Living with Difference: Reflections on Geographies of Encounter - Article Example

Critical Analysis Before I came to read the societal analysis of Isis Marion Young in her paper Life and Difference”, I did not really pay much attention to the the ways and means that people, either as individuals or members of a race / ethnic group actually inter mingle. Perhaps because our society has become so sanitized to the fact that due to our racial and ethnic differences, we no longer view ourselves as a part of a community but rather, we see each other as members of a specific faction that requires one to function in a specific way. Sadly this indifference that we have been living has spilled out of our local communities and into the world of local, national, and international politics. Take into consideration that as a society, we must recognize that all our social and political problems are actually negative situations that we have brought upon ourselves due to our lack of cooperation and understanding of one another. Rather than trying to inspire our community members and politicians to use the problems of a society in such a way that we would come to a common positive solution, we instead find the politicians promoting strife and discord in the name of their personal interests. To quote Young (1990): “Such a positive normative vision can inspire hope and motivation that motivate action for social change. It also provides some of the reflective distance necessary for the criticism of existing social circumstances.” Thinking in terms of political issues and the politicians themselves, it becomes quite hard to understand how a person, who should stand as the epitome of the political correctness, social consciousness, unity, and hope in our society. On a world political scale, these are the same politicians who should be working towards achieving a sense of utopia and camaraderie with their neighboring nations. Although Ms. Young was the first to advocate the idea that city life is actually the “being together of strangers” ( Valentine, 324) she failed to understand that although strangers can be placed in one area or geographical location, this does not necessarily translate into the “togetherness” that she envisions for the strangers. Urban and city living does not signify unity within a location among strangers. Rather, it only serves to enhance the stark economic, political, social, racial, and ethnic differences of its residents. Thus creating a solid basis for the political turmoil that exists even in the most basic of home-owners associations. Political turmoil exists because, as Ms. Young explains; “They reject the image of persons as separate and self-contained atoms, each with the same formal rights, rights to keep others out, separate.”. In my opinion though, the reason political turmoil exists is mainly because of the aforementioned reasons. Self-interest and competitiveness become the key factors by which politicians play the game. As we watch the political debates that go on daily in Washington, we can see that the politicians strive constantly to have individualism become the dominant force of politics. Forgetting that as a nation, we will cease to exist the minute we no longer respect the diversity that exists in our nation and social landscape. Our world revolves around an uncomfortable ease and peace with strangers. For as long as we choose to look the other way when other people are doing things, we believe that we are creating a sense of peace and nirvana in our area of existence. But nothing could be further from the truth. Imagine if you will, the kind of world that we live in where people who have the ability to converse with one another, even on the the level of strangers, but still come away as being alone and without any sense of connection to others. Valentine (324) explains that; “ The massively apparent fact is that people in cities do talk to one another as customers and shopkeepers, passengers and cab drivers, members of a bus queue, regulars at cafes and bars, tourists and locals, beggars and passers-by, Celtic fans, smokers looking for a light, and of course... as neighbors.” As individuals, we can all be located in the same geographical location, and even have regular conversations with one another, but without having any true sense of what is going on in the world of these individuals. The same thing applies to politics. We require our politicians to have a clear understanding of who we are as their constituents and yet they fail to truly understand what the real problems we face are. In other words, politicians see us, hear us, and speak to us. But they definitely do not have the ability to understand us, even though we live in the same geographical location. This is something that occurs because the politicians, as they rise in their careers, begin to go into a different economic bracket which makes them far removed from the true wold of their constituents. Thus giving them only a superficial understanding of the true problems in their constituents area of residence. Politicians have come to forget that moral equality is the key towards the resolution of any political or social turmoil in their area. These turmoils can be somewhat resolved provided that they are willing to submit to the fact that ethnicity, race, social evolution, and economic differences are all a part of the social landscape that all politicians are now expected to function within. As a society, we would not be able to advance as a race if we did not evolve from the social structure that existed over time. This means, that with every generation that comes into being, we are to expect social and political changes that affect the way an area of the world or country conducts themselves in public. These changes are not to be seen as either good or bad, but rather, we should accept these social adjustments as a part of our humanity and individualism. If we were to visualize the kind of acceptable social and political behavior of people based upon Youngs (2009) analogy, it would be that; “The ideal of community... expresses an urge to unity, the unity of subjects with one another. The ideal of community expresses a longing for harmony among persons, for consensus and mutual understanding, for what Foucault calls the Rosseauist dream of a transparent society...” In the perfect world, Young and Valentine believe that we would be able to live in a world where social darkness does not exist. The power to run the nation would not be vested only in a number of politicians and corporations, but rather, rest in the ability of people from all walks of life, regardless of their location, to be able to envision and realize a world where peoples interests would not be encumbered by selfish acts and interests. When trying to reconcile the beliefs of Young and Valentine, it is important to acknowledge that their writing is highly similar in terms of viewing the political and social landscape in a similar light. I believe that this is so because the two academic authors views the human factor and our social interactions as a microcosm of the political reality that our world faces on both a national and international landscape. As a society we are hindered from achieving the kind of political stability that we desire because of the sense of selfishness and individualism that most people and politicians wish to advance as their agenda. It becomes difficult for people to achieve the kind of political stability in their area because of the inability of people to meet each other halfway. Meaning each party will have a portion of their needs serviced in such a way that the whole community or nation can benefit from the “little” progress that is made politically. But, as Young and Valentine point out in their own ways throughout their literary criticisms, these achievements can only done with the greatest of patience and understanding among those involved in the evolution of our society. Unless man is willing to give up his individual self interests for the benefit of many, it will be quite difficult for our political landscape, on a local, national, and international basis, to find an area where everyone can meet halfway and willingly accept what a combined political and geographical solution has to offer. The unification of Germany serves as a clear example of how highly different socio-political beliefs can actually come together in order to form a new nation that manages to meet each other halfway in solving their problems. Even when this nation was born out of two highly different political ideologies. Unification meant exactly that for them, the combining of the two Germanys in order to produce a unique and highly open minded political point of view meant to service the needs of both sides of the once divided nation. Looked at in the terms of social structure Germany would be the best example to use when explaining the political evolution of a nation and how it has a direct relation towards the political stability in a region of the world that was once on the verge of war due to highly different political beliefs and political systems. It wont be hard for people to understand how Valentine and Young both advocated the same cause from what would seem like opposing sides. Social and political differences will continue to exist in our world and the future world of generations to come. However, the political and social differences dont always have to be negative in effect in terms of society and politics. If politicians know how to properly motivate their constituents, then the result of these differences can only be for the good of their nation. Word Count = 1618 / 1750 Max. Sources Valentine, G. (2008). Living with difference: Reflections on geographies of encounter. Prog Hum Goegr. 32:323. DOI: 10.1177/0309133308089372 Young, I. M. (n.d.). City life and difference. Read More