Devin Savaskan 12/4/13
Arguably
the most influential culture to the modern day west, ancient Greece was not
always a unified entity. Comprised of many individual sovereign city states,
the Greek people could not easily accept allegiance under one flag. That is
until the introduction of an ‘other’. The Persian Wars is what unified the people
of Greece under one ideal. They used the differences of others to pick up on
their similarities in culture and lifestyle. International Relations
continuously studies the idea of an ‘other’. Whether across oceans, borders, or
sidewalks, the idea of an ‘other’ is used to unite, help identify, and of
course seclude. No matter what, the existence of anarchy and war perpetuate the
existence of an international other.
The world around us continues to change through
globalization. Now, in ways never before imaginable we are able to communicate
and conduct business in a truly global sense. This in itself has the capability
of reducing prejudiced notions of the other. The most compelling way to
understand different perspectives is strictly through communication. The nature
of today’s business environment coupled with incredible technological
innovations makes communication exceptionally easier. However, while globalization
will eventually work to reduce many unfortunate complexes of the ‘other’, the
ability to erase them completely is a tad far-fetched.
The idea of an ‘other’ strikes at the heart of an old
debate in international relations. This is the debate of Cosmopolitan vs. Particularism.
The Cosmopolitan view is one that wishes to eliminate the idea of the so called
‘other’. They would like the international community to value every citizen
equally. This eclipses that of just your common man. This spreads globally.
Everyone on the planet has the same value no matter how different they view the
world or how different they are from your neighbor. The thought process of Particularists
on the contrary, is to always put the safety of your own civilians above those
of others. The prevailing theory in practice is of course particularism. This
is due to the political ramifications that would be inflicted on any powerful
figure who values a foreigner’s life equal to that of its own countries
civilians. This thought process perpetuates the existence of an ‘other’.
While seemingly tragic, it may also be in the best
interest of nations to keep the idea of ‘the other’ alive and well. This is due
to the theory that there is simply no self without an ‘other’. For example the
United States is a country that values representative democracy, civil
liberties and stems from a mainly white Christian dominance. Because the United
States has consistently classified certain traits as inherently American, it
would make sense for the common American civilian too see certain foreign
countries as a form of the ‘other’. Countries like Iran, North Korea, and many
more of the United States adversaries can viewed as inherently different then
the home of the brave. These noticeable differences work in the favor of the
United States. In case they are ever in a position of war against these
nations, it would be easy to rally the public to fight a completely different
lifestyle in defense of their own.
As we grow, we
begin to set ourselves apart from other people. We begin to identify with what
we are used to and raised to value. Things such as schooling, the media, religion,
race and even income, make up our beliefs and help us define ourselves. But
what is also helps to define is what is different, strange or alien to our
thoughts. While we continue to grow it still seems like the ‘other’ is here to
stay.
No comments:
Post a Comment