After reading the articles for this week I realized they could be viewed through the lens of Brin's Dogma of Otherness. The ideas presented in this article are important for the class and provide a perspective that can be applied to most everything we read. The idea behind the Dogma of otherness is that we as a human race are better when diversity and tolerance is an intricate part of society. William H. McNeill touches upon this idea in his lecture when he describes polyethnicity took place due to conquest, disease, and trade. In his first lecture he discusses the evolution of civilizations and the different structures that they formed. According to McNeill, it became a popular idea in middle age Europe to govern only those who were of similar ethnicity. Europeans study of the classics during the Enlightenment strengthened this notion. A pattern such as this lasted for centuries and could be seen in Europe and America to the present day. In Mohammed A. Bamyeh's article, he discusses three aspects of globalization that were present in Dar al-Islam, including partial control, free movement, and heteroglosia. These three aspects are useful in achieving the dogma of otherness. In the report from the economist, the author discusses the problems the Arab world has had with conflict and unity, and the west's inability to spread real democracy to the area. The prevalence of dictatorships, the sham democracy, and the unending conflict have made it nearly impossible for the middle east to experience the dogma of otherness, and also hinders the US in doing so.
Throughout American history we see a large amount of persecution of non-Caucasian ethnicities. Examples of this include slavery of Africans, establishing indian reservations, placing Japanese Americans in internment camps during the second world war, persecuting African Americans during the civil rights movement, creating isolated Spanish speaking communities, mistrusting individuals of Arab nationality. We claim to be the melting pot but do not truly embrace multiethnicity. Instead, we simply tolerate different ethnical backgrounds as long as they remain isolated. All over America there are Spanish speaking communities, Asian communities, African American communities, etc. Because of this isolation, we are not diversified, and the Dogma of Otherness cannot be fully recognized. We force members of these communities to learn English and adapt to American culture, however it would be far more beneficial if we all worked together to learn from each other and lived together as a true mixture of diverse cultures. In this way we gain a better understanding of the world and the humans we live with, and are able to build from each other in an advancing globalized world in order to build a better human race.
One problem with Brin's Dogma of otherness that I wish he would have expanded on is how the dogma can be fully realized. It seems that in our nation we proclaim to follow this dogma, but in reality we are less tolerant and more isolated than we believe ourselves to be. I think it would make for an interesting discussion to debate whether the dogma of otherness is the best worldview, and if it is, how to we put it into practice.
-Luke Pearson
Is there a definite answer to how the dogma can be fully realized? Its definitely a good question to raise. I wonder if it would become more difficult to realize or recognize if other countries were more like the United States - where many different cultures were governed and joined under one nation. I am not sure of this but I do agree with your point that the USA does seem to follow this dogma, but we do not fully embody it. I think one way in which the dogma could be realized was by taking a step back and looking at the actions of our country (past and present) and self-check ourselves. I am not sure if this is something that will ever happen, especially with politics.
ReplyDeleteThe public/media makes a huge deal when politicians "flip-flop" their opinion. So for a politician to take a step back, look at his or her past performance and decisions, and say "yeah I didn't really do the right thing there" could ruin their career. I only know of one politician that has completely owned up to changing their position - Abraham Lincoln. I do not remember what it was that he changed his posititon on, but I do remember that when asked about it he responded "I am a smarter man today than I was then and have learned since then." I cannot recall any politician recently saying anything like this.