Saturday, May 22, 2010

Clarification

So, first off, my mother (who, yes, should absolutely write her comments on the blog as well as in an email! Let's get a dialogue going people!) let me know that the links in my previous post didn't work. I think I've solved this problem, but if they still don't work, please tell me.

Talking to her about my post and her comments/criticisms actually really helped me clarify some thoughts that I hadn't even realized were jumbled. You may have noticed that the beginning of my post was only tangentially related to the, well, purpose of my post. Partially it was because I wanted to mention the funny International Workers' Day story, but mostly it was because the eagerness to spread American companies to other countries was a problem with my assertion that Americans/Westerners are ultra shy of the concept of changing, or even criticizing, a different culture.

What my Mom made me realize is that I was trying to lump everybody into the same group, when really, there are two. Well, okay, obviously there are way more than just two groups of people in the Western world, there's something approaching infinite, but there are two that are relevant to my argument. Even that is, of course, an oversimplification, but as this is a blog post and not a dissertation, that's just how it's gotta be. I will state that, of course, these two groups I will list are the extremes, and most people fall in a continuum somewhere in between, but verging more towards one side or the other.

Basically, there are the people who care about preserving other cultures, and there are the people who don't.

The people who care about other cultures, who are inclined to want to preserve it and see it as something important, are generally not comfortable or happy with the McDonaldization of the world. These are the people about whom I was talking in my post, but there was no real reason to have the first few paragraphs trying to rationalize why these people are okay with the corporate invasion of non-Western societies, because generally, they aren't okay with it.

The people who are spreading McDonald's or Starbucks or Seven-Eleven all over the world would probably not flinch and get uncomfortable with talk about changing those cultures. They would see nothing wrong with the idea, and thus really had very little to do with the argument in my post in the first place.

As I said, there's a continuum, and most people are somewhere in the middle, but most people also are more inclined one way or the other.

What I was really trying to get at with my last post, I guess, is that many people in the first group generally have this cognitive dissonance, these contradictory beliefs, of which they're not even aware.

Because it's the people in the first group who tend to be in groups like Amnesty International, who tend to feel outrage when they hear about atrocities happening all over the world, who tend to care when they hear about human suffering in far away places. Yet much of that human suffering is a direct result of the accepted culture in those far away places. And it's the same people, that first group, who are also inclined to hold culture up as something sacred and holy, and have a knee-jerk reaction against criticism of other cultures, let alone attempts to change them.

(Then, of course, there are people like Rachel, who commented on my last post, who appears to agree more with the second group than the first, yet cares about morality and human suffering.)

My post was really about pointing out the contradiction between the two ideals in that first group. The second group, while they're not generally the type of people with whom I usually agree or even the type of people whom I see as caring much about morality, at least appear, at first glance, to have internally coherent attitudes.

No comments: