Greg Demetriou 4/9/12

I wanted to start this weeks post off with, what I thought to be, the most important quote we have come across in our readings. “Due to the extent of opposition that women’s NGOs face from fundamentalists—whether they be politicians or maulvis—and from fundamentalist thought, some activists feel that it is imperative to establish a working relationship with moderate religious groups.” (Jafar 266) Recently, we have discussed the negotiation between interfering with others cultures, while maintaining a respect for unfamiliar customs. This only further emphasizes the impoartance of establishing “working relationships with moderate religious groups.” These relationships allow for a much more appropriate understanding. I choose the word appropriate because it is a necessity when drawing parallels. The most difficult obstacle to overcome when crossing cultures is developing a coherent understanding of the other culture. It is impossible to provide adequate help or support for a group if these connections are not made because the efforts of those people are not properly understood.

This is so often the case with domestic issues in America. The power structure in place has a polarizing inability to understand the situations of the people they are trying to help. This display of miscomprehension hinders the ability to help because the fundamentals of issues are not properly understood. As a country, America has placed the highest importance on those we identify as experts. Whenever someone is presented as an expert the credentials of said person are validated, and their words are taken as fact. Instead of taking the time to dissect a situation, to attain a better understanding, America’s modernity of instant gratification only references the words of these experts when formulating opinion. This neglect of developing working relationships leads to help that is not the most beneficial.

This leads right into Abu-Lughod’s article. The author states, “I want now to look more closely at those Afghan women Laura Bush claimed were 'rejoicing" at their liberation by the Americans. This necessitates a discussion of the veil, or the burqa, because it is so central to contemporary concerns about Muslim women.” Explaining that the liberation of Afghan women necessitates a discussion about the veil or burqa serves as testament to the affects of media. American media displays women in a manner completely contradictory to the principals of covering up. Because this is such a polarizing difference the independence of Afghan women, in the eyes of the west, is based on wearing these two things. A blatant neglect of truly understanding a culture is what ensues. This is a classic case of equating problems to difference. Americans view the liberation of these women as not having to cover up their faces. This is accompanied by a blatant neglect of the devastation being caused by the militaristic efforts of Americans in Afghanistan. The bombing of Afghanistan is a contemporary concern that seems to be negated by the larger issue of women’s appearance.

The pattern is focusing on the issues the medias finds problematic, as opposed to finding a connection, and through that connection establishing a symbiotic relationship. This pattern will only serve to create codependent countries, as opposed to individual countries prospering. It seems that globalizing efforts are more centered on eradicating controversial aspects of culture, as opposed to developing an understanding of culture.

In Moller Okin’s article she explains, “Because societal cultures play so pervasive and fundamental a role in the lives of members, and because such cultures are threatened with extinction, minority cultures should be protected by special rights: That, in essence, is the case for group rights.” Expressing the importance of these rights, I feel, comes from an adequate understanding of other cultures, as well as an understanding of the role cultures play. This simplistic explanation of the author’s words should not dismiss its importance, modern cultures inability to understand the culture of other stems from a larger inability to understand culture. As a sociology student I have had the privilege of understanding society as its own aspect of human life. Most people do not share this basic understanding, especially males. This serves as a testament to the privileges of, for lack of a better word, privilege.

The rhetoric surrounding these topics can serve as an explanation for these tendencies. Specifically, the term backwards is a perfect example of said rhetoric. A culture that does not have the same modern privileges as America is identified as backwards. This is a negative connotation as backwards refers to a lack of progression. The importance of unnecessary luxuries is centered in the minds of those absorbing the aspects of other culture. The cultural tendency to equate difference to disdain is reflected in attitudes towards other cultures. This has led me to believe that independence is the most threatening thing of all. The idea of having a country exist absent of those unnecessary luxuries makes a lot of people insecure about their own existence. The diversity of the citizens of the world is driving them apart as opposed to helping grow international connections. These connections cannot be made because the differences are not accepted. Accepting does not mean adopting; it is so foreign for Americans to think something different can work. People feel compelled to modernize cultures, as opposed to helping and embracing other cultures.

In professor Jafar’s guest post she explains, “Perhaps this is why I respond to the Time cover the way I do. It reminds me of all the work that needs to be done—on the inside as well as the outside—and it confronts me with the reality of how little things have changed—on the inside as well as the outside.”  The astonishing thing about globalization has to be this inability to change. Other cultures are becoming more visible through advancements in technology, but the advancements in understanding other cultures do not reflect a similar progression. Again, I argue that this is do to the lack of ability to understand. It is not easy for people to take the time to dissect other’s situations because it is not encouraged. The common practice is to absorb information and formulate opinions. People need critically think about reality if they want to relate to it in the best way possible. These readings inspire a greater understanding; the problem is that news stories are far more absorbed then these articles. This has to be a diagnosed as a sin against the intellect of modernity. When entertainment out weighs fact adequate understanding is impossible.