From an early age, American students at the primary level of education are taught to recite the pledge of allegiance. Granted, this generally only applies to public schools, and as the students mature they exercise greater freedom in their decision to recite or abstain from reciting the pledge, but regardless of their later actions they are trained to think of America as a country worthy of their service. The phrase “One nation, under God,” is one that I personally find somewhat appalling, but that is a digression from my intended point.
A man concerned only with the affairs of his own country is a man limited and ignorant of other cultures and societies. In a sense, that man is the same as the student who faithfully pledges his allegiance to the stars and strips, never pausing to consider what it is he is actually promising. He holds only a shallow understanding of the world around him, because his world is in reality but one nation.
The second man, one who is familiar with all nations, is a model that all who are concerned with world politics should strive to emulate. It is through this understanding that one gains appreciation and ultimately respect for the diverse ways of other human beings. My belief is that this is the type of man that best understands the world, and therefore is the man who is consciously in the best position to engage in diplomacy and interactions on an international level.
Of course, it is not that simple. Todorov gives us the curveball when he considers the “man to whom the whole world is as a foreign country.” I don’t get it. A man who lacks understanding of the entire world is an indication of ignorance, not of knowledge. If Todorov’s point was that one demonstrates wisdom by exhibiting humility, I regard that perspective as out of context with one’s worldview. Todorov was on to something in his first two assertions, but his third point failed to exhibit any rationale.
2 comments:
I don't think its correct to necessarily equate foreignness with ignorance or lack of understanding. I interpret Todorov and Auerbach (the original source of the quote) to mean that, quite to the contrary, it is impossible to objectively understand a phenomenon while simultaneously participating in it. It's kind of the American journalistic ethic of fairness through distance.
I suppose you're right, BA Baracus. A foreigner is not necessarily ignorant-just less familiar with the ways of that particular culture/country compared to his or her own. Though allow me to point out that one's participation in a phenomenon may give that individual a better understanding of it; the individual will not be able to make an objective judgement of that phenomenon. I can think of few observations or lessons in life that are not learned, to some extent, by experiencing that phenomenon. Distance is therefore an asset in an unbiased judgement and a limitation to a full understanding of the phenomenon in its entirety.
Post a Comment