering that I do not know nearly enough to give an accurate answer, I started reading other documents related to embedded liberalism and the other economic theories that have shaped the world in the past century. While doing this I came across a text that was also by Ruggie. The article, called Globalization and the "Embedded Liberalism Compromise: The End of an Era?" (1992), was written more than ten years later than the one we read for class. In it, the focus is solely the end of embedded liberalism and the subsequent transition that the economy is going through. Ruggie argues that globalization acts as an increasing force that directly affects policy and organization in the world economy. Globalization, in hand with its direct and indirect effects, poses a deep transformation to the institutions on the global market. Ruggie then says that the divide between obtaining economic security for the nation and the extent where globalization threaten that security have to be compared to past economic transitions. After giving the reasons behind the change of the new market theory, he goes on to claim that "the American public and its leaders appear trapped by their own ideological predispositions, which make it difficult for them to see the contradiction between their increasingly neo-laissez-faire attitude [...and their] desire to safeguard the nation from the adverse effects of increasingly denationalized market forces." He concludes his paper by mentioning how moments of transition are the most dangerous for the world economy, as something would most likely go wrong. (Ruggie 1996) I think that his thoughts are accurate, as we have seen in the past decades since Ruggie wrote the article. The world order as it was known after WWII is over. Yet, a new concise order has not been established. The United States, especially under the current administration's policies, is losing its place as the hegemon in the world's economy. Rising economies such as China, India, Russia, are already contending for economic control, while disregarding principles of liberalism. Meanwhile other nations, such as Mexico and the U.K. are trying to grab a more isolationism stance. Wether nations are sticking to some sort of embedded liberalism, neoliberalism or have been taking a realist approach is very debatable. What is more certain is how the lack of a stable economic order has caused recessions and a growing inequality in the world. This period of transition also adds to growing tensions between countries, as trade wars increase and trade agreements are shaken. The next years will be very interesting as administrations changes in the U.S. and other nations will dictate the new path for the world's economic order. Works Cited: Ruggie, John Gerard. "Embedded Liberalism Compromise: The End of an Era?" Columbia University, New York, 1996. https://web.archive.org/web/20150910220511/http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp97-1/wp97-1.html. "The World's Biggest Economies in 2018." World Economic Forum, 2018. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/the-worlds-biggest-economies-in-2018/. Ruggie, John Gerard. "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order." Volume 36, Issue 2, International Regimes. Spring, 1982, 379-415. Lately we have been surrounded by news about hate, violence, conflicts, bad political decisions... The events that have been going on in the States are despicable and show the worst side of humanity. Hate killings, threats, attacks to minorities, the victory of abusers over victims... Things just seem to get worse and worse. The bad news are not only going in the U.S., but worldwide. Back home they canceled the construction of the new airport and the economy is on the verge of collapsing again due to that. Also, insecurity is the highest it has ever been for the past years and the country doesn't seem to get any closer to peace. The political system is on the ground and we have been in an internal war for more than ten years now (with more than 500,000 deaths.) No wonder I have felt challenged, mad, frustrated and overwhelmed lately. I have read multiple blog posts about my fellow GloSchos, and I realize that many are also mad or irritated at the current events.
As privileged college students, attending a high-level university with admirable professors and a program dedicated to preparing its students for the betterment of the world, the bar could not have been set higher. We have this weight on our shoulders now. All of us have the ability and desire to help the world. While we are all on parallel paths here in GloScho, they will soon separate. Each one of us is going to be thrown into a complicated professional world, with well-established institutions and organized systems. Suddenly, we are going to feel like there is no way to change it all. To fix it. All the theories we are learning, all the ideals we have, the plans, everything is going to be challenged. For some of us, it might even seem as if there is no way of getting it right. That's life and there is no other way around it. However, what I'm trying to do with this blog reflection is not to make that pressure feel bigger and mortify already very stressed out college students. Actually, my goals is directed towards making the pressure feel a little less heavy. To do that I only have one humble piece of advice: The only way to change the world is one life at a time. I know this sounds cliché and like total B.S., but it works. Trust me. We are not going to single-handed eradicate violence, poverty, hate, racism, global warming or any other problem. Recognizing that is the first step, and it is a hard pill to swallow sometimes. Yet, if we dedicate what we are learning here, plus our own personal talents, towards helping one person, soon many more will follow. For some of us it means reaching out to a certain marginalized group. For others it is about cleaning some small part of our environment or helping someone in their everyday context. That person might even be yourself somedays, and that is fine too. It doesn't matter who or how, as long as every day we work towards improving the conditions in which a person lives. If we act this way we are improving the world. If we focus our goals towards saving one life, everything else is possible too. I refuse to believe that as Global Scholars we are not special because we are. We are a select group in an already filtered group of students at AU, and we have a big responsibility: using the opportunities and talents we have to improve at least ONE life. No pressure. "The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others." -Gandhi. (Sorry for the long post, I needed to get put these thoughts out for everyone. Thank you if you made it all the way to the end. Hope all of these helps at some point in your life.) Last class the conversation revolved around celebrities and activism. I wasn't feeling very well during that morning, but I tried to pay attention as much as I could to write a good reflection post. Before the reading and Thursday's class, I had never paid that much attention to the relation between celebrities and world politics. Personally, I'm not a fan of having celebrity "role models" or "idols," considering that I don't know them personally (and really don't care about them). Regardless of these, many people do go as far as imitating the actions and style of top trending celebrities.
Famous people know that the trends they create, wether they are for a good cause, for more publicity or for money, have a direct impact on today's culture. What this means is that they have the ability to move masses towards a unified purpose, at least for a short period of time. Then, why should it matter if celebrities promoting activism are passionate or not about the topic? I'll rather have some famous "instagramer" talking about prevention for climate change or human trafficking than doing a stupid #challenge that revolves around the web with no purpose behind it. While both actions may have the same effect to the celebrity, expanding his follower base and wealth, the one inciting activism can change at least one life. Through "un-passionate" activism from celebrities, at least ONE passionate individual can be motivated to solve a local or global challenge. And if I have learned something from my short years of social work, is that service is about changing one life at a time. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|