“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

Samuel P. Huntington

(used as a header on Salam Pax’s blog)

In Friday’s CAP Global Citizens Political Science lecture, Doctor Erickson examined the nature of Neoconservatism. He emphasized that one of its characteristics is the belief that an effective balance of political, economic and social systems has been reached. The next step, and seemingly a moral obligation, is to help other nations achieve this same status.

Having been reading Salam Pax’s blog Where is Raed over the past week, this description immediately made me think of the United States’ role in the Iraq War, which Salam often criticizes for being invasive and manipulative. In a post from December 2002, Salam points out the blatant control by the US and the assumption that Iraq is unable to resolve conflict without western direction.

Why is this idea of Western supremacy so prevalent? It is evidently deep rooted, even if its source seems to have shifted slightly. One of the driving forces behind the European conquest of the world (15th-19th century) was religion. The belief that native people were inferior and needed salvation entitled the white man to take over their land and “civilize” them. In more contemporary cases, seemingly superior moral values entitle westerners to interfere in foreign issues. Those include the ideas of freedom and democracy, usually tied to capitalism.

But does the West really know best? Are these ideas of superiority still present at the individual level, despite growing education about different cultures? In a post on his blog, A Voice from the Margins, human rights defender Ajamu Baraka describes the ease with which the American government convinced its people that Iraq was a “backward, undeveloped nation”, later commenting on the belief held by many Americans: they have the right to intervene in foreign issues as a way of spreading superior western ideas. How does this way of thinking impact society?

The greater implications can be on a macro scale, in the form of destruction and radical change as a result of imposed “progress.” If a nation is not the source of its own evolution, the establishment of a functional system may be messy, flawed, or may never even take place. On the other hand, in Soft Weapons: Autobiography in Transit, Gillian Whitlock explores the issue on a micro scale, suggesting that the feeling of western superiority can create boundaries between a western reader and a life narrative writer from a non-western country (Whitlock, 7). Does the attempt to spread western culture actually deepen the gap between the West and the Rest?

Adèle Therias

In Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog,
Miller and Shephard refer to two exigences fulfilled by the personal blog: the need for self-exploration and the desire to form community.  They draw connections between blogging and journaling, which I had previously understood as the the former allowing the writer to consciously expose private thoughts to the public, and the latter as a solely personal endeavour. To my surprise, the article presents scholars who argue that writing for the self is impossible, rather that the journal as an “audience-less” genre is misconstructed.

This was difficult for me to process; I began to wonder who the audience of such a personal text would be. Is it intended, or unexpected? In her academic journal, Writing Diaries, Reading Diaries: The Mechanics of Memory, Steinitz, one of the cited scholars, affirms that as long as diaries have existed, they have been read by others (Steinitz, 43). She describes its role in creating a “collective memory”, shaped by the intersection of the experience of one individual and the interpretation of the reader, that transcends time (55).

Expecting such scrutiny could bring me to filter my entries. In fact, when confiding in my diary, am I secretly hoping that someone will discover it? Do I expect that, far into the future, someone will use my journal to make sense of this generation? Perhaps this conscious, or subconscious, desire to contribute could take away from my freedom.

However, in his paper In Defense of Private Writing: Consequences for Theory and Research, Peter Elbow asserts that writing for the self is entirely possible, even despite social influence (Elbow, 141-145). He also suggests the existence of uncontrolled writing, that is not even restricted by personal thought (Elbow, 163).

Two books introduce such techniques to free the mind: Writing Down Your Soul by Janet Conner, and The Artist’s Way by Julia Cameron. Both emphasize the importance of fast writing to avoid any interference by self or external influence. Both explore the possibility and benefits of writing to only yourself.

Have you considered the possibility of your journal account’s role as a commentary on today’s society? Do you believe your thoughts to be honest and unfiltered, or does the statement “you are your worst critic” apply to journaling?

Adèle Therias

Welcome to my brand new ASTU 100A blog!

I am working hard to adjust settings (including the temporary image heading, courtesy of Cross Creek Productions) and format my blog for your reading pleasure.

Please check back for my first content post tomorrow (Friday September 12th) by 11:59 AM. I look forward to engaging in some quality conversation and to making some connections, of course!

Adèle