- 03 Apr 2015 09:35
#14543405
Hi all, since a while I’m struggling to find my perspective on certain discussions on global governance. I agree with various aspects of several theories and perspectives, and always have described my vision as not being able to simply put into a box; a sort of ‘the best of both worlds’. Therefore I’m curious what you guys would make of it.
One of the most important aspects I condemn is nationalism. I think this is the source of not only racialism but also racism nowadays. Therefore I have a particular aversion against right-wing populist leaders. This might be the most important factor of my vision. I also dislike patriotism, or Michael Billig’s banal nationalism, therefore you would never see me singing the national anthem or hanging a flag outside my house.
Here comes the trouble, I do like to see myself as a cosmopolitanist, as a citizen of the world; we’re all in it together. Patriotistic and nationalist feelings create a set of hierarchy that I denounce harshly. I like to see sovereignty get weakened more (i.e. yes to more European integration) than it is today, like Benedict Anderson argued, among others, that states are socially constructed. Sovereign states are taken for granted, but are necessary for a certain world order. Yet, I find it very important to respect every culture. This also counts for religion, yet I’m an atheist. This derives from the fact that I try to look at a culture not through a ‘Western Lens’. Experiences in Africa and Latin America have taught us that Westernized democracies don’t work universally and neither so-called Western values, norms and ideas. We have to take every single culture as a culture on its own, without talking about Muslim cultures, African cultures or Asian cultures as if they are homogeneous. This sounds kind of weird, combined with my earlier cosmopolitanist argument, right?
I’m a huge fan of postcolonial theory and agree with the existence a lot of notions on the continued unequal relations within post-colonial countries due to the outcomes of the colonial period. In our world people of color and Muslims aren’t equal to white people. We have to accept that. Unfortunately. Recent events in the US, but also in Western European countries like Germany, the Netherlands, France, Sweden, several Middle Eastern countries, or Russia have proved that these ‘minorities’ are still not equal.
There exists certain hypocrite arrogance in the Western world, closing their eyes and maintaining the unequal relations in the world. I agree with Dependencia, or Dependency Theory, that periphery countries might be theoretically able to ‘climb the ladder’ to the core countries, yet they will never be equal in practice. Also, bringing in another postcolonial argument, the Western arrogance had led to stereotype images of the other (thinking about Edward Said’s Orientalism).
This hierarchical difference leads to another problem. I am often torn apart in the solidarists vs. pluralists discussion. I think that the Western world does not act right in invading other countries, when in their opinions human values have been broken. Yes, through a Western point of view this might have happened. But, in this way you are judging from your perspective, rather than judging from the perspective of the other culture (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam). Yet, atrocities such as the Rwandan genocide, the forthcoming massacres in the DRC, the Armenian genocide (?) and the case of Srebrenica, are just a couple of examples that might show that there needs to be a certain standard of some kind of control. Some kind of set of rules, with the penalty of human intervention to eliminate impunity and crimes against humanity. However, I know that there are institutions for this. Yet these are not universal in the sense of really universal, but still too Western biased.
Altogether, there are some contradictions in my opinion on different matters. How would you term this? Like I’ve said, I agree with several notions of different theories and perspectives. This is a very short version of it. I agree with elements from Postcolonial Theory, Dependencia, Cosmopolitanism, Constructivism, Post structuralism, Latin American Neo-structuralism, I have an aversion for nationalism and even patriotism and like to critique the negative impact of Neoliberalism in Latin America and periphery countries, I strive for equality and abject racism, and I am critical on the Western arrogance in the world and neo-imperialist implementations. Besides I like to critique monarchies and the essence of sovereignty.
My academic background is: I obtained my MA in Latin American Studies (cum laude) and am now a MA student International Studies. I am a Dutch citizen.
Thank you in advance!
One of the most important aspects I condemn is nationalism. I think this is the source of not only racialism but also racism nowadays. Therefore I have a particular aversion against right-wing populist leaders. This might be the most important factor of my vision. I also dislike patriotism, or Michael Billig’s banal nationalism, therefore you would never see me singing the national anthem or hanging a flag outside my house.
Here comes the trouble, I do like to see myself as a cosmopolitanist, as a citizen of the world; we’re all in it together. Patriotistic and nationalist feelings create a set of hierarchy that I denounce harshly. I like to see sovereignty get weakened more (i.e. yes to more European integration) than it is today, like Benedict Anderson argued, among others, that states are socially constructed. Sovereign states are taken for granted, but are necessary for a certain world order. Yet, I find it very important to respect every culture. This also counts for religion, yet I’m an atheist. This derives from the fact that I try to look at a culture not through a ‘Western Lens’. Experiences in Africa and Latin America have taught us that Westernized democracies don’t work universally and neither so-called Western values, norms and ideas. We have to take every single culture as a culture on its own, without talking about Muslim cultures, African cultures or Asian cultures as if they are homogeneous. This sounds kind of weird, combined with my earlier cosmopolitanist argument, right?
I’m a huge fan of postcolonial theory and agree with the existence a lot of notions on the continued unequal relations within post-colonial countries due to the outcomes of the colonial period. In our world people of color and Muslims aren’t equal to white people. We have to accept that. Unfortunately. Recent events in the US, but also in Western European countries like Germany, the Netherlands, France, Sweden, several Middle Eastern countries, or Russia have proved that these ‘minorities’ are still not equal.
There exists certain hypocrite arrogance in the Western world, closing their eyes and maintaining the unequal relations in the world. I agree with Dependencia, or Dependency Theory, that periphery countries might be theoretically able to ‘climb the ladder’ to the core countries, yet they will never be equal in practice. Also, bringing in another postcolonial argument, the Western arrogance had led to stereotype images of the other (thinking about Edward Said’s Orientalism).
This hierarchical difference leads to another problem. I am often torn apart in the solidarists vs. pluralists discussion. I think that the Western world does not act right in invading other countries, when in their opinions human values have been broken. Yes, through a Western point of view this might have happened. But, in this way you are judging from your perspective, rather than judging from the perspective of the other culture (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam). Yet, atrocities such as the Rwandan genocide, the forthcoming massacres in the DRC, the Armenian genocide (?) and the case of Srebrenica, are just a couple of examples that might show that there needs to be a certain standard of some kind of control. Some kind of set of rules, with the penalty of human intervention to eliminate impunity and crimes against humanity. However, I know that there are institutions for this. Yet these are not universal in the sense of really universal, but still too Western biased.
Altogether, there are some contradictions in my opinion on different matters. How would you term this? Like I’ve said, I agree with several notions of different theories and perspectives. This is a very short version of it. I agree with elements from Postcolonial Theory, Dependencia, Cosmopolitanism, Constructivism, Post structuralism, Latin American Neo-structuralism, I have an aversion for nationalism and even patriotism and like to critique the negative impact of Neoliberalism in Latin America and periphery countries, I strive for equality and abject racism, and I am critical on the Western arrogance in the world and neo-imperialist implementations. Besides I like to critique monarchies and the essence of sovereignty.
My academic background is: I obtained my MA in Latin American Studies (cum laude) and am now a MA student International Studies. I am a Dutch citizen.
Thank you in advance!
- By Rich
- By JohnRawls
- By Dr House