Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum Publishing Company, 1970. 20 December 2006. <http://marxists.anu.edu.au/subject/education/freire/pedagogy/ch01.htm>
Until now have I analyzed ethnocentrism from the liberal tradition, from thinkers originating primarily from the Left. Paulo Freire is not an exception, although he may be the last. I will later try to find opinions which are either blatant examples of ethnocentrism (and which promote it) or opinions that claim that ethnocentrism doesn't exist.
One of my prior works noted that of all people in a society, most are inactive. Freire says that this is caused by a deficient pedagogy which stunts critical thought. He also gives the scenario that those of the oppressor class, those who may generally be called the "rulers", who realize the injustice of their own present system and wish to change it, still cannot fail to adhere to the prejudices that were and still are to them inherent; so that they will consider themselves saviours. Freire's standpoint does not allow for a change of values in these "saviours", and it must be noted that these "saviours" are not able to save themselves.
Freire: "Submerged in reality, the oppressed cannot perceive clearly the “order” which serves the interests of the oppressors whose image they have internalized."
True, but better, that all people in this social body are indoctrinated. No one sees the full structure of the order. Not the Communists. Not the Social democrats. Not the Theologians. Not
the Republicans. Anarchists may solve this problem, but what may happen thereafter is not in the interests of anyone, not even the Anarchists, who will find that they would become useless. Only until one from the oppressors has been cornered against a falling precipice may he see, but for a moment, the "order". By then, the only way he may survive would be to accept the order and contribute to its survival, for all who have power fear to lose it.
Deeper now. Freire says that the solution cannot come from above, but from those who will be freed. Through education, ethnocentrism may be quelled (?). But education must not come from the saviours, but from the oppressed.
"Human longing for a better future will be the guide to all that men will create. May they long for Solidarity and Magnanimity, not Truth given by a golden Spoon." I said in my first post. Indeed, full circle!
Questions
1 - I want to see what will happen if I ask this in class: Are YOU being oppressed? Being some kind of an outsider yet unfamiliar to certain customs (or rather, more precisely, value systems) that are practised in America, I find certain "acts of oppression" that are done upon those of my own country, and certain ones upon Americans. But who is aware?
2 - What will the political right think about this?
3 - Why is it that such ideas have already been formulated but no one acts upon it? (Because of the illusory effects of indoctrination?)
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Artifact Two (First Essay)
Ignatieff, Michael. Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1994.
I am currently reading (on p. 75) Ignatieff's Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism, which questions social identity from the view of a self-proclaimed, and rightly proclaimed, cosmopolitan. His viewpoint I respect, more than those of other researchers or theorists, primarily because he doesn't use abstraction or statistical analysis to explain phenomena. In addition, he was a Harvard poli sci professor and recently lost the Liberal Party leadership convention in Canada. His political activism may bias his opinions, but in most matters it shouldn't... as he was not in politics during the time he wrote his book.
Ignatieff's opinions were probably divergent from public opinion in 1993: the wall was down, the blocs were gone, and so was the iron curtain... But Ignatieff was especially cautious, if not pessimistic. If the Quod volunt credunt rule [men will believe what they wish to believe] applies, the optimism that permeated in the west was a self-infatuation, that Democracy was king regnant and had liberated the world. For "Nationalism" has become the rule in many parts of the world.
Ignatieff went to six different places which demonstrated strong nationalist movements: the Former Yugoslavia (Croatia and Serbia), Germany, Ukraine, Quebec, Kurdistan and Northern Ireland. I have read up to the end of the "journey to Croatia and Serbia" and am starting on his analysis of post-reunification Germany (Bonn was still the capital).
His definition of Cultural identity, and the basis of Nationalism, his definition to the latter being a total devotion to the Nation, I agree completely. He quoted Isiah Berlin: "[when I am among my own people], they understand me, as I understand them; and this understanding creates within me a sense of being somebody in the world." Kudos to him. Perfectly said. Now I have someone to back me up when I say I feel the same way (but why should I need to? Because of social limitations on the individual and fear of censure -- am I someone in the world?).
He also justified the development of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans: if you don't know who to trust, trust only those of your own blood. This bring forth the question: why? I think it is because there are no liaisons, nor bond of fealty, nor any deep common tie with which to bind each other amongst men of different nations; whereas with people of your own heritage, you each share a same past, and from that, you hope for the same future, with the survival and prosperity of the nation firmly set in stone.
Which tells me -- indirectly -- that ethnocentrism is caused by a lack of similarity with the other. By this I assume that ethnocentrism is bad, that it is caused by ignorance, that it is the root of xenophobia, that it is provincial. But that is ethnocentric to my own identity as a cosmopolitan, a social democrat, a proponent of social justice and equality: bias... in short.
So, I will continue to ride alongside this man and see where he has gone. His concepts on Germanocentrism are not yet comprehensible... He has clarified not what nationalism is but its causes (from a scenario). I will use it to further on the research... before the question was what? now why? and later, it will be... so what (to do, if anything)?
Questions
-If the cause of ethnocentrism is to be ignorance, will knowledge and its dissemination lower ethnocentrism?
-If the cause is not ignorance, then it may be lack of links. What constitutes these social bonds?
-What is better: promiscurity or provincialism?
I am currently reading (on p. 75) Ignatieff's Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism, which questions social identity from the view of a self-proclaimed, and rightly proclaimed, cosmopolitan. His viewpoint I respect, more than those of other researchers or theorists, primarily because he doesn't use abstraction or statistical analysis to explain phenomena. In addition, he was a Harvard poli sci professor and recently lost the Liberal Party leadership convention in Canada. His political activism may bias his opinions, but in most matters it shouldn't... as he was not in politics during the time he wrote his book.
Ignatieff's opinions were probably divergent from public opinion in 1993: the wall was down, the blocs were gone, and so was the iron curtain... But Ignatieff was especially cautious, if not pessimistic. If the Quod volunt credunt rule [men will believe what they wish to believe] applies, the optimism that permeated in the west was a self-infatuation, that Democracy was king regnant and had liberated the world. For "Nationalism" has become the rule in many parts of the world.
Ignatieff went to six different places which demonstrated strong nationalist movements: the Former Yugoslavia (Croatia and Serbia), Germany, Ukraine, Quebec, Kurdistan and Northern Ireland. I have read up to the end of the "journey to Croatia and Serbia" and am starting on his analysis of post-reunification Germany (Bonn was still the capital).
His definition of Cultural identity, and the basis of Nationalism, his definition to the latter being a total devotion to the Nation, I agree completely. He quoted Isiah Berlin: "[when I am among my own people], they understand me, as I understand them; and this understanding creates within me a sense of being somebody in the world." Kudos to him. Perfectly said. Now I have someone to back me up when I say I feel the same way (but why should I need to? Because of social limitations on the individual and fear of censure -- am I someone in the world?).
He also justified the development of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans: if you don't know who to trust, trust only those of your own blood. This bring forth the question: why? I think it is because there are no liaisons, nor bond of fealty, nor any deep common tie with which to bind each other amongst men of different nations; whereas with people of your own heritage, you each share a same past, and from that, you hope for the same future, with the survival and prosperity of the nation firmly set in stone.
Which tells me -- indirectly -- that ethnocentrism is caused by a lack of similarity with the other. By this I assume that ethnocentrism is bad, that it is caused by ignorance, that it is the root of xenophobia, that it is provincial. But that is ethnocentric to my own identity as a cosmopolitan, a social democrat, a proponent of social justice and equality: bias... in short.
So, I will continue to ride alongside this man and see where he has gone. His concepts on Germanocentrism are not yet comprehensible... He has clarified not what nationalism is but its causes (from a scenario). I will use it to further on the research... before the question was what? now why? and later, it will be... so what (to do, if anything)?
Questions
-If the cause of ethnocentrism is to be ignorance, will knowledge and its dissemination lower ethnocentrism?
-If the cause is not ignorance, then it may be lack of links. What constitutes these social bonds?
-What is better: promiscurity or provincialism?
Another definition
LITERAL NATIONALISM, THEORETIC NATIONALISM is the system of belief that a nation have its own sovereignty.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
ATTN:WILLIAM TELL AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Just to make sure you realize this (you probably do), the blog article is written in HTML and therefore the "<" or ">" typed in by itself cannot be used in the corpus of the article. this is problematic for the bibliography, since the "<http....xyz.html>" disappears upon publication. I corrected my bibliography after noticing this, but I do not know if others blogging would notice this code "bug".
The solution would be to replace all "<" with "<" and all ">" with ">" under "Edit Html" mode. Of course, do not include the "" while coding.
The solution would be to replace all "<" with "<" and all ">" with ">" under "Edit Html" mode. Of course, do not include the "" while coding.
Artifact One
Treanor, Paul. "Structures of Nationalism." Sociological Research Online. 3 March 1997. British Sociological Association, and U. of Surrey, UK. 6 December 2006. <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/8.html>
ETHNOCENTRISM to mean the belief that the values of the nation that one belongs to is superior to those of another nation.
NATIONALISM to mean the belief that the values of one's nation must be reproduced in other nations.
Treanor's academic writing style did not allow him to give an opinion untied with his sociological model until the last sentence: that nationalism intends to preserve, and that was bad. I agree that nationalism, and ethnocentrism as well, are forms of control. We all identify ourselves with a certain group and that we feel uncomfortable when confronted with some idea or concept that does not conform to our ideas of normalcy or appropriateness. Thus, we revolve around the question of whether ethnocentrism is harmful or harmless, or somewhere in between.
It was said that everyone is ethnocentric. It being universal to all humans, I ask if I could consciously prevent it clouding my judgment. I also wonder how nationalistic extremism, including violence advocacy, fits in all of this. If being ethnocentric creates an initial bias, what is the cause of violence done in the name of "land and soil"? There must be some external cause -- economic depression, perception of unfairness or jealousy, among others -- that elevates the existing prejudices (ie. belief of superiority) to some level where violence is perceived to be rational.
Treanor's article sheds light on nationalism's dependence on the conservatism of human minds. Nationalism I consider to be a progressive trait, and therefore it is interesting to note a duality (progressiveness for conservatism's sake). The article helped in pinpointing some of the attributes of nationalism. I will be referring to these attributes in the future. Treanor also gave importance to the concept of homogeneity. Being similar will be a focal point in my future research.
QUESTIONS:
1- The United States have [or has?] always been the advocate of progress. Is this devotion to progress itself a form of continuity?
2- Do you think you have a "vision" for a future world? Does it differ from those of other classmates?
3- Do you think it is important to connect with your past? (This tries to exhibit cultural identity.)
4- Did we just take other's views when we were young? In other words, did we choose to join this society or did we just enter it, unaware?
Treanor is to be the starting point for further investigations. He remarks: "[...] seen from Slovakia, Czechoslovakia stands for hegemonic culture, an imposed universalism, oppression and 'power'. Earlier, the Slavic nationalists who inspired the Czechoslovak state, had opposed the dominance of German-language culture in Central Europe." (3.3), but that when these nations gained independence, they became themselves hegemons (3.3). Note that, to him, Slovaks antagonized (antagonised? which spelling?) the Czechoslovak body politic.
Treanor dealt with nationalism, which is defined as a "consistent vision" (2.5) within a "world order", the latter of which I assume to mean convention. Treanor then noted that nationalism stunts change and directs society towards "homogeneity". By "homogeneity", I assume he meant convention (6.2). He then noted four characteristics of nationalism:
-It gives nations the ability to form a state.
-"It is based on transgenerational continuity, shared memories, and a sense of common destiny." (6.4)
-It is to be ever-lasting.
-it is not created to establish change, [but of continuity (?)].
(6.5-6.7)
Things have come to a point that I cannot ignore definitions. For the purposes of my paper, I will consider:
ETHNOCENTRISM to mean the belief that the values of the nation that one belongs to is superior to those of another nation.
NATIONALISM to mean the belief that the values of one's nation must be reproduced in other nations.
Treanor's academic writing style did not allow him to give an opinion untied with his sociological model until the last sentence: that nationalism intends to preserve, and that was bad. I agree that nationalism, and ethnocentrism as well, are forms of control. We all identify ourselves with a certain group and that we feel uncomfortable when confronted with some idea or concept that does not conform to our ideas of normalcy or appropriateness. Thus, we revolve around the question of whether ethnocentrism is harmful or harmless, or somewhere in between.
It was said that everyone is ethnocentric. It being universal to all humans, I ask if I could consciously prevent it clouding my judgment. I also wonder how nationalistic extremism, including violence advocacy, fits in all of this. If being ethnocentric creates an initial bias, what is the cause of violence done in the name of "land and soil"? There must be some external cause -- economic depression, perception of unfairness or jealousy, among others -- that elevates the existing prejudices (ie. belief of superiority) to some level where violence is perceived to be rational.
Treanor's article sheds light on nationalism's dependence on the conservatism of human minds. Nationalism I consider to be a progressive trait, and therefore it is interesting to note a duality (progressiveness for conservatism's sake). The article helped in pinpointing some of the attributes of nationalism. I will be referring to these attributes in the future. Treanor also gave importance to the concept of homogeneity. Being similar will be a focal point in my future research.
QUESTIONS:
1- The United States have [or has?] always been the advocate of progress. Is this devotion to progress itself a form of continuity?
2- Do you think you have a "vision" for a future world? Does it differ from those of other classmates?
3- Do you think it is important to connect with your past? (This tries to exhibit cultural identity.)
4- Did we just take other's views when we were young? In other words, did we choose to join this society or did we just enter it, unaware?
First inquiry
How to proceed? A couple of key phrases that are connected with or perhaps caused by ethnocentrism: nationalism, ethnic cleansing.
A trio of events in history that are interesting to look into: 3rd Reich, Germany (germanocentrism); British imperialism (India, Africa); genocide in Rwanda (Hutu vs. Tutsi).
What role did ethnocentrism play in these events?
A trio of events in history that are interesting to look into: 3rd Reich, Germany (germanocentrism); British imperialism (India, Africa); genocide in Rwanda (Hutu vs. Tutsi).
What role did ethnocentrism play in these events?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
