Well, this isn't the post I threatened you with last week. But it may be a lead-in of sorts.
Meet Umberto Eco, essayist and writer and thinker. He's probably smarter than all of us put together. And he's got some interesting things to say about, well, things.
This essay was written just after September 11 (you'll find it referenced here). I want you to read this essay - it exemplifies academic writing - and find one or two items to agree or disagree with.
Keep in mind the following questions: What is Eco's purpose of this essay? What is his position? Is he able to follow through on his purpose? These questions should be able to lead you to comment on this essay, as I believe there are many threads in this essay we could discuss.
I'm hoping to have two articles for you to read next week - one from two different sides to a given topic, probably about something in the social realm. Like you, I'm wanting to get away from politics a little bit next week. In the meantime, enjoy!
-- Mr. P
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I found Umberto Eco’s essay to be very well spoken and interesting, for the sake of this course I found it difficult to find his specific stance on the roots of conflict. He makes arguments as to what it likely is, but never settles on one point.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand he raises many good ideas, one of which should have been the main crux of his essay. He should have settled on a thesis such as, ethnocentrism is the root of all conflict. This is only an example, but many of the instances of conflict in history that he notes could be linked to ethnocentrism. To clarify my point, ethnocentrism is the idea that one’s culture and way of life is superior to all others. You do it, I do it, we all do it whether we mean to or not.
It is in our nature to think what works for us, is the best way. This is because we have only lived our way. Now that doesn’t mean we can’t be open minded and consider other cultures and find aspects wrong with our own societies. If we never compare our society to others we would be living in a utopia and therefore have no conflict, because no would have any basis for disagreement because no one would care about how others live.
This brings me to an interesting point that I did not intend to uncover. Conflict caused by ethnocentrism is doomed to repeat itself because it is a paradox. If conflict happens because of ethnocentrism, then the only way for it to end is for people to stop comparing their own culture to others or to accept everyone’s way of live. This paradox cannot be broken because it is in human nature to think and compare. Jealousy, hatred, and misguided attempts to help others are forever a part of the human psyche.
Therefore the phrase “history is doomed to repeat itself,” I’m afraid might be a fact of our existence.
Umberto Eco’s essay was extremely well written as well as intelligent. It is clear that Eco’s purpose is to make known that everyone needs to stop judging others’ culture and the way people live their lives. Diversity is a huge problem not only now, but has been since the beginning of time. There has always been consistent judging between different cultures, and everyone thinks “their” way of life is the best. As Eco’s states, “Only at this point can we say that our culture is better, for us.” It makes sense that there will be conflict considering everyone thinks the way they do something is right and however else people live their lives is wrong.
ReplyDeleteSome of Eco’s arguments were confusing for me to understand, because I felt he did not explain why the cultures had conflict. His position on this essay is to explain why conflict happens. I feel he follows through very well backing up evidence from decades ago of culture clashes. The way Eco’s seems to view this problem is that regardless of what has happened throughout history, the problem of parameters is in our times. It seems as though not many people know how to tolerate diversity. Once someone from another culture does something to offend us or anger us, we immediately assume every single individual from that culture is harmful and is disrespected. No one ever wants to argue or open up to diversity, because it can get nasty. Regardless of how much you defend your culture and society, there is always going to be someone there telling you that you are wrong and that they are right.
So what do we do as a nation to overcome this awfully petty argument? Eco’s purpose is to help supply individuals with legitimate information on why diversity is happening. With that information being absorbed, it is quite obvious that we need to let people live the way they want. There is no need to argue over whose culture is better, because there will never be an answer. Everyone has their own way of surviving, and as long as there is no harm being done then there should not be any judgmental people claiming that their culture is “the best,” because whatever works for you should not make a difference to anyone else. As Eco’s claims in his essay, “The problem of parameters is not set within history, but in our times.” With that being said, we should not focus on diversity, we need to focus on our own wellbeing as individuals and as a nation as well.
While Mr. Eco does write a very well written essay, we should all remember what Dr. Dave said and that is if you are going to write, write so your readers can understand you.
ReplyDeleteWhile there where alot of "BIG" words used anyone with any kind of education could understand that what Mr. Eco was saying is that learn to be tolerant of other cultures and there way of life because we all deserve to live the way we want to.
He gives us a great example in his writing about Saladin. Saladin was a Saracen (Middle Eastern) person who had every right to destroy the Christians when he took control over Jerusalem. They had attacked his people for no reason many times. But instead he let them go unharmed if they would just leave. Maybe Saladin figured that being beaten by what we called at the time an "inferior race" would make us see we all have our place and purpose in this world we all inhabit. If you ever see the movie Kingdom of Heaven you would see what I mean.
But Mr. Eco also brings up another good point and that is he goes on to explain how similar the "Western Civilization" is to other, let's say underdeveloped civilization. He say's "Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are ferocious enemies of western civilization, but within western civilization there were men like Hitler and Stalin. Now for me I never thought of it that way. It could be argued that maybe they where retaliating for past injustices brought upon them by Hitler, Stalin, and the "Western Civilization".
I guess ultimately we should all live by the golden rule" Do unto others as you would have done to yourself.
I found this article to be very interesting and was intrigued by the different outlooks the author uses to measure the supposed superiority of certain cultures over others. I occasionally find myself thinking thoughts that express a shameful amount of prejudice toward other races and cultures. I always try to keep an open mind, but it seems to be wired into our very nature that our own ways are the right ways and it's easy to slip back into my own little superiority bubble. The way the author questions the superiority of industrialized nations and those which walk from place to place and live off the land was very profound to me. It would seem that the more industrialized people are superior, but this viewpoint makes one question what good has come out of such advancements and whether or not we would be better off as a people without such novelties as cellular phones and hybrid cars. In fact, this part of the article made me wish things were simpler in today's world. I feel it would be very rewarding to assimilate into a primitive culture and live off of the land for a while. However, one can't deny that it's hard to give up our futuristic technology and convenient lifestyle after living this way for so long. Human beings simply do not like change, but we must have objectivity when examining other cultures no matter how difficult it may be. I was again taken by surprise when the author questions whether or not raising the average lifespan from 40 to 80 was a good thing. It seems indisputable that this is a good thing, but the author reminds us that the lifespan is not as important as the life's achievements. Before reading this, I had never once considered that advancements in medicine could be a bad thing. Overall, I found this article to be very thought provoking and interesting.
ReplyDeleteUmberto Eco brought up a lot of interesting points in this article. Firstly, I found it to be a refreshing article to read after last weeks horror. Also, the subject matters of tolerance and objectivity are ones which I often face conflict with often in school. As an Anthropology major I am often torn about the ethnocentrism of the practice. It is actually one of the reasons that I despise the study of cultural anthropology. The study of cultures is objective. Anthropologists are constantly striving to develop scales and measurements for different cultures. A spectrum which they can place all cultures on to see their stages of development. However, as Eco raises awareness to throughout his article, the point of view of one culture can not be understand from the point of view from another. There is no way to measure aspects of a civilizations culture compared to those of another. Even the anthropologists who accept this dilemma in their study face issues of ethnocentrism. Many will travel to foreign “savage” lands hoping to gain insight into the inner workings of the culture. Upon doing this act, we find that many native tribes end up resenting the anthropologists studying their culture. That is because after retrieving all the information that the anthropologists need from the foreign culture they return home to write books on their findings/opinions of the culture. Often the indigenous culture disagrees with the recountings of their society (such as the Samoan resentment towards Margaret Mead after Coming of Age in Samoa) and then chaos ensues. It is just sometimes ironic that anthropologists acknowledge that cultures are different and still strive to measure them to their own parameters. This view can be paralleled with most “western” thinking, like Eco mentioned in his article. I am even subject to ethnocentrism. We think that because we believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and tolerance that everyone should believe and respect these freedoms. We are open-minded to people’s beliefs but close-minded to people who aren’t open-minded to other people’s beliefs.
ReplyDeleteUmberto Eco's essay was very well written and had a lot of factual information that helped support his intelligence and credibility when writing a paper like this. However, the majority of this essay was hard to comprehend and hard to find where his actual stance is.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the concept that other religions should be understanding and knowledgeable of other religions. Being raised in a Roman Catholic home and attending a Catholic school for nine years, I was never exposed to any other cultures or religions. I was always surrounded by other Catholics and therefor had no understanding of other religions. It wasn't until I went away to college where I started to meet others with different religions to mine. I started to learn about other ways of life besides the Catholic way and therefor gained a better understanding and respect for those different from me. Also I feel that we are a less primitive country compared to those of the Western Culture. If it wasn't for them a lot of our discoveries and technoligical advances would have never occered. We should have more respect for them and learn to be more knowledgeable on their cultures. We are not the big bad country that we think we are. Sure we may have the best weapons but many of them were not created by our citizens. Our country could never live without having the best toys. No child could ever give up their televisions.No adult would walk to work instead of drive or take a buggy. We are a society based on technology and would never survive without it. We may have the most money but we pay other countries for our discoveries. I also agree with his statement that we have bank secrecy, but this secrecy may lead to fundings of terrorism. Our freedom of Speech may be our founding principal, but at the same time may be our biggest downfall.
I found Umberto Eco’s article to be interesting at points and well written, but it was a little long. He gets his point across about what people think about certain ethnic groups and how people judge others but it seems like he has too may examples of how cultures work.
ReplyDeleteI would say the purpose Eco is trying to get across is that at every point in history someone from a specific culture is judging another culture and there are cultural divides. For example, he says that the Greeks at one point thought that people who didn’t speak Greek were barbarians.
Eco does make a good point about “history being two-edge sword (The Roots of Conflict By Umberto Eco).” He talks about how Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein hates Western culture and they have enemies in the west. But the west also had men like Hitler and Stalin.
Eco also tries to say that some people in history were tolerant of each other. He said that the Arabs of Spain were “tolerant of to Christians and Jews (The Roots of Conflict By Umberto Eco).”
In the middle part of the article I liked how he explained how a “culture can be described objectively (The Roots of Conflict By Umberto Eco).” We all have our ways of thinking of what a culture is. The way I think of culture is that culture is something that everyone has and is proud of it. Also the way I think of culture is a tight nit community.
Eco’s trying to get across is that everyone should be treated the same and it shouldn’t matter where your from. He makes a good argument that people judge when they shouldn’t. Ultimately, that you should get to know someone before you start making decisions if you want to go on further with the friendship.
I honestly did not understand Umberto Eco's writing at all. His ideas were all over the place and i could not keep up with it. He wrote about so many different examples that I had no idea about. I could not compare any of his writing to any of my personal experiences. I could not tell where his stance was on religion background. I think just because he is really intelligent does not mean he should write so not a lot of people could understand. Dr. Dave is probably real intelligent to since he is a professor at a ivy league university. He writes his books so everyone can understand. Yeah i get you are smart but if you want people to read and follow your stance shouldn't you write so most people can understand it. I was lost pretty much the whole time I was reading that. He went from Islamic religious views to the Western civilization. He was all over the place. Going from reading Dr. Dave Sin Boldly to Umberto Ecos essay was pretty tough. I am sure that this essay is for like intelligent and political people to read but I would think if he wrote a little more simple that it would make it much more interesting for a lot more people to read. So i can not really give good input on this article because i did not know where he stood on that topic. I am pretty sure that he was against the conflict and disrespect to other religion but that is pretty much it. I can not really put much better of an input than that. I was honestly not a huge fan of this essay. I can just tell you my papers are not going to be anything like that because my vocabulary is not half of what is in that paper.
ReplyDeleteI found Eco’s writing to be very interesting and full of very good points. His article was well written, intelligent, full of strong arguments, examples, and support for each. I found myself agreeing with almost everything he was saying throughout the article. The world is a very big and multicultural place, where the definition of good and bad can be defined differently among different people, depending on their culture, beliefs, and where they are from. Something that people consider beautiful in one country may be viewed as ugly in another. Same goes for good and bad, technology or simplicity, or any number of other things.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how Eco opened up his article titled “The Roots of Conflict” with religion. Was there more purpose behind that? What is he really saying the root of conflict is? I think one could argue that it is religion, but as you go on to read more of the article you may find that you could argue any number of things. Bottom line is the world is varies greatly among country to country and culture to culture. There may not be exactly “one” thing that is the root of conflict other than human nature. We can’t help that we are all so different around the world and have different beliefs, morals, ideas, concepts, practices, and the list goes on and on.
I agree with a lot of what Taylor C. said about ethnocentrism. Most people probably do feel that the way they live and the things they believe in is the right way or they would probably change it. That doesn’t mean to say the only way to prevent conflict is for everyone to assimilate to the same things, that would just be impossible. People are different no matter what, be it they are in different countries, or just live across the street. It is only human nature to be ourselves and live in a way that we truly feel is right.
It is evident that this essay is extremely well written, but I found it to be mind numbingly dull. At some points I felt as Eco was just rambling. The purpose of Ecos’ essay is to point out that the roots of confrontation our buried within different cultures beliefs and ideology. People focus more on our differences than are similarities, and we let them tear us apart.
ReplyDeleteIn this essay Eco points out that there are parameters established for each country based on their superiority over other countries. These parameters inevitably cause conflict. Eco makes a good point when stating “The problem of parameters is not set within history, but in our times.” This merely means that throughout history countries that were once held as superior our now, in present times, inferior to most. History is a cycle, and these so called parameters will forever being changing, but as long as they are set there will be confrontation. These rules don’t apply just to countries but the confrontation between individual cultures.
Eco spends a lot of time in the essay focusing on how western culture contradicts the parameters they set up. He also points out that many people from the western culture have the opportunity to study other cultures, yet rarely people have the opportunity to study western culture from an outside perspective. When speaking of western society Eco states that “the parameter of tolerating diversity is certainly one of the strongest and least open to argument.” He is referring to the fact that western culture embraces more differences to those considered inferior, which seems to be true in today’s society.
Towards the end Eco reinforces the idea that history is always changing. He states “In times of great bewilderment (such as the present), no one knows quite where they stand anymore… but it is at times of bewilderment that the weapon of analysis and criticism comes into its own, to be applied to our own superstitions and those of others.” I find this to be an interesting statement because a lot of people don’t know where they stand anymore due to the changing and confusing times. I feel we are at a time of epic change, the beginning of world change such as other countries claiming the role as being the super powers, while creating new inferior countries.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUmberto Eco effectively argues his position on the overwhelming amount of unnecessary ethnocentrism that is present in today’s society, as well as throughout history. Eco provides multiple examples in which ethnocentrism has brought forth conflict in his essay “The Roots of Conflict”. Although there are certain points in his argument that are a bit confusing, Umberto Eco proves his point eloquently.
ReplyDeleteAn obvious conflict caused by ethnocentrism is every religious war that has been fought throughout history. A few more instances would include the holocaust, the civil rights movement, and the developed country’s perception of a third world country. Through an anthropological perspective, one can gather that each of the diverse cultures on our planet is equally valid in regards to the way of life. It is incorrect to assume that one’s own culture is superior to an others’, although the Klu Klux Klan and other ethnocentric people may differ in opinion. Although modern western civilization may have technological advantages, it isn’t right to assume that other civilizing or third world nations are inferior because it is solely because of our ancestors and countrymen’s ancestors that we have been blessed with the technological advancements of today. In America, society stresses the importance of diversity by proudly constructing a variety of houses of worship. Mosques, synagogues, churches, temples convolute the streets of America while other particular nations frown upon Christianity’s presence. Eco’s argument is supported by these instances in which ethnocentrism causes a conflict between the world’s societies.
Although well spoken, Eco gives a feeling of uncertainty when he states “For example, the prolonging of life is considered good, and atmospheric pollution bad, but we can very well see that maybe in big laboratories where they study how to prolong life, there might be power systems which themselves produce pollution.” The overuse of words that imply possibility almost give a sense of lack of credibility, however, his argument is well thought out, and holds much weight. For the most part, however, Umberto Eco is very convincing in regards to the unnecessary presence of ethnocentrism in today’s society.
Like many others before me, I thought this was a rather interesting read at the beginning. Eco clearly is a very intelligent man who knows how to craft a well-written essay. Granted, at times I felt there was almost too much being mentioned, making it harder to clearly identify the point he was trying to make. While Eco had wonderful support for his ideas, I felt overwhelmed part of the time by the variant of different pieces of evidence he presented. It seemed that by the time I had read to the end of this piece, not only did I have a headache; I had forgotten many of his points early on.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I do think a vast majority of conflicts do arise from everyone being raised in different cultures, like Eco mentions in his essay. Conflict is found both worldwide, between two different countries, as well as ‘close to home’ amongst a single country. A lot of the things we have opinions and views on, deal with how we were raised and what we were raised around. We live in a diverse world, where everyone is raised differently, and we learn to believe different things.
Being born, and raised for part of my life, in Florida, I was brought up in a society that is far more cultured then where I live now in SW Ohio, a city where any form of culture is sadly non-existent. I found that certain things other around me in Ohio found uncomfortable seemed normal to me, raising a conflict of opinions.
I think it’s when we are taken out of our comfort zones in our cultures that we really realise that problems are rising. We grow up being taught things, and that is what we believe. How we see things, as one culture can be far different from another. We learn from an early age to associate certain ‘prejudices’ with other cultures, be it for small things, or the larger. Eco brings up many examples about cultures, the French and Greeks, to name a few and while these things may have truth, they, as a culture, can be accredited for other things.
The prejudices amongst world leaders will always be around, for everyone is different. It’s a conflict that I think may never truly die out. We are all different, and we always will be. We are going to see things different then someone of another culture. Maybe in the future everyone can begin to open their eyes to other cultures, and learn from the history of this world. Conflict will always be around, but I think that could help it if we all got out and experiences new things and opened out minds to differences.
I really did not like this article. I don’t know if it was the article or just I but after every page I read I had to take a five-minute break and dive back into it. I thought he rambled on and on and after reading the same paragraph three times and still have no idea what he is saying.
ReplyDeleteWhat I got out of it was that he is saying that we may now think of the Middle East as a horrible place after 9/11 but when you look back in history other races did horrible things to like religious groups and Hitler.
I do have to agree with him when he says the criteria of judgment depends on our own roots, preferences, habits, passions, and our system of values. I think how we grow up and our environment does dictate how we judge people and situations. If you grow up in a conservative family you are more likely to be conservative when you grow up but I think to a certain degree how we grow up predicts our judgments. At one point in our lives we have to question things are selves and make our own opinions.
It was very bold and brave to write this right after September eleventh. Maybe I am unaware of some things what he is talking about. I thought he would go off topic and never went straight to the point or it wasn’t clear enough.
After reading Umberto Eco's article once, I went back and looked a second time at the title. I considered this before rereading the essay. During the second reading I realized that Eco's purpose was not to describe the roots of conflict (although he manages this quite well), nor was it to encourage people to blindly tolerate other cultures.
ReplyDeleteEco's purpose is to convince his audience that only through the examination and analysis of other cultures can their own grow and evolve. By observing and learning about other cultures, people may then gain a better understanding of their own by turning a critical eye inward. The realization of differences and the re-adjustment of cultural values due to new insight produces the evolution. Eco maintains that the direction of that evolution, what parameters are, in a sense, good for a culture are only fairly judged when put into context, both on an individual level and a historical level. Studying cultures for the sake of pure observation is meaningless. What is done with those observations creates meaning.
Eco then takes his point further. Toward the end of his essay, he describes times when it is most important to apply critical analysis of both the domestic culture and foreign cultures in order to provoke change. Only in times of "...great bewilderment, [when] no one knows quite where they stand anymore" do the greatest changes in culture occur.
Overall, I agree with Eco. Other cultures should always be examined. New ways of thinking and methods of achieving our cultural goals rely on our ability to explore others' ways of life. I also agree with the sentiment that no one culture is simply better than another. What is best for people of any given culture depends on circumstances, environment, the individuals within the culture, the point in history, and the values the culture has set for itself. However, sometimes the only way to realize what change is needed to improve upon a current paradigm is to contrast it with another. The light only seems bright because there is also darkness.
Umberto Eco discussed conflict and tolerance in his 2001 essay “The Root of Conflict”. Written less than a month after September 11th, much of the focus were society’s current opinion and prejudice against Islamic culture and how these views are shaped by Western culture’s attitudes towards right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Eco points out that our perspective is based on only what we know, and if we were to look at history in the larger sense we would see that it repeats itself. We may condemn the Osama Bin Laden for his acts of terror against America and the rest of the Western World, but less than a century ago Stalin and Hitler held similar beliefs. Unfortunately, we live in a world where the past is quickly forgotten and the enemies are vilified in ways that could easily have described our own culture and roots decades, centuries, or millennium ago.
Umberto Eco also poignantly illustrates that no culture is superior to another and that our way of thinking is not always the best when he stated that “[t]hey have always made a point of reminding us that we are not superior, but impoverished by our ideology of progress, and that we must seek the truth among the Sufi mystics or the whirling dervishes”. This was in response to the idea that Western society is focused on technology and progress, but in many third world countries they are more geared to the earth and spirituality. It’s no wonder that many of the more primitive peoples are actually much happier than we are because we spend so much time concerned about trivial materialistic things. We cannot judge another culture based on our own values and norms, and trying to push our idea of right and wrong onto another people is intolerant.
I felt as though this essay easily loses its audience. It was very dull and overloaded with information. I think that his purpose for writing this essay is quite straightforward but could have been said in simpler terms. Taylor Collins mentioned the term ethnocentrism which I am very glad he did because I don’t think I could have thought of a better word myself. Ethnocentrism is a great theory that describes this phenomenon in one single word. Our nature as human beings is to think our own way of doing things is the best way. I strongly agree with Eco’s theory that this is the root of conflict. I see where judgment of others has caused differences every single day. Especially being apart of the Greek community here at Kent State, I see where certain predetermined judgment has caused certain fraternities or sororities not to get along. If each group or organization would step out of their “little world” and take a look at someone else’s life, ten times out of ten they would actually see it is not half bad. I will have to say though; the Greek community has come together a lot more than it has in the past. It is because people started to realize that their stereotypes of one another were quite flawed. This is almost the same as the problems we see with other cultures of the world, just on a smaller scale. Especially here in America, we are ignorant to other cultures. Many of us do not care what or why things happen in other parts of the world. It is easy to sit back and say that other country’s ways of doing things is weird. But in reality, maybe we are weird? There is no real answer to that question because you know what you have been taught and no matter where you go in the world, things will be “weird.” The only explanation to this problem is that we need to become more passive and accepting of others and conflict would decrease a tremendous amount.
ReplyDeleteI personally really liked reading this article by Umberto Eco. At first I thought that it was a bit difficult to understand but after reading it a few times I started to get what he was talking about. I agreed with what he said how people find it hard to know who they are or the grasp the way other people are, and telling the difference between what it good and bad.
ReplyDeleteWho really is to decide what is good or bad? Someone may look upon one thing as being good while another person thinks that’s its bad. That’s part of what puts people apart. But we all come back to the same thoughts.
Diversity makes the world very interesting and everyone can learn from people from different backgrounds. You shouldn’t go off and judge someone quickly because of their heritage or skin color, only by who they really are. No one should just hate all Asian or black or Muslim people because of something their culture has done to ours. Not every single one of them ganged up on us. I think its awful nowadays going on an airplane and being afraid of certain people because they look like the terrorists from 9/11.
I personally don’t think that anyone should be judged by anything but their personality. I moved here when I was five years old from Canada, which really isn’t too different from the United States. But even then kids in my class would act differently around me because I am Canadian? I thought it was so weird since I found myself to be just like them.
Eco also talked about history always changing, which I agree with completely.. History is always changing, as we live each day were making history. I think we could learn a lot from the past because history does tend to repeat itself. I think that a lot of people are confused with past historical events and events that take place today because everything changes so fast. So many things happen at once its hard to keep up.
I would have to somewhat disagree with Umberto Eco's article 'The Roots of Conflict'. I interpret what he is saying that these binding and tangled roots lie within the weathered pages of history, such as Christians against the Saracens (Muslims)--that the conflict between them, even though it was eons ago, could still affect relations between the two cultures today. However, I feel that such notions can only be assumed only if persons from each culture is taught from birth that they are one anothers' enemy. And that presumption can be true for whatever reason a parent or teacher may have to instill such hatred in children and young adults.
ReplyDeleteMy take on Eco's purpose was to define the somewhat blurring parameter between other cultures and have the reader decide for themselves whether one's history, or society, or cultural norms gave a person reason enough to partake in random acts of terrorism.
Eco's position on the matter has largely to do with history constantly changing yet it can be considered repetitious in some form of context. Although, it is religion that has always been a predominant force in society's changing norms. And like religion there is always a difference in other peoples' culture. Some aspects of religion also determines how one should live. Using God or gods names to back up an act of violence is wrong in moral standards, however Bin Laden calls us westerners, the evil doers and he is doing their nation god's work by destroying us. The Taliban tells their suicide bombers that they will go to heaven and get all the virgin women they can count if they go to a crowded market or building and blow themselves up.
Eco says it is easy to grasp one's own culture than it is towards another; what's good for some may not be good for others. Yet, I believe progress has been made throughout the last five or six years. I can safely say that we, Americans, even though there are few who still have ignorance and bigotry flowing in their veins, we have come to a mutual understanding that not even our culture--made up of dozens of other cultures--can not call itself superior when we go through everyday struggles like everyone else in the world. Children suffer in third world countries suffer just as some children in America or Europe suffer.
However, I do agree with Eco's on the pretense of studying other culture's and societies will we best learn to co-exist with one another as well as get to know our own culture better.
I agree with the majority of my classmates that this article was difficult to read and easily loses the reader's interest. At times, all I wasn't compelled to continue reading, even though I enjoy reading and learning about conflict as a topic. Last year, I took a class called Introduction to Conflict Management and really enjoyed everything that I learned. We were introduced to the 5 Conflict Resolution Methods as well as why parties continue or end conflicts, etc. Echo's essay about ethnocentrism did say that ethnocentrism is the main reason for all conflict but didn't really go into depth...and really was hard to follow. That being said, I think the complexity of the article takes away from the overall message and content of the article. If it was re-vamped for a more informal and younger audience, I believe that we could effectively understand and actually comprehend what Echo writes about in his piece on ethnocentrism.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Eco’s essay was absolutely fascinating and a huge eye-opener. He touched on a lot of things that could be considered as taboo topics, especially for westerners. Among the topics was religion, anthropology and culture. If I interpreted his essay correctly, I feel as though he is calling westerners “hypocrites.” Now, I’m in American, but I completely have to agree with Eco when he subtly implies this, because like he mentioned before we tolerate mosques being built in the hopes that one day they’ll establish christian churches in their Islamic countries. This is an absolute ridiculous thought, because being tolerant is one thing but we do it so hypercritically. We should in fact do something because we “accept” it not “tolerate” it.
ReplyDeleteIt is fair to say that many people don’t really understand where they come from. Trying to figure it out, and or get in touch with your roots can be difficult when trying to understand others and their cultures. In many cultures like Eco mentions, people don’t realize how much we actually do have in common and how we all do have similar roots, the only thing separating us is geography and language. Because we feel like we’re superior, we call others barbarians” but at the end of the day we’re the barbarians for not trying to understand the ways of other countries. Why be ignorant when we have the ability to actually learn about others cultures, we try to change them because they’re not “normal” when in fact there values may be more valuable than our own.
Eco makes a very good point in his essay about the advancement of the western civilization and our views of the middle east or even eastern civilizations. Who is to say that we’re better just because our technology is more advanced, we have a better education, have the ability to send others to learn in different countries.... and we feel we have the right to call third world countries, savages among other things. Yet, we’re the ones who are slowly depleting the ozone layer, and damaging the environment and are starting to depend on technology.
I really enjoyed Eco’s essay, he had a lot to say and I strongly agree with a lot of arguments.