During my time in the Understanding the Global Community course, I've been interested in the dissection of East vs. West thought that we've done. Studying history, nearly everything is broken down into "east" and "west"—philosophy, architecture, etc. One of the ways by which you identify a culture is its hemisphere. So, I was fascinated to look at how the East vs. West dichotomy falls down upon closer inspection.
This mindset (or "orientalism" as we refer to it) is born of xenophobic constructions of the global stage. We form this "us vs. them" mindset that others all societies that are unlike us, threaten us, or both. Take, for example, the War on Terror. Bush's statement that "they hate what we have" is textbook—establishing a boundary line between us and "them" allows us to rally against a common foe. This is further entrenched by the dialogue of Bernard Lewis, who claims that Islam and Judeo-Christian societies are inherently incompatible. One look at the medieval era will quickly assure you that Jews and Christians have not always been buddy-buddy. In fact, Jews sought out Muslim alliances because Islamic communities were far more tolerant. Regardless.
We also see ideas of orientalism deeply rooted even in "progressive" theories. The idea of Globalization 3.0 (an attempt to give "non-Western" individuals more agency on the global stage) is entirely based around the idea that individuals can be either Western or non-Western. We have already assumed the premise that ethnicity is based around an arbitrary binary.
Will we get rid of the E vs. W mindset any time soon? It's unlikely, especially seeing how we engage in it almost subconsciously. However, it's possible that an increased awareness of the damage that orientalist thought can cause (e.g., the Uyghur internment in China) will lead to a different conception of the global stage in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment