Dominant Development

I & B Reflective

Wow do you want to talk about the power of perspective?  I am enrolled in a development course this semester, globalization and human rights.  All semester long I have been struggling to think in a mode that will get me through this class with at least a passing grade.  The professor was trying to get everyone in the class to think in a manner that transitioned from normative to policy.  He wanted us to move past the normative and apply what we have learned to apply a human rights framework to policies.  This whole situation reminded me of the diagram that professor Jackson had designed, the practitioner vs the theorist, etc.  What I have realized from this experience is that I don’t think that the normative realm can ever be separated from practice or should be.  I also realize that the practice of development does believe that life SHOULD be a certain way and that it is their responsibility to make things that way.  Lesson learned:  I hope I don’t fail but I will never get roped into taking a development course again.

How does this tie into Inayatullah and Blaney?  It ties in that there are groups that believe that there is a universality of perspective and that it is their duty to fix the “problem” and bridge the gap between developed and developing, signifying that all roads lead to development.  Where does the line between development and Christianity diminish, is there a line?

“Despite the self-defeating character of imperialism, listening to others will not be easy for the dominant.  It is painful to hear alternative interpretations of events and ideals that are held precious, even sacred, particularly where those interpretations paint the self as cruel or unjust” (320).


Adieu

International Communication Rears Its Ugly Head

“In order to discuss religion, people have a hard time being neutral.” Jen brings up an excellent point – I think part of the core of Inayatullah and Blaney’s “solution” to the problem of difference (see p. 220). In my final IC class meeting this semester, we discussed the ides of interpretation of communication – how the recipient of a message cannot come to it neutrally. They have a life worth of experiences, belief systems, personality, general disposition, and environment manipulating everything they hear. We got into such a volleying discussion on Tuesday because people have different backgrounds, and belief, as we discussed, is often non-negotiable.

In their “solution” I&B place responsibility on the oppressed to approach the oppressor in the oppressor’s language and with the oppressor’s self-interest in mind. I think this is a good way to go about it – the more clearly something is presented to the recipient of a message, and the more this recipient’s predisposition is considered in the communication of the message, the greater the chance that the recipient hears what the communicator is saying. However, approaching such a sensitive issue as religion, or development, or any imposition of one culture’s norms onto another’s is very difficult to consider neutrally at all.

I think it is good that ProfPTJ brought up development (as, you know, the book talks about it a lot). People talk about cultural imperialism like it is a horrible thing: OMG, there’re more McDonalds around the world than anyone could imagine, my Starbucks coffee in Paris tastes exactly like my Starbucks coffee in my hometown, everyone with a television on earth has a chance to know about the joy and wonder that is Friends, we need to make the world more democratic and consumerist so they can play the game of life on the same level as us (slight exaggerations, I know). Wait…isn’t making a country more democratic and giving them marketplaces and our forms of economic interactions…development? Yes, there are fundamentals in life – being alive is sometimes considered a good thing, animals (including humans) tend to need sustenance of some sort, hydration is also important, as is (more arguably) community. However, the bar that the dominant nations set as “developed” may not be the only way to survive happily and productively. I think I&B are right with their spatio-temporal difference observation following from Todorov’s assimilation idea: in order to be able to communicate effectively (including economic ties, intellectual exchange, humanitarian ideals, everything else that could be construed as a kind of communication), we need to make the “other” more like us so we can understand them. Their “solution” also presents what I see as a viable means for solving difference – NOT eliminating difference – but having difference be less of an issue. I think, however, there should be a role for the oppressing nations too – to listen and hear what those in difference are trying to say. IF (and this is the hopeful side in me talking) this could happen, then possibly we would know what other people want and need, and not have to assume that we’re all the same.

I think it is quite accurate that Ben and Jen bring up the parallel between high school and life: I present to you my own brief anecdote: I have spent 7 summers working at a residential summer camp (under the auspices of a religious organization, but not limited to those belonging to it). Every week, 16 kids show up. I’ve had groups with every high school stereotype imaginable: cheerleaders, jockish popped collar boys, introverted “I write poetry because it is the only way I can express my discontent with society” kids, really down to earth kids you’d think were 80 if you weren’t looking at them, kids who follow laguna beach more closely that current events, etc. They all initially look at each other like, “I’m supposed to spend a week with him?” The student council member or the class clown usually tries to take over for awhile, but it doesn’t really work. They seem to be entirely dysfunctional because of their differences, and none of them will compromise the person they were coming in to be able to get along with the rest. However, if you were to see the group at the end of a week of shared experiences, challenges, and disorientation with their surroundings, you would see the same kids with all their differences having something in common. Though they all go home, they all know that there are 15 other people from around the state with whom they get along.

Communication and hearing are the keys to what I think I&B are saying. Yes, there are many things about self and other and lines, but the key is how the lines are crossed and how self finds other in him and other finds self in him. I see no need for self or other to become same, or for either to not exist – I like how I&B present the third possibility of equal but not assimilated…I think it is a worthy goal to strive towards.

Overlapping sovreignty?

In the chapter on multiple and overlapping sovereignties, there is an anecdote about the transition from Pre-British ownership India to colonial Indian. (beginning on page 191) The land ownership situation began with land-owners and cultivators. Their rights of ownership are defined differently from Locke’s definition: the landowners own a title to a constant share of production (and serve as the intermediate between the cultivator and the government), and the cultivator has rights to occupy and cultivate the land, but could not alienate it by any means to another. When the British colonized India, they transitioned in their own taxes, changed the land ownership system to their own, and eventually eliminated the Indian land ownership situation. However, there was a time in between when a land-owner’s land was their sovereign property, but the rights of trees and their fruits were still vested in those families who had planted them, regardless of the official ownership of the land on which they were planted.

This overlap of sovereignties is evident when looking at political borders versus multinational corporation properties, communications technologies, religions, etc. I think that this overlapping of sovereignties an accurate description of the current organization of international relations. However, in this kind of system, how would the order of sovereignties be communicated and enforced? It is funny in class to talk about opening up diplomatic relations with Shell or IBM...but what if their sovreignty was recognized by the world? Albiet, by Inayatullah and Blaney's text, this acknowledgement of sovreignty would lead to awareness of the "contact zone" and thus better relations. As I try to imagine a world where there are different kinds of sovreignty, I wonder if it is even possible for one organization to keep track of them all.

Whose Context?

Inayatullah and Blaney – Substanive

Well, I’m going to take a stab at this with no direction on where anybody else from the class is going to go in relation to this book.  I would first like to point out the difficultly in understanding and concentrating on the core content of Inayatullah and Blaney’s book.  I would like to immediately say, in jest of course, is that this is the reason that some IR theorists would rather just avoid the whole subject of behaviorism.  But of course I do recognize the importance of understanding individual perspectivism in building up IR locally.  States are not simply distant entities that that act on a singularity of unified perspectives.  No, international relations are instead built by individuals making decisions.

A major point that the authors attempt to relay to the audience is the socially conditioned structures of the environment (politically, socially, ets.) in which people live.  Because an idea exists does not mean that its existence is natural and real.  For the most part structures and institutions are created and should not be dogmatically accepted.  If the idea was not intentionally created then it would not exist to begin with.  This critique appears to be aimed at realist notions of the inevitability of the political environment in which international relations/politics must occur.  Hedley Bull’s defense of the anarchical society as an inevitability for example is a misleading assumption, which creates a cycle of dependence on the current political structure.  The authors of this book seem to call forth a questioning and re-examination of preexisting notions, from internal to external, from local to universal.  But then can we say that just because these features are socially constructed that we can act in a manner that is inconsistent and which does not recognize the constructions.  No, I believe that it would be foolish to act in a manner that disregards major social constructions, the international realm for example, even though our authors believe that they are created by the dominators of policy.  We can of course work toward the deconstruction of the present system but only working to build a replacement system so as not to create a political vacuum.  Who exactly should build/create this new realm?  How can one be created that takes into account differences while not relocating the “other” spacio-temporally into a zone that identifies it as backwards?

CNN? Do you actually want to give them power?

I think it was very interesting how, in class, one of the first things cited as a source of universal morality for mankind was CNN. The idea of a media source known to be favored by the US military (most of the gulf war press pool was from CNN), and critiqued as making instant history with repetitive images and catchy headlines is almost…funny. But then again, the fact that it was brought up in class shows that it’s sneaky propaganda scheme is working.

Is it possible that universal morality is just something that, to exist, must be enforced? Professor Mowlana wrote in an article that to have war in the world now, the country trying to start the intervention must be capable of global total propaganda, because of the financial implications of conflict on the rest of the world. So, perhaps CNN as universal morality was a good idea…until someone figured out that it was a biased/kind of government-favored source.

Considering this idea of media as a source for universal morality, I think of the three main moral texts in circulation worldwide now: the Torah, the Bible and the Koran. All three present moral values, and all three are very widespread.

I also thought it was really interesting how then there came the idea of CNN/media activating (by presenting predigested knowledge) a previously existing universal morality that people just didn’t know existed. I don’t like to think that this is the case, but, as Waltzer notes, the actors in war must appear to be in the right. (20) Nobody appears more right than in propaganda geared to muster support…PR has gotten too good for our own good. I think if there was a universal morality, exactly the wrong way to find it would be to conform to what the television

Morals in General

Waltzer – Reflective

A majority of the discussion in the previous class was directed toward the possibility of a universal moral consciousness, déja vu?  No.  It’s true we have seen and discussed this topic at length in relation to Kant.  A majority of individual wills in the class proposed and supported the notion that there is no such thing as a universal moral consciousness, that it is subjective in nature and changes meaning with differences.  My take, however, on Waltzer’s universal moral consciousness is similar to that of a Rousseauian general will, which is general in nature.  Perhaps then it a general moral consciousness?  But this then brings us back to Rousseau and the possibility of a universal general will.  In any case, the moral consciousness, like the general will exists in every person whether they know it or not, it is what is good for the population in question.  The general moral consciousness then is not the majority of individual morals but the morals of all in general.

Quoting Jacie from the H.M.S. Blogty:  “In the quote on page 107, from which all this conflict arises, he makes a very general and ambiguous claim when he talks about the “moral conscience of mankind”. If we don’t know (or can’t agree upon) what the moral conscience of mankind is (or if it even exists) then how can we decide if human intervention is justified or not?!”  

To respond to this quote I would like to reiterate why the moral consciousness of mankind is like Rousseau’s general will.  Does mankind simply express the idea of humanity by simply being human?  What then do we say of serial killers, rapists, and other social delinquents of the sort?  Does the idea of humanity simply disappear because of the lack of humanity in these individuals?  Can it still be considered universal although these individuals fail to fall within the boundary of the excepted definition of the universalism of humanity?  I would like to hope that we could still consider humanity as a positive attribute to all mankind despite the occasional outlier.

Likewise, I would propose a general moral consciousness to be universal in that humans, for the majority, throughout time have acted in a repetitious moral structure.  Beneath our differences in morals lies a general structure that we use to calculate our moral actions.

What do you think?