The Other in Literature, Life, and Politics
Back when I was stuck in undergraduate h*ll in Modern Languages and Literatures, (in Portugal) one of the concepts that professors kept harping on was this idea of “the other.”
“The other” was any character of a different color/culture/sexual orientation. Weirdly, sometimes “the other” was a woman. (For some reason right now the only “other” I can remember was the dead Chinese in Effi Briest.) On cue, as instructed, we could spill rivers of ink on the “exclusion” denoted by this and that passage, on the ignorance of the individual of a certain race/culture/sexual orientation.
We learned from our professors that the objectification of the other and making it into something strange and wonderful or else threatening and dangerous were all part of the xenophobia of our forebears. Of course, the way to respond to this lack of enlightenment was as codified as the sounds of disgust we were supposed to make at the idea of objectifying “the other.” The response was, in fact, supposed to be the putting down of our own culture and the elevating of this “other” because he WAS other.
[As far as indoctrination goes, I preferred the times in elementary school when our teacher would solemnly instruct us to deface the pictures of the three Filipes (the three Spanish Kings of Portugal) in the history book. It was more open and honest and not supposed to make us hate ourselves.]
I hadn’t given this concept of The Other much thought – like other things from undergrad (and grad) humanities, I let it pass from me with no regret and perhaps a little relief – until yesterday.
You see, yesterday I read Charlie Martin’s post on the rumor that Republicans want to ban tampons. Now, the rumor started in a satire post, but here’s the thing: PEOPLE BELIEVE IT. They believe anyone in their right mind, much less anyone writing the Republican platform, would include phrases like “because it is unnatural for women’s bodies to be penetrated by objects.”
It brought to mind all the trolls I have met at every conservative blog I’ve ever been part of. Most of the blogs I take part in are of a Republican/Libertarian bend, which means basically that if you were to come in and try to discuss incest, we tie ourselves in knots, not wanting to deny anyone their liberty to do as they please, but suggesting that perhaps the power imbalance between parent and child would make the relationship problematic. Or if you bring up drug use you find yourself in an earnest argument over whether people should be allowed to snort cocaine during class, and would it make a difference if it were a private college.
(It’s not that we libertarians don’t have morals: a lot of us are religious and have iron clad morals FOR OURSELVES, we just honestly don’t believe we have the right to impose them on others, unless the cost of forbidding something is greater than the cost of allowing it. I can, have, and do argue both ends against the middle on why murder probably shouldn’t be a crime.)
HOWEVER we vote Republican (usually… Unless it’s a really safe year and we decide it’s a good year for a statement vote, and—stop it. I live in CO. My vote for Harry Brown did NOT almost make Al Gore president. Particularly not in the district I was in which went for Gore big time, anyway.) And we want a smaller government and a withering of the welfare state.
They all saw Inherit the Wind and want to play the heroic free thinker standing up to the narrow minded bigot. But we won’t play our part and it drives them nuts. This is why they love Stephen Colbert. He’s what a conservative is supposed to be.
That meme of the “other” pre-dates it’s conspicuous use in America by quite a few years. Today it’s common in America. It gives weight to the idea that Brazilian Paolo Friere’s Marxist inspired Critical Pedagogy is the American liberal’s Bible without them being the least aware of it, having made a rather roundabout Lusophone journey.
One quibble: actually, it’s outdated fifties TV sitcom morality as seen by Saturday Night Live. It is as accurate a representation of fifties morality as Two and A Half Men, The New Girl or any other current sit-com is of contemporary morality.
Consider the number of recent scandals that have developed from “journalists” such as Stephen Glass offering absurd depictions of conservatives, pandering to Progressive’s obsession for perceiving conservatives as exotic aliens.
BTW, Thanks for this. I was considering, earlier today, the fact that much of the effort to suppress conservative views is a form of bullying, of making conservatives into The Other. Something that The Left is always demanding we not do. Does that make them hypocrites?
Many years ago, I attended a brief talk by John Fund, back before he became very well known, in which he discussed (among other things) the attitude of the Mainstream Media toward the liberty movement, including the Libertarian Party. He related a story about an exchange that took place after a national LP convention, when he was attached to Walter Cronkinte’s group, and someone asked Cronkite whether libertarians and libertarian ideas should receive coverage.
Cronkite said no, emphatically: “These are the most dangerous people in America. Their message has the illusion of truth about it. Far too many people will believe it – and the only way we can keep that from happening is by denying them the use of our outlet for their views.”
Libertarians were indeed The Other, to Cronkite, at least. I have no doubt that Cronkite would take the same attitude toward contemporary American conservatives – especially seeing how much closer to libertarian principles conservatives have moved these past thirty years.
As a conservative and Christian who has often moved in circles with liberals, I see this satire/drama mistake all the time. During our time in London if one more person had cited Michael Moore to me as well researched documentarian, I might have lost it. (It is very good practice at staying calm under pressure.) Abortion, gay marriage, healthcare—the things people are willing to believe about conservative Christians was mind boggling. I remember one discussion, after the Norway massacre no less, when a friend had read something about the how abortion docs had to wear bullet proof vests because they were constantly under threat from Christian gun toters. I don’t remember the specifics but do remember the resulting discussion about our dangerous abortion debate. She thought that we would just do it like the Danes with their relaxed approach to abortion. In the first trimester one could just get an abortion, then during the 2nd, a special medical board would hear evidence and decide when if the woman could get a late abortion. Easy. No fuss. While swallowing laughter about what American feminists would think of that medical board permission, I asked about the third trimester, and she looked at me like I was nuts. She was horrified by the thought. I have loads of such stories. The most recent satire mistake was just the other day when a blogger friend was tweeting, in a grave head shaking way, some satirical piece about Michele Bachmann wanting to ban falafel because it was an anchor food for jihad or some such.
If anyone doesn’t get it; the courts have struck down any limits on abortion including those in the third trimester….
This (once again) brings to mind the adage, “choose your enemies well. for they are the ones you’ll become most like.” Liberals consistently create a bogeyman they hang on conservatives, presuming that the bogeyman is dishonest, unscrupulous, misogynistic, etc. The more liberals do so, the more they expose themselves as having the same qualities they purport to oppose.
See my post on Carlie Martin.
Sorry, Charlie. Starkist doesn’t want tuna with good taste. Starkist wants tuna that tastes good. And if you are looking there for tuna you ain’t gonna find it.
“why murder probably shouldn’t be a crime”
I was jarred out of the article and had to stop reading at this point. Are you suggesting there shouldn’t a law against murder??
I’d be interested to hear the argument for why murder shouldn’t be a crime. As a follow up, if murder is not illegal, why should anything be illegal?
As someone who has been described as a Left-Leaning Libertarian…
“All they have to defend themselves against the horrible vision of a government that doesn’t control all of society…and every individual from birth to death”
As you said about Conservatives and their supposed views on the evils of tampons, I say now:
I have never met anybody who used the term ‘Liberal’ to describe themselves, including myself, who EVER espoused such a viewpoint. I find it incredibly entertaining to see such blatant stereotyping IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT STEREOTYPES.
It is a bit amusing that the leftist culture, which has such pride in its supposed “diversity and openness”, is in fact so totally closed to any points of view outside itself. As this author states, libertarians can understand both conservatives and leftists, and can suport either depending on the issue. And conservatives can understand leftists (even while disagreeing with them) and can understand and often agree with libertarians. Only leftists seem completely incapable of any understanding of viewpoints other than their own.
Lots of folks believed that Orson Welles’ radio broadcast of “The War of the Worlds” described an actual Martian invasion, too.