Serving Bread

Comment from Tyler Watson August 1, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I like the general tone of this post, but I would like to hear more specifics. I don’t quite grasp what it is you want to address. For example, I’m not sure what this paragraph means:

“Certainly each culture has double standards, and sometimes those standards are understandable and appropriate. However, to what we are privy (as Westerners) should disturb us. The most progressive minded person among us, may still enjoy aspects of entry in certain cultures that this person would never allow if the situation were reversed.”

What do you have in mind when you mention that bit about “to what we are privy (as Westerners) should disturb us”?

Also, I’m going to disagree with you on the National Geographic bit. I think there is a distinct difference between pornography and anthropology. I don’t think of the pictures in National Geographic as pictures of people “on display.” That is, I generally don’t consider that periodical to objectify their subjects. If a culture wears less clothing in public than we do in the West and a photojournalist publishes a photograph of someone who we might consider naked intending to document that person’s culture, that doesn’t seem like the photojournalist is trying to tantalize their audience. If the magazine photographed porn stars engaging in all sorts of sexual behavior, you may have something. That some may get off on the pictures of other cultures doesn’t make the photographs pornography.

Comment from Eddy E August 1, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Thanks for the things you raise. I probably went a little too far with the National Geo. I am trying to process through how my privileges are unique to being an American. I feel the tension of a magazine that may operate under the guise of anthropology, but might import images of nudity within a hyper-sexualized culture. It makes me wonder whether we may appreciate the reverse (though I suppose TV does that for us already)

Westerners in many third world countries are given certain privileges that the very people of that culture do not get. We may get better service and in the example of my story, we are invited to participate in surgery. We are given invitations that many people within that culture do not get. And the fairer one’s skin within certain cultures, the greater the privileges. Americans tend to be flattered by the privilege rather than disturbed by it.

Comment from Tyler Watson August 2, 2007 at 6:46 am

The college students were Westerners? That makes more sense. I thought they were Egyptian students.

I remember being in China and being catered to when I walked through marketplaces of bigger cities. (I also remember being stared at in smaller cities that probably saw a lot less white people.) Money or the perception of money was a major factor there and travelers from the West likely have more money than the average citizen of a developing nation.

“Americans tend to be flattered by the privilege rather than disturbed by it.” This is true, but something in me doesn’t think the response is unique to Americans. Most human beings, it seems to me, would be flattered. That doesn’t excuse the behavior.

Comment from Eddy E August 2, 2007 at 6:57 am

Except that most human beings don’t have such experiences.

Comment from Tyler Watson August 2, 2007 at 9:57 am

Most Americans don’t travel out of the country to have such experiences, either.

Comment from Scott August 2, 2007 at 10:38 am

“If a culture wears less clothing in public than we do in the West…”

I didn’t know that was possible, but I guess that is a topic for another time. Where I agree with Eddy on the National Geographic analysis is that while it may not be hyper-sexualized, it is still a privileged posture to plaster our intellectual curiosity of foreign cultures in ways that we would never represent out own.

Case in point – while we are fine with the nudity of another culture on the front (or in the pages) of a magazine for anthropological curiosity, we would never put a picture of an American woman’s breast nursing her child as a photo on or in a magazine for anthropological “curiosity.” People would argue (and have) that that “kind of activity” shouldn’t even happen in public. And not for any sexual reasons.

So again, while it may be ‘harmless’ to view another culture’s nudity on National Geographic, it still represents our privilege to portray in other cultures their “otherness” in ways that we would never portray our own.

Comment from Tyler Watson August 3, 2007 at 10:19 pm

I’m trying to see your positions, Eddy and Scott, but I’m having difficulty. Thinking of a culture where women eschew wearing tops and they are photographed going about their daily business, how is that portraying their “otherness”? Secondly, what do you mean by “otherness”? Is it merely a descriptive statement saying that they as a human is someone other than me, that their culture is an-other culture than mine? Or are you making a qualitative statement, saying that “otherness” is dehumanizing?

I would agree that we are fine with seeing another culture’s nudity but generally uncomfortable with nudity portrayed in our culture. Is that an issue of us having a double standard, of us saying, “We are more developed and therefore we are embarrassed by nudity, but they are not as evolved and so their nudity is due to their lack of sophistication, so we are comfortable with their nudity as we are comfortable with an infant’s”? Many people probably do think this way. I think another option is that we are able to put aside our social mores to a certain extent and understand that though nudity in our culture is not as acceptable, it is acceptable within their culture and so we suspend judgment. All that is to say that I don’t think it’s clear cut that National Geographic is unfairly employing some kind of privilege against other cultures.

Comment from Scott August 4, 2007 at 10:30 am

“Otherness” is the 2nd meaning. Read bell hooks (here, for example) and Carnell West if your less familiar with it.

“Is that an issue of us having a double standard, of us saying, “We are more developed and therefore we are embarrassed by nudity, but they are not as evolved and so their nudity is due to their lack of sophistication, so we are comfortable with their nudity as we are comfortable with an infant’s”?”

Yes. This is the double standard.

As much as I appreciate your desire to vie for another angle, your optional view is not an suspended judgment, but rather just another judgment – a decision we’ve made that we can stand objectively outside of another culture & make intellectual discoveries that reflect our civilized development. “A rose by any other name is still a rose.”

Comment from Scott August 4, 2007 at 10:56 am

Tyler – I should clarify one thing. I hear from you that this “otherness” is not what you, or even for that matter, NG, intends. However, despite even great intentions, this is the net effect.

Comment from Tyler Watson August 4, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Thanks for the charitable read, Scott. This is a fascinating conversation and I’m glad it’s been civil. Let’s tease your clarification out a bit more. You’re saying that the net effect of National Geographic is an “othering” of their subjects? (I don’t know why I used quotes since no one has used that word here.) An othering by whom? By National Geographic? By their readers? And it’s an othering because they show different cultures in a way they may not show Americans? Given that other cultures have different social mores, I’m not sure how they get around that if they are going to portray what various world cultures — even various Western sub-cultures — do and believe. My opinion of National Geographic from reading my dad’s issues is that they have been culturally sensitive. For example, in cultures where people, especially women are more demure in their dress, National Geographic doesn’t betray that modesty. I’m thinking of their 2003 cover story on Saudi Arabia as an example.

My opinion is that the magazine actually has a net positive effect by showing the breadth and beauty of human cultures — not to mention other natural wonders. When they cover marriage rituals in Tibet or a rodeo in Wyoming, I think it shows how much alike we all are even though we may express ourselves very differently. I can’t say that the magazine has always been this beneficial since anthropology for a long time was connected to a Western attitude of supremacy. I can only speak for the years I have read it. My reading is more sporadic now since I haven’t lived near my parents for ten years.

Trackback from Anonymous March 23, 2008 at 11:41 pm

private moments 27

private moments 27