To start this weeks post I thought it was
appropriate to analyze the similarities between Narayan’s article and Kurzman’s
article. When reading both of these pieces I immediately thought of the
American tendency of identification, in respect to cultural differences.
Narayan explains the relationship between domestic violence against women in
America, and violence against women in third world countries. This provides a
perfect example for identifying the American sensibility when identifying
difference. In this case, American media articulates the violent epidemic
facing third world women as a commonality in a culture different from their
own. Instead of illuminating this epidemic and articulating possible solutions,
the media presents it as a standard part of life for women who are apart of
these cultures. Although domestic violence against women is an equally
important epidemic in America, the way it is presented in almost completely
opposite. Anytime there is an episode of domestic violence that is identified
as newsworthy it is articulated as an example of an anomaly in American
society. Each case is presented in a matter-of-fact type manner. That is to
say, the episode is always presented as a spontaneous act existing on the micro
level of a personal relationship. As this is reserved for American instances,
American media has generalized identical problems in other countries as
identifying aspects of culture. Presenting American instances as anomalies
protects the over all integrity of the American identity. This is the case
because the media does not want to reflect a pattern of similarity between
their world and the world and any other. Reducing the experiences of others to
generalization ignores the violence and misdiagnosis the problem as cultural. This
practice is not done to inspire awareness, but to articulate and distinguish
difference. Doing so creates a perspective of ignorance that helps in
supporting any effort to interfere with another culture. America’s war on
terror can be specifically referenced when identifying this tendency.
Articulating the differences between America and the countries they invade
justifies the money and manpower spent on this effort. Generalizations inspire
ignorance, which stifles truth.
The
same can be seen in Kurzman’s article. The identity of Islamic Muslims has
become synonymous with the Taliban according to the discourse of American
media. A more appropriate identification would be the one Americans reserve for
the radical religious people of their own country. Ultra-conservative
Christians who have radical views are most similar to the religious practices
of the Taliban. Instead of presenting these extreme conservatives in that
light, all Islamic Muslims are reduced to this radical identity. American media
has once again presented one group as an anomaly, and another as the standard. Again
this can be referenced in relation to the war on terror because articulating
these differences help support the efforts of the war. Additionally, it helps
justify the way in which America has gone about its business in these
countries. The ensuing consequences of these tendencies are identities that are
not consistent with actuality. As consumers of media, we must go further in our
education. It is not enough to take anything at face values, as face value
illuminates difference not similarities. This mentality is present in the
issues discussed in Killian’s article and Barber’s article.
The
most valuable part of Barber’s article is his ability to explain both the
differences and similarities of the Jihad and Mcworld, specifically the
interdependence of each world in relation to the larger system in which they
exist. The Jihad world would in exist independently because there would be no
enemy on which it can focus its efforts. Similarly, the Mcworld would not exist
if there were not both people who support it and people who appose it. There
needs to be the second group because that’s were its identification is derived.
That is to say, people need to oppose it in order for it to be identified
within a larger system. If the
media did what Barber has done violence against women, and violence in general,
would be seen a global epidemic facing the citizens of the world. The
similarities of domestic violence in America, and violence against the women of
the third world would be presented equally with the differences in an effort to
bring awareness to an epidemic. Instead, the experiences of third world women
are presented with out referencing these similarities, identifying it as a
cultural issue. The most important thing about Barber’s article is the
importance of similarities. Through articulating similarities the issues
discussed are issues to which all people can relate. When difference is the
only aspect identified the ensuing consequences eliminate freedom of
expression. This is the case in Killian’s article.
Killian
explains that women who wear veils in France are identified as either,
“Barriers of assimilation” or “vehicles of integration into dominant society.”
Because veils have a relation to culture they are seen as objects of
difference. In Leah’s post she explained how this stifles the opportunity for
cultural pluralism. This was a great point to make because the consequences
eliminate freedom of expression. Wearing a veil should be no ones business but
the person who chooses to wear it. They are wearing it because it means
something to them. The problem is people are encouraged to feel something when
they see someone wearing one. And what people feel are the ideas expressed in media
about the veil. When people are reduced to their assumptions generalizations
out weigh everything else. The choice of women to wear a veil or to not wear a
veil should not affect anyone else. But media has compelled people to place
cultural significance on others expressions. Placing women into the two
mutually exclusive categories articulated by Killian becomes an unnecessary
practice when you actually think about it. Why does it have to be one or the
other? Why does it have to be anything? The thing that people have the biggest
problem with is freedom of expression. It is not enough to see a woman wearing
a veil as a person making a choice; people have to place significance on every
decision.
What
I will take away from these readings is an important lesson on expression.
Although society and media reserve their right to identify the decisions of
individuals as a part of one system or another, I personally choose to not do
this. If a woman is wearing a veil it is because they choose to do so. It does not
have to mean anything to me. If she chooses to tell my why she wears it then I
know and I take that as her freedom of expression. People’s choices are their
own, and they should have no affect on me. My judgment is reserved for who a
person is, not the significance of their clothes. This is an idealistic
practice, but one that should be reserved for all interactions. This will
inspire us to critically think about the media we are exposed to, as there are
two sides to every story. The similarities and differences must always be
referenced when consuming media. We also must not place such an emphasis on
difference. The mentality of America promotes difference as a threat, but
certain things are just different. That is what individuality is. I read somewhere
that diversity strengthens community, and this mentality must replace the
former. I know I am bordering on preaching but an idealistic view must not be
dismissed because it is idealistic. Why not attempt to seek truth, and embrace
difference? I admit my words are easier to say then to live by, but why not
try?
No comments:
Post a Comment