In our first class, on Monday, the issue of ethnocentrism was
raised. Often the US is scrutinized for acting in a way in which the national
culture takes precedence over any other. The US government has a reputation of
acting with authority (or power over) in diplomatic dealings with other
nations. This could be framed as an issue of western privilege that has allowed
this country to act in such an ethnocentric manner. For example, the US has
been diligently promoting democracy around the world. Yet, is democracy truly
the best way for a country to operate? Or is it the best way to operate because
it is the way that the US operates? Martin and Nakayama state that the “refusal
to expand cultural horizons or to acknowledge the legitimacy of cultural
practices different from your own can lead to conflict (5).” Is how a country
is ruled a source of conflict in the world because there is a right or a wrong
way to rule? Or is it a matter of cultural relativity? Dambisa Moyo, an
international economist, raises some intriguing questions as to whether or not
the US idea of democracy is being challenged by China as a legitimate means of
government in the developing world. Follow this link to view Moyo’s Ted Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/dambisa_moyo_is_china_the_new_idol_for_emerging_economies.html
Good TED Talk. I agree with Dambisa in regards that we need to start approaching Eastern markets with a cooperative effort versus our traditional competitive-driven approach, lest we are out-produced and out-driven, so to say. Sometimes I worry that the current people presiding over economic, trade and policy decisions are still floating on the left-over high of our out-competing the Soviet Union thinking that we won, we've proven ourselves, and we can do it again.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Democracy and ethnocentrism, I think it's necessary to conduct a little self-reflixicity. As was stated, in America we associate freedom with democracy and vice-versa. But since the Industrial Revolution of the mid-to-late 19th century, it's shifted from meaning representation and individual liberty, to the mis-conception that a democratic nation is one that supports a free-economy, and freedom for the private sector to compete; i.e. Capitalism. Even after 150 years though, there is still debate as to what 'Free Market' even means, as it changes with different contexts and audiences. Is it the freedom of opportunity for anyone to have a shot at the end goal, the infamous 'American Dream'? Recently it's grown into a trend of 'freedom from regulation' and 'freedom to out-compete', no matter what the cost it might bear on society or the economy. With this trend that has become almost tradition in recent history, I think it is hard for many Americans to conceptualize a cooperating market as being 'democratic'; many might find it to be a bit too socialist and against what they view as core American values (especially if we are agreeing to cooperate with a Communist country like China in the market). It's unfortunate that democracy is less about representation and cooperation; the true meaning of what the word really is. That's why I think self reflexivity with looking at our history and what the definition of what democracy really means, would serve to break down some of our ethnocentric patterns and our Capitalist instinct to compete unnecessarily, so that we might open ourselves up to new and potentially more opportunities.