Communities throughout history have always sought to define who they are as a collective whole. Over the course of time, it was this that helped bind nations together through a collective sense of national identity and belonging. Although there are some set definitions that people use to define who collectively are, such as their own language and national history, this is not the only explanation of how groups of people have conceived who they are. In reality, communities have primarily conceived who they are by comparing themselves to an ‘other’ who they are not. As the historian Peter Sahlins put it, national identity over the course of time has been constructed “by the social or territorial boundaries drawn to distinguish the collective self and its implicit negation, the other.” As this argument suggests, throughout history, definitions of ‘us’ have been dependent on the contrasting definitions of ‘them’. I propose that communities have used this concept of the ‘other’ in order to elevate their own perceived superiority over groups that they deemed inferior. This essay will explore how these definitions have shaped history, from the time of the Romans all the way up to the twenty-first century. It will also be necessary to look at the varying ways in which groups are differentiated from each other, such as in terms of religion, nationality, race, and political beliefs. It is only through this exploration that we can fully understand the ways in which people have defined themselves and interacted with others over the course of time.
The key place to begin with the discussion of conceptions of ‘us’ and ‘them’, and how they have been used in the process of self-definition, is Edward Said’s groundbreaking work Orientalism. In t...
... middle of paper ...
...ny Christian who “let his hair grow in barbarian fashion.” The connection between barbarism and the deviation from true Christianity shown by this evidence clearly illustrates that as the medieval period went on, communities began to conceive themselves by asserting their religious superiority over the paganism that they saw from the barbarian ‘other’. Although it would be foolish to wholeheartedly accept the reliability of these medieval sources, as they only reflect the view of the Church, who by nature would have branded pagans and heretics as a barbarian ‘other’, given the importance of religion to the people of the medieval period, it is most probable that the views of the Church would have become engrained in the minds of the population. Because of this, European populations came to define themselves as superior against the religious deviance of the ‘other’
he argues in support of racial identity and flexibility complementing one another. This proves that the further society evolves, the closer mankind gets to eradicating the idea of a dominant race. However, there are occasions where labels could hinder a person’s opportunity. In fact, culture is the newest label that society takes into account the most, and to a minority, the main goal is to embed the roots of the old generation into the next generation.
In the words of Joseph Margulies, “National identity is not fixed, it is made.” Through the event of 9/11 our national identity has changed significantly. Before we dive into the now and the changed national identity, lets set a foundation of where national identity started. In the nineteenth century, Protestant Americans were incomparably dominate. It was argued that the Enlightenment and the Western intellectuals of the eighteenth century were still the foundation of national identity in the nineteenth century. However, from the writer, Samuel Huntington, the religious foundations of American society were based off the Anglo-Protestant heritage. (Page 24) On the other hand, in Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, the author stated the American culture was dwindling Anglo-Protestant heritage. The original values were based off the Anglo-Protestant heritage included liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, and the rule of law under a constitution. Later in the nineteenth century, the European heritage grew and the ideas of individual freedom, political democracy, and human rights grew as well. (Page 19) The nineteenth century introduced the “well-being and integrity of the community and the virtuous citizen’s obligations to the community’s welfare (page 20).”
Traditionally, attempts to verify communications between individuals and cultures appeal to 'public' objects, essential structures of experience, or universal reason. Contemporary continental philosophy demonstrates that not only such appeals, but fortuitously also the very conception of isolated individuals and cultures whose communication such appeals were designed to insure, are problematic. Indeed we encounter and understand ourselves, and are also originally constituted, in relation to others. In view of this the traditional problem of communication is inverted and becomes that of how we are sufficiently differentiated from one another such that communication might appear problematic.
Orientalism is never far from what Denys Hay ahs called the idea of Europe, a collective notion identifying ‘us’ Europeans as against all ‘those’ non-Europeans, and indeed it precisely what made that culture hegemonic both in and outside Europe: the idea of European identity as superior one in comparison with ass the non-European peoples and cultures (7).
The problems of ethnocentrism tend to manifest themselves in the philosophy of history, when philosophers attempt to interpret empirical history in teleological terms. Ethnocentrism arises whenever the researcher attempts to universalize the Western subject-position. In sociological terms that have been widely popularized since Sumner, ethnocentrism involves one first identifying with an in-group, with whom one shares certain observable characteristics (culture, language, physical features, or customs, for example).[1] The belief in shared characteristics leads to an assertion of identity, and this belief in turn influences attitudes. Our attitude toward the in-group is one of favouritism, whereas our attitude toward the out-group is one of
To be an American has a big picture that can be described in many ways. Personally, to be an American is to achieve everything; however, the person next to may have a different opinion about it. History, America has been attracting immigrants from different parts of the world to live the full freedom and opportunity. To be an American means much more than living in the United States is to be able to expand the beliefs ones have. That is why people view the American Dream. The American Dream is an idea on were a perfect freedom is given to all people no matter social group or race. Many people have a definition of their mind on what is an American Dream. American are viewed as a person who can do the unlimited things. People freedoms and discoveries
In the first part of the book, “The Medieval Mind”, Manchester introduces the reader with the environment of the medieval times and the customs of that time as well as the medieval people’s access and understanding of Christianity, which is crucial in understanding the times.
While the history of Christianity is a thoroughly documented body of work, compiling a comprehensive history of paganism is a difficult task, if not an impossible one. How do we conceptualize paganism? What was the character of paganism in the age of the Carolingians? In James Palmer’s ‘Defining Paganism in the Carolingian World’, he claims that paganism as a basic idea is fairly concrete, but that paganism as a system of belief remains a largely unknown area. Palmer makes the case that any modern conception of the character of paganism is due almost entirely to its representation in Christian sources of the era.
In The Politics of Recognition Charles Taylor explores the possibility that in order to affirm individuals' equal dignity, we must acknowledge their cultures. He claims that individual identities are socially and dialogically constructed. That is why recognition is important. It shows how the study of identity and its politics is very important in the effort to understand control and somehow reduce the occurrence of group conflicts. The views of others may not be the last word concerning our identities, but they are the first word. If so, misrecognition can damage and can be the basis of oppression and domination (p 25).
According to Said, one definition of Orientalism is that it is a "style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between 'the Orient' and the 'Occident'." This is connected to the idea that Western society, or Europe in this case, is superior in comparison to cultures that are non-European, or the Orient. This means that Orientalism is a kind of racism held toward anyone not European. Said wrote that Orientalism was "a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient." This Western idea of the Orient explains why so many European countries occupied lands they believed to be Oriental.
With the decline and fall of the western empire, the classical age of Rome came to a close as disease, warfare and corruption conspired to bring about the downfall of an ailing empire that had once conquered the known world. Where once enlightened despots had ruled a debauched and unwieldy polity, now barbarians stood over the ruins of a once thriving metropolis. In its absence a new world would arise with new values and ideals. Turning their back on a pagan past the Christian children of these wild men from the north would spawn the greatest houses of future European nobility, and when they looked back for a legacy, they would not see their ancestors as pillagers picking at the bones of a defiled Rome, but instead as its trusted guardians, partnering with the Church to carry her legacy through the “Dark Ages”.
Throughout the annals of humanity, there have been two predominant groups in a society. The first group is made up of individuals who possess the power to define the proper characteristics of those who belong into the dominant group. The secondary groups of people are referred to as the “others”. The “other” is nothing more than a mere social construct developed by the dominant party to either exclude or subordinate the groups of people who do not fit the normal characteristics or mores of the dominant group in their respective society. This process is dehumanizing, and these appellations create social barriers that inhibit the growth and evolution of society. Othering is a very insidious process that defies the human conscience. Furthermore, this process has perpetuated xenophobia, gender discrimination, genocide, and various other crimes against the dignity of humankind.
The problems of ethnocentrism tend to manifest themselves in the philosophy of history, when philosophers attempt to interpret empirical history in teleological terms. Ethnocentrism arises whenever the researcher attempts to universalize the Western subject-position. In sociological terms that have been widely popularized since Sumner, ethnocentrism involves one first identifying with an in-group, with whom one shares certain observable characteristics (culture, language, physical features, or customs, for example).[1] The belief in shared characteristics leads to an assertion of identity, and this belief in turn influences attitudes. Our attitude toward the in-group is one of favouritism, whereas our attitude toward the out-group is one of
Said, Edward. ?Orientalism.? Literary Theory: An Anthology. Edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers Inc. 1998.
…My idea in Orientalism is to use humanistic critique to open up the fields of struggle, to introduce a longer sequence of thought and analysis to replace the short bursts of polemical, thought-stopping fury that so imprison us in labels and antagonistic debate whose goal is a belligerent collective identity rather than understanding and intellectual exchange…