Take sometime tomorrow and through the weekend to reflect on the dialectic of identity and difference as displayed in The Secret Sharer and Cabeza de Vaca. How does a presumption of civilization or of superiority generate tension at the point of encounter?
To this juncture, we have a grasp on the tendentiousness of the concept, that is, that civilization is an historical inventon of recent origin that carries an implicit judgmental valence and so has been used to discriminate between peoples. The judgmental valence is also evident in the manner in which the globe has been sectioned and represented accordiing to the rules of a tendentious western-bound geography. Civilization comes with a view--"things seen are things as seen"--and so it is that the geography of first, second, and third world peoples repeats the larger conceptual dialectic of "civilized" and "primitive."
A worthy question in this context of doubt is : How does civilization, as a mechanism of judgment of the other, shield us from the experience of what is different? In other words, what does civilization deny the civilized who act in its name? Another is: How does the affirmation of one's identity in the sovereignty of one's name protect us from the threat of our own inner impulses of otherness?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The main problem between civilization and “non-civilized” people is a lack of motivation to understand the ideas and goals of “the other.” Trying to understand complex traditions and cultures that have taken centuries to build takes great amounts of both time and effort. Most people are not willing to spend their efforts on understanding such “primitive” cultures when ignoring their existence or using force to “wipe out” these cultures is so much quicker and efficient of a process.
This type of attitude is fostered and developed by the “civilizations” we live in. As children, we enjoy exploring and trying to understand new concepts and objects. However, the sedentary civilizations we live in begin to shift our attention from exploring to learning what schools choose to teach us. Because of the teachings in schools and from everyday experiences in our cultures, we begin to build up ideas about people and places we have never met or visited. Cabeza de Vaca realizes that his pre-conceived notions about the natives he encounters in his narrative were false. He intially believes that the “Indians” are savages who practice witchcraft. However, after spending an extended period of time with them, he begins to realize and appreciate their sense of hospitality and knowledge of the land around them. His religious beliefs also slowly begin to intermingle with the “witchcraft” of the natives. He realizes that their beliefs are no stranger than his own Christian beliefs.
The main message I received from Conrad’s The Secret Sharer was that humans have a natural need to feel a sense of belonging. The captain of the ship feels much better about his situation (on board with a group of strangers) when he gets to intimately know the man he “meets” along the way. On this subject, civlization does succeed in providing a sense of belonging. However, this sense of belonging also brings with it the idea that no effort should be made to understand those who are not a part of “civilization.” This corrupted idea leads to aforementioned violence between the “civilized” and “savage.”
Initially, Cabeza de Vaca and his crew viewed the Indians as uncivilized and inferior to them. They only viewed the Indians as people to enslave and exploit; after all, the whole purpose of their trip was to claim land for Spain and gather riches. Thus when they initially get shipwrecked and need food, they use force (Cabeza de Vaca 64). However, as their misfortunes increase, they realize they have no reason to assume superiority over the well-fed, strong, and established natives, so Cabeza de Vaca “beseeched the Indians to take [him] to their houses” (87). As civilization breaks down, Cabeza de Vaca realized he must accept help from the “other” in order to survive.
Instead of haughtily dissociating with the Indians, Cabeza de Vaca is now forced to rely on them, and this allows him to learn valuable information. He learns the art of healing, becomes a merchant. As a result of his assimilation into their culture, he is respected as a shaman and through his merchant travels, he “was able to seek out the way by which [he] would go forward” (97). He planned a route to escape and also exploring the land allowed him to “see many of its particularities” (137) – he gathered geographical data about the unexplored inland which he brought back to Spain.
After living as an Indian for years, Cabeza de Vaca respects them and asks the Christians not to “kill [the Indians] or take them as slaves” (156). He also refuted the myth that Indians are heathens because he found “neither sacrifices nor idolatry” (168) in his travels.
Cabeza de Vaca creates a double identity; he is both a Christian and an Indian, similar to the double identity the captain faces in The Secret Sharer. He begins to identify his other half as the stowaway Leggatt, and by doing so begins to lose his real identity. His primary duty as captain is to guide and protect the ship on its travels, but he almost grounds the ship by sailing so close to the island to let Leggatt swim to safety.
After Leggatt leaves, the captain realizes he is “a total stranger to the ship” (Conrad 57). Preoccupied with Leggatt’s plight and his inexperience, the captain neglects his job; he was too distracted by his feeling of otherness from the crew to successfully control the ship. After Leggat leaves, the captain is finally alone with the ship and vows that “no one in the world should stand between us” (58). His identity is affirmed as captain, and he recognizes that he was mistaken to allow his “otherness” to impede his duties as captain.
The idea of civilization shields us from examining the ideas, values and perspectives of another society. If we refer to ourselves as civilized and others as uncivilized, the assumption that our worldview/values are superior naturally follows. Operation under this assumption, a “civilized” society will often try to eliminate or replace an “uncivilized” society it encounters.
Basically, civilization denies the “civilized” person the ability to examine different ideas and perspectives. For example, before this class I had never really thought about looking at the world/life from a nomad’s perspective. I simply assumed that since we are more “civilized” there would be nothing to be gained from doing so. While I doubt that very many people from technologically advanced sedentary societies would voluntarily choose to become nomads, it is still interesting to consider the idea that “progress” as we think of it today may not be essential to the overall happiness and well-being of society.
On different topic, naming and classifying ourselves and the world, protects us from facing the unknown within ourselves. The classic example is a stereotypical high school, which is divided into athletes, nerds, cheerleaders, band geeks, freaks, etc. Nearly every high school student classifies himself/herself into one of these groups and tries to act accordingly, even if their classification is generally viewed as a negative one such as “freak.” This is because, even belonging to the bottom of the social order, is far less terrifying than facing the possibility that we do not belong anywhere. The unknown within ourselves scares us because nothing can make a person feel more alone than realizing that he is a stranger even to himself. Therefore, we name and classify ourselves (not just in high school but throughout our lives) to provide the comforting illusion of familiarity and to isolate ourselves from otherness.
The presumption of civilization replaces individual interaction with societal interaction - an interaction that obscures views of basic human similarities by superimposing upon them the constructs of established “society.”
When Cabeza de Vaca’s men meet the native population of the America’s, they see the natives as European Catholics would see them. When the Spanish are wandering through the forest, the priest holds the cross in front of him as a guard against whatever “evil” may lie in the unknown ahead of them. Similarly, when the Native Americans are transporting Cabeza de Vaca back to their village, the medicine man is holding up a religious artifact, trying to ward off any evil that the Spanish may have brought with them. In this manner, the presumption of civilization generates tension because it amplifies the differences between the interacting peoples. And the fear of these differences – the fear of the unknown – causes each side to try to master the other so that its own identity might be preserved.
In this complex of fear, we defend ourselves and our own identity – which is, of course, linked to the “civilization” from which we came. Our rush to preserve this identity inhibits us from experiencing that which is different.
Ultimately, our cultural identity, as a lens through which we see the world, manifests itself in the process of naming what we see. As Levinas said, “We are governed by the sovereignty of nomination.” When we give things names, we necessarily place them in a cultural context. Thus, when we witness traditions that we have never seen before (as Cabeza de Vaca did en masse), we find it difficult to place those traditions in our own societal context; they do not yet have a name.
Finally, our own name is simply an affirmation of the cultural identity from which we came. A popular tradition is to give children names which are found in the Bible; parents do this in the hope that their children might follow in some aspect of that Biblical tradition. Yet, this defining of both ourselves and the world around us through naming can be limiting. As Tim noted, the impetus for our instinct towards belonging to a group lies in our fear of not belonging. I thought this idea of a man or woman possibly “realizing that he is a stranger to himself” was very interesting. It reveals that our rush to define the world around us is not necessarily so that we can classify it as much as it is so that we can classify our own place in the world. By defining the “other,” we hope to solidify our own image of “self.”
As we discussed in the previous blog post, civilization is a core part of one’s identity; civilization allows one to see oneself as part of a larger group. Seeing oneself as “civilized” serves an important function: it provides the individual with a sense of belonging and familiarity. Yet this benefit is not without cost. Being “civilized” erects a barrier between those who belong to “civilization” and the “savages” who do not; it can make it much more difficult to confront the other. And civilization also restricts the civilized individual’s actions; one must live up to the expectations of “civilized” society or risk exclusion from the group.
In the film version of Cabeza de Vaca’s adventures, EchavarrÃa demonstrates how religion and language, cornerstones of “civilization,” sustain the explorers among incredible difficulties. De Vaca’s cross, a symbol of his religion and his homeland, serves as his primary link to Spanish society throughout his journey. The time when he feels most fearful in the film is when the Florida Indians cage him and take his cross. While he is obviously uncomfortable being caged, removing his cross significantly increases the intensity of his fear. The cross gives de Vaca the comfort to endure in a drastically different environment. Once the cross is returned to him, he begins to heal the sick with it. While he is deep amid the “other,” lost in a foreign land performing rituals that he has never seen before, his cross serves as a source of comfort and familiarity to him. He thanks God for the generosity of the Indians and for allowing him to perform healings, a theme which is reinforced throughout de Vaca’s narrative. His actions are always linked to his cross and the faith that it represents for him; yet this same faith or “civilization” also limits de Vaca’s understanding of the natives’ culture. His Catholicism, for example, prevents de Vaca from ever seriously considering the potential veracity of the Indians’ religions. While they see an empirical link between certain rituals and improved health, de Vaca sees nothing but pagan superstition. In a sense, civilization prevents de Vaca from understanding the Indians’ culture as thoroughly as he could from an Indian’s perspective. While he can sympathize with the natives and praise them for their kindness (which he does frequently in his book), he can never understand their way of life as thoroughly as someone with no “civilized” background could. So while the Catholic religion provides de Vaca with a context for confronting the “other” of the Indian peoples, enabling him to survive in a tremendously different environment, it also prevents him from understanding it from the natives’ perspective.
Another example of how civilization can impede the confrontation with the other appears in Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Sharer. The “civilization” aboard the ship makes it extremely difficult for the crew and the captain to reach mutual understanding. The crew has served together for an extremely long time. They are all familiar with each other and have had the entire journey to form a group identity, or “civilization.” The captain, however, is a stranger aboard the ship; he is one representation of the “other” in Conrad’s novel. The relationship between the captain and his crew is defined by suspicion; the crew refuses to accept him because he does not share the common experience of serving on the ship. This has a disastrous effect for the captain. Even before the appearance of his “secret sharer,” the captain is riddled by self doubt and does not feel fit to command the ship. The crew, in turn, has no faith in the captain’s decisions, as seen in the mate’s constant examination of the captain for signs of drunkenness and the steward’s uneasy relationship with the captain. Because both parties refuse to accept each other as part of a common “civilization” and instead dwell on their “otherness” and differences, the ship develops a dysfunctional culture. It could easily be argued that the captain finds (or imagines) the secret sharer solely because the crew refuses to accept him. The captain would not have taken the night watch if he didn’t feel so inadequate and unaccepted by the crew. But more importantly, one of the major motivations for his closeness with the secret sharer (someone who he has very little in common with) is his need to be understood. So in the Secret Sharer, civilization acts as a barrier between the captain and the crew and leads the captain to his unbalanced mental state.
So clearly, while civilization can serve as source of personal comfort when confronting the other, it also makes it much more difficult to develop a full understanding of the "other's" culture.
On a different note, I just wanted to apologize to hannah for calling her Helen in my last post. Sorry.
In the Secret Sharer by Joseph Conrad, the captain’s sense of superiority with the crew isolates him because he has not earned his place among his men but has been thrusted into this new position. He seems to cope with the otherness he feels with his crew by just using his power of sovereignty to get them to agree with what he says. Because he has this position of power without earning it he has no one else to share his experience with and thus comes in Leggatt who offers that release, that person he can connect with. This then skews how the captain acts with respect to the crew. All of his actions now focus around getting Leggatt to safety and not on the safety of his crew. As for The narrative of Cabeza de Vaca, Alvar’s sense of civilization separates him from the natives at first because of his sense of civilization. Because he thinks that he is more civilized than the natives he cannot connect with them until he abandons this sense of identity that he can finally understand the ways of the natives and adapt to them. However, when he adapats to the natives and then runs into the Europeans, he thinks that he will be brought back to civilization and a normal life. He is disillusioned with what he finds though as they hunt down the natives and take them on a death march. For this reason, Cabeza de Vaca cannot identify with anyone at this point but must use his power of superiority to try to save the natives. He becomes the governor in a territory in order to do this. For his cultural understanding of the natives and for his superiority over them in order to protect them, Cabeza de Vaca identifies with no one.
Growing up in a small town, with little diversity, there were few opportunities interaction with those who differ from the norm. With a population that is ninety-six percent caucasian, and a majority that fall into the upper middle class, my town was cut off from any interaction with “others.” Only when venturing into the city did we really have the opportunity to see how others live. However, it was the resident’s choosing to live in a town where they knew there would be little diversity and few differences between themselves and the other residents. Due to people’s desire to live in a safe environment, where they do not need to worry about homicide, burglary, and drug abuse, they deprive themselves of the opportunity to interact with other cultures and begin to socialize exclusively with those who share the same characteristics as them. Due to our desire to live in this enclosed community we are effectively cutting off communication from all those outside the community, those who cannot afford the high cost of living in the gated and sheltered communities.
Since it has always been the American Dream to live in a well-maintained home, in a quiet and safe community, we are building walls to protect ourselves and quarantine ourselves from those who we deem different. This can be seen in the Narrative of Cabeza de Vaca, in which de views himself as superior to the natives due to their traditions and customs. Growing up in Spain, in a time of Catholic religious zeal, de Vaca only knows the benefits of the Catholic religion. Living in a civilization where Catholicism is the backdrop for government and laws, the transition to the native religion comes as a shock to de Vaca, who cannot fully grasp the traditions of the native’s religion. Throughout his journey, de Vaca seeks out the Christians, following their traces around the land until he meets with them, “After we saw clear signs of the Christians and understood that we were very near them, we gave many thanks to God our Lord for wanting to take us out of so sad and wretched a captivity (De Vaca, 159).” Cabeza never even gives the natives an opportunity to share with him their religion, instead preferring to stay only with men who believe in the same higher power as Spain, his homeland. As demonstrated by this example, the culture that we grow up in has an impact on our desire to understand and relate to other cultures.
Cabeza de Vaca’s narrative addresses the question of civilization causing conflict during encounters when Cabeza de Vaca’s company finally meets up with other Spaniards. These Europeans take on the attitude of superiority because of their aspect of “civilization.” First of all, they take on a condescending attitude toward the Indians traveling in Cabeza’s company, seeing them as primitive and less developed people. They instruct the natives that they are the “lords of the land whom the Indians were to serve and obey” (161). The fact that they come from a “civilized” nation justifies to these conquerors the subduing of the Indians, whom they view as a less worthy species than themselves. This leads to conflict and misunderstanding since the natives cannot grasp why these new people should suddenly have this power over them. The Spaniards even take this condescending attitude with Cabeza and the other three in his company. When they first meet, the Spaniards are dumbfounded that the former “Christians” should have, in their view, regressed, adopting some of the ways of the natives, particularly in dress. Rather than questioning what merits the new customs could hold, they call the four Nunez survivors “people of ill fortune and no worth” (161). This closed-mindedness to new ideas and customs leads to further conflict even between the four survivors and “The Christians” though they come from the same background. It is interesting to note that Cabeza de Vaca begins to dissociate himself from this group of people, calling them “The Christians.” Though he is also still Christian and maintains his beliefs throughout his travels, he sees these Christians as a totally different group from himself, though he once would have identified with them as brethren in Christ and country.
This example also shows the disadvantage of “civilization” in that it causes people to disregard the culture of “uncivilized” peoples as inferior and primitive, something that they have passed over and progressed away from, therefore seeing no reason to examine or experience it. By disregarding uncivilized cultures as worthless and backwards, civilizations miss the chance to identify the merits of the “other” and incorporate these into their own culture. In this way, “civilizations” are not as innovative and progressive as they seem.
In terms of identity, civilization denies the civilized the chance to truly define their own selves, since it only gives them the opportunity to see themselves within the framework of “civilization.” Anything outside of this would be deemed unworthy or a kind of backwards progression. As a result of this close-mindedness, everyone ends up identifying themselves essentially the same way, simply looking around them to match up their own identity with parts of the civilization’s, producing a stagnant society.
Perhaps for the same reason that the majority of humankind took up a sedentary lifestyle, humans began to form communities, city-states, nations, and civilizations. As in the Secret Sharer, people enjoy a sense of belonging, being able to interact with people they can relate to. It also seems that hating someone else can be a way to bring people together. We can use Notre Dame as a good metaphor. In section sports we bond over hating the other sections. In interhall sports we bond with our halls over hating the other halls. At football games we bond as a university in hating Michigan and USC (which are of course both legitimate and deserving hatreds). I, and I'm sure most of you share the same views, have no desire to live in another dorm to see what it's like, or especially to attend USC to experience their "culture" or lack thereof. I think we as 21st century educated college students sometimes see ourselves as above the conflicts between the Spanish and Indians based on a lack of understanding, but I think putting it in a Notre Dame context can help us realize that we're just as guilty, even if the conflicts are less severe, and its just an innate human impulse to separate ourselves from the other. Muck Fichigan!
Highlighting the concept and idea of civilization as an outdated and obsolete relic of superiority and subjugation, while valid in its purpose to point out the inherent inaccuracies of such labeling, invariably misses that it is not the term itself that is a problem; it is the bias and irrational behavior that results from improper use of such classification that truly diminishes the value of the word.
"Civilization" is as useful a tool as we make it to be. Linking cultures and countries to the idea of civilization gives us an automatic general concept of the group. It tells us that such a culture has similarities in terms of economic, social, and governmental protocols with a single word, while the idea of "primitiveness" differentiates a people from that grouping, suggesting a rural, agrarian, or nomadic society. It is only when the pejorative nature of the term "primitive" or the superior nature of "civilized" comes into play that these terms shift from useful tools to psychological barriers.
How does this shift arise? Simply put, it's human nature. Groupthink is inherent to mankind. Look at Kerry or Michael's posts for clear examples. Does Kerry's homogeneous town or the Notre Dame community as referenced by Michael represent a civilization? No, but both show how grouping in general is inherent to mankind and, more often than not, demonstrates aspects of a superior/pejorative relationship.
We as humans tend to like the people most similar to us, despite the iconic and misguided idiom, "Opposites attract." We tend to give overwhelming credence to evidence supporting our own ideas and beliefs while discrediting evidence supporting parallel or opposing thoughts. These tendencies, as well as the inherent differences between people, force us to classify, to generalize, to divide ourselves into groups.
Even the Aborigines in The Songlines, "free" from maps or countries and connected by Dreamings and songs, still managed to form tribes and wage bloody warfare between themselves. There was no concept of civilization there in that case to section them off. There weren't even boundaries between them to create nations or states or cities, the author suggests (The Songlines, p.59). Classifying and grouping is flawed and divisive, for sure, but universal nonetheless.
So what can be done about it? Race can reflect a superior nature, as can religion, nationality, and language. Perhaps they are just as inadequate tools as the concept of "civilization", since they possess the same flaws and benefits. If the superior nature of "civilization" and pejorative nature of "primitiveness" is such a problem, should we not rid ourselves of all classifications? To do so would be folly, so the best we can do is to recognize that no generalization is even close to perfect.
An individual taken out of the context of society is just a human being, like any other animal. Traits that might often be used to describe that person would lose their meaning. In order for a person to be strong, it must be in relation to somebody who is weak. In order for a person to be jovial, it must be in relation to somebody who is somber. However, within the context of society, these traits can be said to make up a person’s character, a means for which others may pass judgment upon a person. Thus is the dual nature of an individual that is apparent in The Secret Sharer and Cabeza de Vaca’s narrative.
The term dual nature refers to the fact that a person may look at themselves however they please, for it is something under which they are total control. However, the way others view a person is something that the individual has very little control over. A person must therefore constantly balance trying to stay true to their own beliefs about who they are while appeasing enough to others in order to maintain good relations.
The main character in The Secret Sharer is a good example of the aforementioned contrast. He has a role within the society of the ship, as captain, that he must maintain. But it is a role he is not entirely comfortable undertaking, and his story has become so intertwined with his double that it is easy to imagine them swapping shoes. There are parts of the captain that long for the freedom to swim onto a foreign soil and start anew. He could break free of the caste that had been set out for him, as captain, where the others are judging his every move with that idea in mind.
Similarly, Cabeza de Vaca was being treated like a great healer and a God, even though he served his king and country. The person that he was before became buried as he adapted to his new lifestyle. When any two individuals interact, each one has intimate knowledge of himself or herself but only limited knowledge of the other. It is from this limited knowledge that impressions are made, and from these impressions boundaries define the limits of the relationship. Like in the Secret Sharer, it may be that each person has an ideal inner self longing for freedom from judgment, but in order to become a functional part of society each person must act in some degree according to the laws and customs laid down by that society. In meeting with other members of their society, the must act within the boundaries of that relationship.
In regards to the original question, it seems as if two interacting societies behave similarly as two interacting individuals. Each society possesses the intimate knowledge of self but only the limited knowledge of the other. From this knowledge the boundaries of the relationship are set. But the more different two societies presume the other to be, the less they know of each other, the more limited are the boundaries of the relationship. By limiting the possibilities for different forms of interaction between two societies, the less each society can offer the other and the less they stand to gain by furthering the relationship. Civilization then limits the interaction individuals can have with people from opposite societies, thus making it impossible for an individual to experience that society and come to understand it.
Civilization provides an affirmation of the self at the expense of the other. By assimilating into a civilization, the individual is saturated with a specific culture, systems by which to evaluate and align himself and his actions, and a sense of community and value within that community; since these trappings are shared only within a group of civilized peers, civilization provokes a tendency to distance its members from the world around them. This distance invariably provokes unwarranted sentiments of superiority in civilized persons – it is quite rare indeed to come across a society without a strong enough sense of cohesiveness to discourage outsider participation, and even rarer to find one free from lofty self-assessment. As the civilized draw together, their similarities are magnified and their differences downplayed, and this is at least partially accomplished by defining the common civilization in terms of negation of the other. Such negation breeds further distancing from the other, and so of course when two civilizations, or two distinct manners of life, meet conflict often ensues. Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca was witness to one of the most significant such collisions in human history, that between Spaniards and the native inhabitants of the Americas, and experienced this collision in quite a singular fashion. The movie we watched in class explored Alvar’s physical journey across the southern part of the modern United States after a disastrous expedition into Florida under Narvaez. More importantly, however, it followed Alvar’s cultural journey – from his initial status as a Spaniard and European through his trials and the rapid failings of ‘civilized’ practices in the New World until his eventual partial assimilation into the native culture, at the cost of his Spanish identity. By journey’s end, neither we nor Alvar can say precisely to which group the ex-Spaniard most belongs, for his extended exposure to the other and his isolation from the culture and people of Spain quickly acted to strip from him much of his civilized identity while simultaneously adapting him to a new style of life. The wandering healer Alvar, whom we witness as a willing participant in the practices of the natives who slaughtered his fellow crew-mates, eventually finds himself reintroduced to Spanish culture but can no longer comprehend its significance. Having abandoned his "judgmental valence" along with the remainder of his Spanish heritage, and having lived as the other for such a long period of time, Alvar is unable to seamlessly reunite with his western brothers. The perceptions of the other (the natives) fostered by European thought were permanently stripped away by the personal experiences of the explorer; in the wilderness, the protections of civilization against the other become worthless as man must return to his independent roots. The facade of civilization loses its meaning outside of the cities of the homogenous; as man reverts to his core instincts and powerful primitive inclinations in order to survive. Seen through the eyes of the civilized, Alvar, like Conrad's Marlow, might be said to have found the heart of darkness within himself.
The presumption of civilization has caused a problem for almost all who have encountered a group of people who are considered “uncivilized.” From my experience and observation, the civilized person cannot help but become critical of the “uncivilized.” The certainly generates tension at the point of encounter. Primarily, these critical and judgmental thoughts are based off of a lack of understanding. We tend to jump to the conclusion that since we cannot comprehend why this other group of people is acting so strangely, it must be because we are the superior group. This could be seen in the Cabeza de Vaca film, especially at the end, when the Spaniards arrive and enslave the Indians. If the Spaniards had taken the time to gain a better understanding of the Indians, they would have realized the incredible similarities of their lives, as Cabeza de Vaca did. The immediate avoidance on the part of the Spaniards to accept that their own civilization may not be as superior as they believed did shield them from the experience of what is different. The Spaniards did not see it as worth their while to learn about the different society. Acting so strongly in the name of Spain and Christianity, the Spaniards were incapable of accepting the Indians as having a legitimate culture that should be respected. Even if there was potentially an interest or curiosity in the Indian culture, it was suppressed because at the time that would have been considered lunacy. It was for this reason that the other surviving members of Cabeza de Vaca’s crew lied about the true experience. At this point in time, it is impossible to move backwards and remove all lines of civilization. The only means of blurring the lines is to learn and experience as much as humanly possible of the other civilizations that exist, and avoid all temptation of judgment.
I would first of all agree with Brendan Keeler in his conjecture that the problem with ‘civilization’ as a term lies not in the term itself or its strict meaning, but in its present connotations. However, because of the sloppiness of diction which has gradually placed an often negative connotation to this term, we are forced, in this context, to examine a more conversational view of the term. As he notes, it is acceptable and helpful to examine the term in this context so that we might note the improprieties of such use. As a side note however, I find it truly frightening how misuse has perverted the term so drastically.
In The Secret Sharer, though the narrator does not necessarily convey an explicit assumption of superiority over his crew, there are certainly some indications that he understands this ‘other’ as something lesser than himself in some way, if for no other reason than because he cannot understand them. He refers to his mate, in a somewhat depreciatory manner, as “the mate with the terrific whiskers”(45 and others) and the second mate as “that confounded cub”(44). This is incredibly subtle, but the repetition of such characterizations portrays the crew as alien, and perhaps, inferior.
Cabeza de Vaca and his crew have similar but more explicit encounters with the ‘other’ in which they judgmentally assume themselves to be more superior. Spaniards, along with other colonizing imperialists of the era, often viewed themselves as superior to natives. Their justification for this was often on the basis of their being European or Western. European society underwent such extraordinary advancements and changes in that era that it is understandable how they might view themselves as more advanced, and therefore, superior. In addition, the blanket classification of nearly all Europeans under ‘Christendom’ created a truly massive and inherently confident group identity. However, the only legitimate way in which they might have justified themselves as inherently superior—on a religious basis, because only the creator could endow in one people an inherent superiority—would contradict itself, as Christian ethics holds that all men are equal in nature and inherent value. Again, they made the mistake often made by those who are more advanced when comparing to shoes less advanced—because they were further developed in technology, arts, and political organization, they assumed superiority on another level.
As already noted, ‘civilization,’ properly used, carries no implicit value judgment. As it is often presently used, however, there is certainly a judgmental valence of sorts, and this valence, naturally, brings us back to the self/other dichotomy. ‘Civilization’ or ‘civilized’ often act as an umbrella under which we classify ourselves, and outside of which lies the ‘other.’ Of course, this is not always an intentional classification. As mentioned by several previous posters, it is only natural to classify oneself, if for no other reason than to belong. Although there are certainly some extraordinary places in which such classification exists to a lesser degree or not at all, in many group settings it is true. We classify ourselves in a million different ways, some based on chosen characteristics(i.e. athlete, smart kid, dunce, know-it-all; the traditional labels applied to adolescents by themselves or each other) and others on those we have no control over(i.e. those based on gender or race/religion).
While noting this natural tendency to classify, however, it is also valuable to note an interesting paradox—amidst all the labels we apply to ourselves and groups we act part of, a great part of many of our lives is spent trying to free ourselves of labels, even those we have applied to ourselves. As we try to become independent and develop a self-identity, we butt heads with the certain sense of constancy, comfort, and belonging provided by a group identity. So, in a way, it is true to say that the affirmation of one’s identity—especially as part of a group identity—can prevent us from our own impulses of otherness, which I would more aptly term uniqueness in this particular case. We see this role acted out in gender classifications. Oftentimes, women encounter a barrier, self-imposed or otherwise, which prevents them from engaging in more traditionally male activities, most often those such as contact sports or physical labor. On the flip side of the coin, men may encounter a self- or group-imposed barrier which disallows them from engaging in activities seen as more delicate or sensitive for fear of being labeled ‘unmanly’ or ‘feminine,’ or the more pejorative ‘gay.’
All things considered, it can certainly be restrictive to identify ourselves too closely with a particular group, or at least with the stereotypes associated with said group. Of course, it would be equally destructive to go too far in the opposite direction, eschewing all group classifications, as it does deny one a certain part of one’s identity, as well as the opportunity for fruitful relationships and camaraderie.
Presuming one to be part of civilization, while those encountered are considered to be savages or uncivilized people, causes relations which are going to be tough anyway to become even more difficult. Not only does the language barrier and cultural differneces have to be overcome, but also added in is that one of the sides believes themselves to be better than the other side, which will only lead to argument. No one wants to be told they aren't good enough or worse, if that was possible, that everyone they know is worthless compared to these people they have just encountered. The greater technology of the Spaniards, at first, and Europeans, in general, led them to think they were much more intelligent than the natives and that they should subdue them and use them for their own purposes. The natives weren't any dumber than the Europeans, they just lacked the resources of the Europeans. Might does not make right. Just because the Spaniards could conquer the Native Americans, doesn't mean they should have.
Another source of their assumed superiority si their religion. They view the natives as godless heathens; which not only makes them fine to destroy, but gives the Europeans a reason to get involved with the land and the people, in order to be able to control them even more.
Civilization tends to allow people to hide behind their own culture and not seek change and enrichment to their lives. They can claim that their culture and civilization is best and they don't need to learn anything about other cultures and peoples because those 'inferior' civilizations have nothing to offer them. Furhtermore, instead of acting to preserve other cultures and learn from their positive aspects, people want all others to change to their way of life. They want to be spared the effort themselves adn would prefer to leave the work to everyone else.
The word civilization does not need to imply that the other is inferior. If you use the word in context, I believe it is possible to recognize the differences without demeaning the other group. We need to recognize that cultural groups are different, they have different customs and traditions, this much is obvious, but they also have a different environment to which they must adapt and they may have begun this civilizing process at a different time due to a late gain of independence from an oppressor or for some other reason. This does not imply inferiority, just difference in values and in time of development. I believe all areas of the world are moving to the same end, whatever that level of development may be; it is just that some civilizations are “ahead” of others in the process. And I don’t say this to make the first world nations, the “developed” nations feel superior, but there is a difference between such countries and a country such as East Timor that has only been independent for under ten years. A friend said this difference in level of development of a nation or a people is due to cultural inequality. He honestly views some cultures as “better.” I disagree; there are legitimate reasons that development varies in its stages because there are too many variables on the Earth for us to blame a culture for being “behind.”
Post a Comment