On p. 250, Todorov writes: "'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'" Do you agree?
I think this post speaks to nationalism and patriotism as separate entities. The first part: the man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner. This reminds me of American education in elementary/middle school. The man (government) wants those to find their country (America) sweet (innocent). It reminds me of my 8th grade Georgia Studies class that called the Civil War the war of Northern Aggression. They teach the 'raw beginners' what they want us to know so that we are patriotic. Patriotism for Americans is an important trait in the definition of claiming American identity. It reminds me that we all begin to believe that America is the land of the dreamers, full of hope and promise- until we understand the thousands of voices that have been silenced and dreams that have been discouraged and people that have been turned away and colonized and oppressed. Next, 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, in my opinion, takes a different turn than the first part of the quote. I think it signifies that everything other than the 'self' is foreign and is labelled as the 'other'. But based off of the security briefs we read earlier, I'm not sure labelling the whole world as 'other' is perfect. It fosters an idea of isolationism but on a personal scale. The other, self, etc. activity we did in class placed world powers on an international level but this quote singularizes the argument of individualism. But I don't agree. Perfection cannot be placed on someone who labels the whole world as other because they are actively separating themselves from foreign cultures, peoples, languages, traditions, etc. The separation of oneself cannot foster a perfect man because this creates an identity that belongs to no one and nothing. It is intrinsically in human nature to want to belong to something, therefore, distinguishing the self and the other so drastically is the exact opposite of perfect human nature.
2 Comments
Alonso Pliego
12/3/2018 07:24:25 pm
Hi! Thank you for your post. I agree with your post, and wanted to further expand on it by adding on what I said on my reflection of week 14. Perfection should not be labeled on someone who disregards every culture as "Other," instead the "perfect man" should aim to understand every culture. I believe that by educating ourselves and learning about other cultures it is possible to remove the "Otherness."
Reply
Mimi
12/4/2018 11:53:53 am
I enjoyed reading your post but have to respectfully disagree (with both you and Alonso) that "othering" oneself is ineherently a bad thing. I think in certain situations it is a really beautiful process that allows you to see yourself for who you are very naturally, without the pressures and assumptions that come along with belonging to a group. In a very crude/simple example, in high school sometimes it was a relief to remove yourself from a friendship group. It was in those times I felt I saw high school society more clearly and accurately. I othered myself in order to not be disrupted by social expectations in these groups and see myself for who I truly was and who they truly were. In this little microcosm, I think it shows the natural importance of othering yourself in certain situations. Of course, belonging can be a wonderful thing as well - it gives you power, joy, and a sense of community. It think maybe it is in balance - in the tug between otherness and belonging where clarity is found.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI'm Hannah Andress from Atlanta, GA! I am an SIS major and I am on the Women's Swim Team. I am interested in national security, policy making, and the Middle East as my country of interest! Archives
December 2018
Categories |