Sunday, January 29, 2012

response to 2nd week discussion and 3rd week reading



Unlike the sets of readings that we discussed in the first week, this week’s articles were arguments that were critical to modernity. While authors like Huntington and our class, based from what we read, in general arrived to define modernity as the era characterized by economic growth and better economic conditions, the Franklin School and Foucault introduced us to what they saw negative aspects of modernity.
Characteristics such as production, technology or education that we perceive as positive aspects and better lifestyle, A and H, influenced by this era, perceived it as a master plan of production. They use the culture of industry to argue production, whatever it is, it is a business that produces what people want. Art exemplified in cinema or media, lost it value of being distinct and unique and became a commodity; A and R saw that art lost its self-expression. Humans and production became part of one system where humans consumed the quality they could afford; a hierarchy with designated production qualities. In contrast to Huntignton who saw modernity as an era of technological change and progress, A and H came to see it as a tool of enslavement. I personally do not see this era as either/or but I see a connection and a continuity between the two.  Modernity when first started was a a indication of progress and change, but it is become an era of addiction and enslavement. It is incredible how A and H came to foresee this aspect decades ago. An example would be how human are obsessed with technology and how they cannot wait to possess the latest electronic devices. Human’s consumption is becoming out of control. Thus, control what Foucault saw of this era as a post-modern theorist. Emphasizing on the theory of discourse of control and normalization, knowledge creates individuals and a certain way to view the world; and power ensures that this creation of the view in put into practice. As a consequence, individuals are produced and controlled and anyone who behaves out of this discourse of control and domination is perceived out of the norm. Again, this approach of discourse is very compatible the ‘now’ we live in. Although what used to be out of the norms such as homosexuality and madness are accepted now that the time of his writing, the discourse of normalization still persists but in different ways; such as the West mission to establish democracy in the East; which creates the notion of us and them.
Democracy is known to be a Western ideal, but is it compatible to the rest such as the Eest? Is the East open to accept the imposition of the West?  In Kandiyoti article, from a postol-colonial studies perspective. It seems that the Middle East was more resistant to the Western influence than South Asia was to the Soviet Union. The latter accepted the influence and constructed a hybrid identity. However, Kandiyoty really puts too much emphasis on the theories that attempted to study the influence of the West on the ME which leads to a big lack of content and a clear comparison between the ME and South Asia. I hope to have a better understanding of Kandiyoty’s argument as we discuss it in class.

                                                                                                                                     S.A.A

1 comment:

  1. production, technology and education are three important of society.

    Real Exams

    ReplyDelete