The
conjunction of having power and having a goal changes how we act and how we
perceive “the other.” I observed this in
the Todorov reading and in our class’ rendition of Risk. In the Todorov
reading, Columbus is a conqueror of the New World and as such, he is in a place
of power over the natives; this directly influences his perception of
them. As an empowered, dominant actor,
he has the privilege of viewing the natives on his own terms, as a version of
himself and his people albeit an inferior one (Todorov 38, 42). If he had come into the Americas on equal
power terms with the natives, not as a conqueror but rather simply an explorer
or some other role power-neutral role (if that is possible), he would have had
a better chance of being able to view them as the other in their own right. In addition, his goal of getting gold from
them made him see them as resources rather than human beings (Todorov 45). Furthermore, his goal of evangelization made
it so that he saw the natives, the “others,” as lacking. He saw them as lacking in the religiosity that
he wanted to instill in them (Todorov 34-36).
His empowered status and his goals of gold and religion also changed his
actions in that they enabled and justified his patronizing, utilitarian, and abusive
treatment of the natives (for example, treating them like savages, using them
for gold and slave work, holding them hostage and allowing them to be
raped).
The
same phenomenon was clear to me in class when we played Risk. As I recall from previous class discussions,
a large number of students in class are rather ideological. Early on in class, very few people condoned realism’s
imperative for offense as defense, aka proactive violence. In short, a good portion of us, especially
the people who ended up being on my Risk team, do not seem to be personally very
violent or power-driven people. However,
when my team headed up to the board for the first time, our personalities
changed quickly, including my own. Our
team was the most militarily powerful team in the game at the start, and our
assigned objective was to keep that hegemony and gain more power. With this interaction of power and a driving
goal, almost immediately, everyone on the team was insistently asserting the
need to attack another team. There was
no hesitation or questioning, but rather mutual agreement at not only the
validity but also the urgency of this need for violence. If someone had asked us theoretically whether
a powerful country should attack another less powerful country without
provocation, it is quite likely (given precedence from similar questions in old
classes) that we would have said “no.” And yet, with power and a goal, our modus
operandi changed drastically.
Similarly, I noticed how quickly
into the game we assigned identities to the “other,” in this case our opposing
teams. When the game began, we were all indiscernible
groups of students. We were on teams bearing
the name of a color so that no team held an inherent meaning or significance.
Based on our desire to keep and grow our power, however, my team quickly
identified the others based on how much of a threat they were to our power or
to our goal. We rolled our eyes when a “belligerent”
team attacked us, acting as if it was typical of them, showing how we had
already assigned them an identity based on our own power situation and goal. This made me realize how, in all the discussions
where politicians or political groups are vilified for their actions and people
ask, “How could he? How could they?,” the answer is that power and an end goal can
influence people to do things that they would not otherwise do and to see others in a completely different light.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteWow, really great post! The comparison you make between Columbus and Risk is well done; I definitely would not have made that connection. I also think you illustrate our team (go Blue!) very accurately and I completely agree with your description of the shift that took place in our personalities (I know my competitive side was definitely brought out!) once we saw how powerful our position on the board was. In class we often criticize great powers’ and their frequent over exercising of powers onto smaller countries that can not adequately defend themselves. However, like you pointed out, the Blue team had no problem taking out all the smaller countries that stood in the way of our ultimate goal: to obtain Ukraine. The game definitely illustrated that it is easy to criticize those that are in positions of power and how they use their power; but once you are in a position of power, (like we were) it was incredibly easy to focus on our ultimate goals, disregarding the well being of the other states and their territories.
Hi Emily,
DeleteGo Blue! :) Thanks so much for your positive feedback! Like you said, it really opened my eyes to how it is easier said than done to not misuse power. From now on, I will definitely be slower to judge the character of world powers when I take into account the very power that they hold and their goal of avoiding the risk of losing it.
I second Emily on this. I hadn't thought of it so well done. Interesting how you guys became power hungry hegemons so quickly. What do you think this says about your position vis a vis the rest of the world as an american at a private college (i.e. someone with some privilege and power)?
ReplyDeleteHi Professor,
DeleteThank you so much for your response and positive feedback! Yes, we seemed to fulifll realist theory in this example. Your question is thought-provoking. It takes my entire point a step further and a step closer to home- thank you! I didn't think of this issue in relation to the power that I hold. I think that this says that I will always come to the table with a deep-seated, probably subconscious goal to keep my power and that this may limit my ability to truly think and act for the interests of others. As the class discussed regarding Columbus, I think the best way to overcome my bias is to do what you have prompted me to do: become aware of it. I will certainly be more cognizant of it in the future and try to think of it when I consider my stances on both domestic and world politics. Thank you!
Fantastic post. Great connection. I think this is a really good example of psychology. I can't claim to be an expert but I took a class in high school and one right now. I believe that it's ethnocentrism ("othering") more than anything else that drives this. We innately believe that our team is "better", even though, as you pointed out, the teams were so arbitrarily made. Yet it didn't matter. Our enemies in the game, we decided were worse then us, and it was our goal, to take over the world, because we were actually better then everyone else, so we were "helping" them. This, as you so accurately and acutely point out, is the same thing that occurred with Columbus. I think the goal, also as you pint out is key, because it gives us a justification for our actions. Like, yes we are hurting this smaller nation, but it's for the "greater good", it's what our people want. Both of these have led to terrible actions, that may have made sense at the time, but looking back show only cruelty and as such are seen for what their actions really were. Fantastic post, so many thought provoking points good work (Surprised a blue team member can have deep thoughts ;) )
ReplyDeleteHi Will,
DeleteThanks so much for your response and for admitting something good can come from blue team haha. Seriously though, all of you guys have really challenged me to think about our topics more thoroughly and you often have counterarguments or questions that push my thinking even further; that being said, your positive comments mean a lot, so thank you! I meant to say this in my comment on your original post, but as the leader of the pink team and yellow team, you did an incredible job if starting with little and making a big presence. I appreciate that you brought up psychology in your comment- I always feel like psychology and IR go together!! Ethnocentrism is definitely the name of the game with Columbus and even today; like you wrote here and said in class, it is human nature. Do you think that time is the only solution- hindsight as the 20/20 vision to the blurred vision of ethnocentrism? I think that even being aware of it can be seen as progress. Admitting we have a problem is the first step to recovery, so to speak.
Very very thoughtful post. What you are discussing in this, I discussed in a political philosophy class. The question is, is it okay for people in power to make decisions that people not in power may call unmoral? You saw that when you were given a large army in risk. People in power must sometimes make decisions that citizen would not, but the question of whether or not this is "okay" is always up for debate.
ReplyDeleteHi Ryan,
DeleteThanks so much for your feedback and your positive comments. Your class sounds really interesting! The question you pose is an almost unanswerable question, as you point out, since it is just an extension of the original problem. Who should determine the state's actions- the citizens, the governments? But then, who are we to answer this question? Who should get to determine who should determine the state's actions? Third parties, the government, etc. Philosophy always leads to more questions it seems like.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteWhat a creative and interesting post!
I really like how you clearly illustrated the transition in attitudes once your group gained power. I think you really touched on an interesting phenomena in human interactions and the nature of power. I wonder if this stems from humans greed and selfishness or our competitive nature? I think we see this happen on a huge scale daily in international politics. An interesting example this made me think of is when people reflect back on WW2, and if the US hadn't been successful what the big world powers would be today.
Hi Amanda,
DeleteThank you so much for your response and positive feedback! I think that ethnocentrism, as a term for this phenomena, certainly has roots in selfishness and competitiveness, great insight! In his post Alex brought up the possibility of alternate realities, as you did here, and especially after Horizons, this is an intriguing thought. If US had not won in WW2, then our power would be much less and rather than maintenance, I think we would be focused on expansion. Expansion from the bottom up would require making alliances and ties with those more powerful to pull onself up, rather than the tendency of a hegemon to gain power by crushing those beneath itself. Therefore, I think the map of world powers would see the U.S evolving through alliances.