"Who is your other being? Have you ever been the object of domination or marginalization? How about the other way around? How did these happen?" I was left somehow dumbfounded after that lecture assignment. It made me try to think more clearly how such things have been in my own context.
Two days ago the class lecture spoke of mistaken identities. These identities are not ones that would mean to have a person ask who they are on the context of census and statistics, rather it is on the level of looking into the standing of one's self in the context of society. In many instances, people act or move in the manner that they have been "trained" to be by what norms they grew up with. Because of these the person's real identity is lost within the norms. Such suppression is one that can have an impact so immense that it shapes not only the person, but the community the person is in as well. Shortness in all, it seems to be one that can create the structural context in which a society operates itself through the individual level.
The idea of such dominance creates then the "other" being in every individual that comes to be their identity rather than their real identity. Let's take for example in the context of a typical high school where there is the dominance of a bully and a stereotypical nerd or geek. The nerd comes to be the one who is the other in the scenario. Because of the incessant picking by the bully, he is forced to retreat himself and just go with how the bully and his peers want him to be.
With that logic, let us take the context of suppression and of the other to the level of politics. As mentioned before, it is a tremendous social contributor as to how a society is shaped. If a society is then formed through strict norms of conduct, we then see its people operating life as abiding by norms in order to survive. It is then here that the culture of politics enters the context of the other. Culture being a social rule to a society, it naturally follows that these unspoken rules are to be followed in order to survive. Survival then becomes the central idea of such a logic. We can then relate this to how colonizers have been able to successfully obtain many colonies in the past, particularly during the period of imperialism. A good example would be the manner that European states were able to colonize Asian countries. The reading "The Idea of Asia" provides a more thorough description of this. But thinking about it, it then seems evident that one reason why some countries in the region have yet to improve is because of such a suppression that has been passed on for decades that then lead to having a loss of identity perception.
To then answer then the question of who the other is in my context, I would have to say on the outer levels of the term "other" I have some of the friends I have. But dissecting it more clearly, I would have to say that I have made myself the other by often being the one to yield. All the while I have thought I was being dominant over certain individuals. Perhaps yes, it is true, I do but only in with the intention of them obeying me. But often, as I have realized, I have been both the dominant and the marginalized myself by letting norms get the best of me. Realizing this I then make a motion to relieve myself of such suppression and take my lost identity back. How then does it feel? It is the same feeling that the Filipinos felt when they at least thought they had freed themselves from the Spanish rule. It is the same feeling that nations had when they no longer had to submit to the demands of governments for arms at the end of the Second World War. It is a very liberating feeling. But of course every freedom has its limitations. At times then I still do submit to norms, but in these instances now I make the move not because I have been made to believe I have to, but because I will myself to.
No comments:
Post a Comment