What does it mean to be (insert country name / nationality / ethnicity here)? This underlying question brought to light through this week’s readings and Professor King’s lectures is an important question not only for an individual but also for a society and the powers that govern. According to Samuel P Huntington in “A Clash of Civilizations,” a civilization is “a cultural entity” and the highest form of which a person associates him or herself. It encompasses “language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and […] the subjective self-identification of people” and it allows a person to define him or herself within history. Huntington holds that one of the most important things is a civilization’s culture because it is through culture, not ideology or economics, that civilizations will come into conflict.
Taking into account the material presented in lecture and the material from the week’s readings, I could not help but question what it means to be an American. Terms such as freedom, democracy, and individual rights immediately come to mind but if it is culture rather than ideologies and economics that matter than who, what is America culturally? The United States is made up of countless ethnicities and peoples who have emigrated here to find a new home yet in some capacity still belong to that former place. Throughout our education we have been taught that America is a “melting pot” of infused cultures and civilizations. It is difficult to define the facets of American culture when you must account for so many different types of people. You could almost go as far as to say that we are one of Huntington’s “torn cultures” made up of many different groups of people and unsure of how to define ourselves.
If you were defining America based on ideologies, economics, and politics then the characterization seems almost textbook memorized, however, the definition of America culturally seems problematic. If we do not have a definitive culture then how are to be able to fight in Huntington’s proposed new world? How are we to keep our civilization alive and survive Huntington’s inevitable “clash of civilizations”?”
While I agree that America is indeed a melting pot, it is far from being a "torn" country. Our identity, regardless of what individual communities within the United States thinks, is American because the "American identity" has manifested itself over and over again in the international community. When one says "Western", it is in a way, 99% America, and 1% everything else. It sounds a little biased, I know, but as we progress into the 21st century, the term "Western" is increasingly one-sided: American. Take, for example, the divisions in the UN Security Council or the United Nations itself. 5 countries with the majority of the world's power vested in the decisions of these five countries. Without a doubt, three of the 5 countries represent the "Western" identity, one represents what Huntington calls the "Slavic-Orthodox" and the last represents a "Confucian/Asian" identity. Respectively, they are France, UK, US, then Russia and finally China. But then we examine the "clash" that is indeed taking place and the battle ground is the world stage. In heated diplomatic arguments, it is the pervasive belief that Western values, Western demands, Western attitudes which must be appeased. Huntington himself notes that the West is an indomitable presence. But what is the immediate connotation of "Western?" The United States. The United States' reputation as being the leader of the west unarguably provides us, the United States, with an identity: Western. We are considered the beacon of democracy, the land of opportunity. We are not so much a land with a distinct culture, uniform ethnicity or language, but our ideologies (that often manifest in our diplomatic actions) reflect the west and thus, our identity. In that regard, as Americans, there doesn't seem to be a major concern about what our identity is. We are judged, vis-a-vis identity, based not on what ethnicity we represent, what cultures, or beliefs we perpetuate, but by a standard of morals and ideals that have come to be identified as American, as rooted in American liberalism, democracy, etc. And that, perhaps, is our unique identity.
So, (I apologize for the ramble), Huntington's argument that it is not necessarily a conflict of ideologies, but a conflict of civilizations, I feel, at least in regard to America, the West, and all the other civilizations Huntington mentions is misplaced. For example, Huntington's "Confucian-Islamic Connection" or the "Torn Country" of Turkey is an apparent contradiction. If the Asian states of the "Confucian-Islamic Connection" are in a race to produce weapons and arms in a defense against Western capabilities, it is not necessarily a cultural, but ideological impetus. The nuances of the diplomatic realm plays a large part in WHY these civilizations will attempt a clash. By Huntington claiming that nation states carve a unique identity for themselves through manifesting their own displays of economic, political, and military power is valid, albeit flawed. In the end, these factors and conditions are contingent on the ideology and how that ideology translates into diplomatic action.
For another example, with the torn countries, Huntington mentions how one official admitted he was attempting to follow in the footsteps of the west (an official from Mexico) but the impetus to do so lies on the attractive western ideologies pervasive in their economic, political, etc. policies.
So in conclusion, this was just my opinion. I tried to give an answer to your question, but I must have rambled on. Apologies! Just wanted to take a chance at raising some of my issues with the article as well.
First, I would like to disagree with Caelah and 'trekker16' about how America is a melting pot. I know that we have all been taught this since elementary school, but this metaphor really bothers me because it seems to devalue the individual cultures and ethnicities which are so distinct and important. The metaphor which I prefer to use is a mosaic. We all represent our individual cultures and backgrounds, so we are all a piece of the mosaic. And the glue which holds us in place represents our American-ness. This is why people say they are Polish-American, Jewish-American, African-American, Indian-American, etc. One's distinct culture takes priority, but being American is obviously exceptionally important as well.
Looking more specifically at the readings, and not just ranting about the semantics of fourth grade American History and Social Science, I would now like to look more in depth at the piece by Collier. Like Caelah, I found the distinction between the political and cultural definitions of ethnic identity. I very much agree with Collier that there is a difference between the two. He explains that, as a cultural phenomenon, ethnicity refers to the ideas of tradition, marrying within your culture and maintaining your identity as a ___. As a political phenomenon, it refers to a kinship or a social identity. This distinction is very interesting to me, and I would agree that the two play very different roles. One establishes your family history and your social values. One explains how those (or other factors) make you who you are in a political and social setting.
One other part of the Collier reading which I thought was important was the idea of single-issue vs. multiple-issue politics as a way of analyzing ethnic diversity in democracy. I am wondering what the value of analyzing through the lens of single-issue politics is. Obviously we do not live in a world where just one issue matters, so what is the point of using this as a tool to look at our world? Is it just a means to examine one aspect of politics, or do we use this method relative to another (eg. multiple-issue) in order to see the way a society functions politically? I hope to discuss this more during discussion section.
2 comments:
While I agree that America is indeed a melting pot, it is far from being a "torn" country. Our identity, regardless of what individual communities within the United States thinks, is American because the "American identity" has manifested itself over and over again in the international community. When one says "Western", it is in a way, 99% America, and 1% everything else. It sounds a little biased, I know, but as we progress into the 21st century, the term "Western" is increasingly one-sided: American. Take, for example, the divisions in the UN Security Council or the United Nations itself. 5 countries with the majority of the world's power vested in the decisions of these five countries. Without a doubt, three of the 5 countries represent the "Western" identity, one represents what Huntington calls the "Slavic-Orthodox" and the last represents a "Confucian/Asian" identity. Respectively, they are France, UK, US, then Russia and finally China. But then we examine the "clash" that is indeed taking place and the battle ground is the world stage. In heated diplomatic arguments, it is the pervasive belief that Western values, Western demands, Western attitudes which must be appeased. Huntington himself notes that the West is an indomitable presence. But what is the immediate connotation of "Western?" The United States. The United States' reputation as being the leader of the west unarguably provides us, the United States, with an identity: Western. We are considered the beacon of democracy, the land of opportunity. We are not so much a land with a distinct culture, uniform ethnicity or language, but our ideologies (that often manifest in our diplomatic actions) reflect the west and thus, our identity. In that regard, as Americans, there doesn't seem to be a major concern about what our identity is. We are judged, vis-a-vis identity, based not on what ethnicity we represent, what cultures, or beliefs we perpetuate, but by a standard of morals and ideals that have come to be identified as American, as rooted in American liberalism, democracy, etc. And that, perhaps, is our unique identity.
So, (I apologize for the ramble), Huntington's argument that it is not necessarily a conflict of ideologies, but a conflict of civilizations, I feel, at least in regard to America, the West, and all the other civilizations Huntington mentions is misplaced. For example, Huntington's "Confucian-Islamic Connection" or the "Torn Country" of Turkey is an apparent contradiction. If the Asian states of the "Confucian-Islamic Connection" are in a race to produce weapons and arms in a defense against Western capabilities, it is not necessarily a cultural, but ideological impetus. The nuances of the diplomatic realm plays a large part in WHY these civilizations will attempt a clash. By Huntington claiming that nation states carve a unique identity for themselves through manifesting their own displays of economic, political, and military power is valid, albeit flawed. In the end, these factors and conditions are contingent on the ideology and how that ideology translates into diplomatic action.
For another example, with the torn countries, Huntington mentions how one official admitted he was attempting to follow in the footsteps of the west (an official from Mexico) but the impetus to do so lies on the attractive western ideologies pervasive in their economic, political, etc. policies.
So in conclusion, this was just my opinion. I tried to give an answer to your question, but I must have rambled on. Apologies! Just wanted to take a chance at raising some of my issues with the article as well.
First, I would like to disagree with Caelah and 'trekker16' about how America is a melting pot. I know that we have all been taught this since elementary school, but this metaphor really bothers me because it seems to devalue the individual cultures and ethnicities which are so distinct and important. The metaphor which I prefer to use is a mosaic. We all represent our individual cultures and backgrounds, so we are all a piece of the mosaic. And the glue which holds us in place represents our American-ness. This is why people say they are Polish-American, Jewish-American, African-American, Indian-American, etc. One's distinct culture takes priority, but being American is obviously exceptionally important as well.
Looking more specifically at the readings, and not just ranting about the semantics of fourth grade American History and Social Science, I would now like to look more in depth at the piece by Collier. Like Caelah, I found the distinction between the political and cultural definitions of ethnic identity. I very much agree with Collier that there is a difference between the two. He explains that, as a cultural phenomenon, ethnicity refers to the ideas of tradition, marrying within your culture and maintaining your identity as a ___. As a political phenomenon, it refers to a kinship or a social identity.
This distinction is very interesting to me, and I would agree that the two play very different roles. One establishes your family history and your social values. One explains how those (or other factors) make you who you are in a political and social setting.
One other part of the Collier reading which I thought was important was the idea of single-issue vs. multiple-issue politics as a way of analyzing ethnic diversity in democracy. I am wondering what the value of analyzing through the lens of single-issue politics is. Obviously we do not live in a world where just one issue matters, so what is the point of using this as a tool to look at our world? Is it just a means to examine one aspect of politics, or do we use this method relative to another (eg. multiple-issue) in order to see the way a society functions politically? I hope to discuss this more during discussion section.
Post a Comment