Reflection: Identity

"The fact is worthy of astonishment, for man is never alone, and would not be what he is without his social dimension. And yet this is the call: for the newborn chid, his world is the world, and growth is an apprenticeship in exteriority and sociality; we might say, somewhat cavalierly, that human life is confined between these two extreme, one were the I invades the world, and one where the world ultimately absorbs the I in the form of a corpse or of ashes." (Todorov 1999, 247)

There is something to be said about the world shaping the individual and the individual shaping their world. On a developmental level, the individual gains a scope of the world through the society they are born into. The lens becomes that of which is sculpted by their societies culture. For example, American citizens have a view fostered by the values the American culture has taken as part of its identity. Contemporary America has an extreme passion for the free market and capitalism, free speech, democracy, social mobility, and various other things. Although the modern world would like to argue that people understand, this understanding of “others” comes through the eyes of the sculpted cultural lense. That is Americans will “understand” other by relating them to their culture/values; free market and capitalism, free speech, democracy, and in some sense social mobility, etc. Therefore there lacks to exist an unbiased understanding because of the fostering development of individuals, their “world” shapes them and ultimately shapes their “understanding” of other “worlds”.

There are instances where an individual shapes the society and culture they are fostered in. Still, this change is done through an underlying value (in society and within the individual) that was not necessarily recognized prior to the individual’s alteration. For example, the Civil Rights Movement occurred because of a mix of societal and individual values. On the societal side, the values of equality and progression existed they were just not utilized to such an extent until the point of the movement. On the individual side, the call for equality amongst neighbors, the call for societal betterment was always within, it just had yet to be recognized and utilized.

Although as humans our species is prone to group organization, we are inherently alone. When an individual retires to their quarters or simply their life ceases to continue it is alone; there is no companion with you. Octavio Paz once wrote; “Solitude is the profoundest fact of the human condition. Man is the only being who knows he is alone”. Thus the question remains which identity is more important or more relevant, that of the individual as a part of society or that of an individual being the sole proprietor of their life?

Reflection 12: Cultural Relativity

I was glad to see that the majority of my classmates shared the idea that there is not a unilateral path to development, instead development is completely relative to a state's culture. This was especially apparent when our class discussion turned mainly to Africa. Everyone seemed to remember that Africa is not a country but a continent and furthermore each country is wildly different.

This cultural relativity is expressed in The Conquest of America. When Columbus gave needles to the natives thinking it could be used for the clothes they had also provided, the natives instead used it to pick their teeth and tend to wounds. There were also instances where Columbus traded with the natives receiving something of material gain by Western standards while the natives would receive "meaningless" items or things worth comparatively less but find great worth from them. For example Columbus' men traded gloves for land. Cultural relativity and diversity is also exemplified in the instances where the natives would "offer their homes" to the Christians, meaning they would give the Christians whatever they desired. Yet, when the natives returned this practice, the Christians were angered and considered the natives thieves.

The concept and understanding of cultural relativity is important to identity but vital for the understanding of development. This relativity must be kept in mind so that states or organizations seeking to aid other nations don't look to help other states develop with a one-sided view or with the idea of unilateral development. Global actors must recognize and understand differences in order to ensure peace between states and the achievement of goals (in this case aiding in development).

"Winning" in World Politics

“Winning” in the real world like that of the board game Risk, is subjective to the presumed identity of a nation. For instance, if a nation, such as Switzerland, has built an identity of neutrality, their version of winning may simply be remaining sovereign. Swiss sovereignty could mean that all the nation wants is a functioning economic system, a stable government structure, and a sound public. In contrast, a nation such as the Untied States may assume the role as a beacon for democracy. The United States seeks to establish footholds of democratic principles in other countries, especially developing nations. For the United States to win, democracy would have to be the sole form of government in the world, or at the very least the dominant form of government.

However, the identity of a nation is subject to change. Citizens are able to change the face and therefore change the doctrine of a nation, which ultimately results in a new set of initiatives. These initiatives can range from a new hunt for resources, a new focus on domestic issues rather then those of international importance, or even going as far as a policy of isolationism. Reasons for isolationism or a prelaunch of domestic focus could range from fear of outside influences or a need to maintain stability in the nation. The change in initiatives brings different extents of action in the international arena and there may not always be a goal to “win” simply because a nation has chosen to not play or sit a round out.

The concept of winning in regards to world politics is subject to each nation. The different nations in the world may all have varying values and therefore have different goals to achieve. To win simply means to achieve these goals, but there can come a time when a nation may seek to change their goals in the “game”. This could be from a realization that the nation lacks a capacity to fulfill their current goals or that their sovereignty is in jeopardy.