I promised you an Eco. So here he is.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Umberto Eco. Eco. (Sort of sounds like the second baseman for the Padres or something.)
I can assure you, he's not. He's a pretty smart guy - author, commentator, scholar, and probably whips up really good pancakes or chicken cordon bleu when he's just thinking about stuff.
ANYway, Eco wrote an article I happen to enjoy. I enjoy it because it should take all of your critical analysis skills to the limit.
Difficult? Yes. Challenging? Yes. Welcome to college. It took me four weeks, but it's time you get challenged by what you read.
I'll give you some background which may be crucial. This essay was written just after September 11, and it exemplifies academic writing. I want you to find one or two items you agree or disagree with.
Keep in mind the following: What is Eco's purpose of this essay? What is his position? Is he able to follow through on his purpose? These questions should be able to lead you to comment on this essay, as I believe there are many threads in this essay we could discuss. 300-500 words of deep thought, please.
Read the article here.
P.S. - Since my name is now synonymous with "Late Blog Posting", I'll give you five days to get this done. Consider it due on WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2011.
Enjoy...
MP
I believe that Eco's purpose of the essay is to show that real diversity is nothing to be afraid of. You can have Asian’s, Hispanic’s, Jews, Christians, Muslims, white, black, colored....whatever the situation may be, there are never going to be people of the same race living in one place. There will always be difference and change in a society. I guess some people have to accept the fact that not just one race is superior to all the rest.
ReplyDeleteI believe that he really doesn’t have a position in this article. He was really jumping all over the place. I couldn’t really grasp what he was trying to get at and what he was trying to portray to me. I didn’t understand at all.
I do not think that he was able to follow up on his purpose (whatever that may be) but at least he tried to make sense to some people. I believe it was as organized as possible or it may just be the way I read articles. There was no backbone or structure to me. But apparently he couldn’t get through to me. I’m not dogging his article to say the least but it just didn’t hit home for me.
Being that this article was written just after the 9/11 attacks the purpose of this article was to make the American stop and think about judging our culture so harshly to their culture. Because in reality it is absolutely impossible to define a superior culture. Due to the conditions that every culture has different criteria, whether it be their “roots, preferences, habits, passions or system of values.” Then on top of the criteria there are multiple parameters to be assessed and in the end who’s to say what is better than the other. For example the whole technological parameter where Pakistan can be considered the superior over Italy because they are in possession of the atom bomb. But I would rather live in Italy over Pakistan making Italy the superior in that sense. So again I’d have to agree with him in the fact that it’s impossible to critique other cultures values and ethics when in fact there is no true answer because it’s impossible to compare all the parameters and components that make up another society.
ReplyDeleteAnother point he makes is how unimportant anthropological study is to study other countries. Because no one has taken into account the studying their own customs. Which leads him into his position in the essay that there needs to be tolerant diversity and a better analysis and criticism of the over all world. While studying other cultures beliefs it can give us a new and better understanding of our own. He believes this is the only way the world can run under some kind of peace and stability. If we don’t feel so eager to put another culture down and learn to accept their beliefs for their. Now he mentions we have already begun this in America with the building of mosques but for it to work both sides of any dispute have to learn to coexist. Like I have always said no matter the topic there will always be more than one strongly opinionated view.
Finally Eco was able to follow through with his purpose. Because you can only get a sense of his point of view and he really wanted the reader to stop and question his or her views on the subject of superior cultures. He didn’t necessarily want them to change their ideas but just to think about it a little more. This is why he uses so many questions in the article. His point was not to give us an answer to who is more superior but again just make us question how we can view people and just be more tolerant of them.
First of all, let me just point out that Wednesday is not February 5th. Second of all, I did some background research on Umberto Eco after reading his essay which really helped me to understand his perspectives and why he might have these views. To anyone who has still not done the assignment (which is most of you, we are all procrastinators, aren't we? ha.) Check out what Wikipedia has to say about him. Sure it's extra reading, but honestly, do it. It will help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I Googled Eco and got a lot of useful information about him. For example, he's Italian. This explains why he had a tendency to leave out a lot of bashing of Italian culture. As he mentions early on in his article, “Everyone identifies with the culture in which he grew up.” He left the Italian Catholic church due to a crisis in his faith. Having read this, I’ve become led to believe that he probably pursued many other religions, trying to find his own truth. He fought in 3 wars, and in doing so he probably traveled a lot. In his travels, I’m sure Eco had the opportunity to witness many different cultures. He pursued medieval philosophy in his schooling, and in pursuing this major Eco has come to know of a life which was enriched with a simpler way of living. I believe that his background, just like any other author’s background, motivated him to write on the topic in which he chose, and helped him to form his own opinion.
In the article, Eco writes of the cultural differences in societies across the world. He writes of our modernist view of trying to ‘equalize’ cultures, so that none are discriminated against. And yet cultures will never be equal. I went to a lecture last night, one of many in a class called Perspectives, through my church. While I was there, I was enlightened by the speaker, who had an idea that God loves EACH nation, tongue, and tribe, separately. We are each his favorite, for our own reasons. There is always a wonderful thing that can be brought out of a certain culture. I found this to be very applicable to Eco’s article.
As Eco stated in his annotation, every person believes their own truth, and as ‘advanced’ as we may seem to want to be, once we have engraved in ourselves our own truth and way of life, it can be nearly impossible to sway our ideals. The human race is, was, and always will be the epitome of stubbornness and arrogance. Umberto shows his true maturity by seeing through this. He sees that there is beauty and reason to all cultures. Eco sees that there’s truth in all, and yet there is no real truth. What a beautiful paradox. That the truth one person may see as fact another may see as falsehood. There is splendor in this. Umberto questions the worth of a culture, what the modern world may see as something worth anything. Umberto sees the underlying value, the substance that’s beneath the surface. I believe this is something we all need to begin to do.
I really enjoyed this article. I enjoy a good challenge, and it was much more challenging than any of the other articles so far. Challenge to me is a way to allow the mind to expand. I hope that we continue to have challenges like this one for the future.
-Rachel
I have just finished reading the article "The Roots of Conflict", by Umberto Eco. Off the bat i have several issues with some of the principals stated in this article. The first Mr. Eco's assertion that the west has generally been progressive and open minded when it comes to viewing other cultures and ideas that may be in conflict with their own cultural notions. I would have to say that the exact opposite could actually be argued about the West. That figures like Socrates, or Gallilao, or even as recent as Martin Luther King, men who we claim as our champions of secular thought, egalitarianism, and the pursuit of wisdom have actually been faced with much more western hostility than understanding. On the whole, the western world has persecuted progressive thinkers, generally on the biases that they went against religious or authoritarian doctrine. Even Thomas Jefferson, the father of the Bill of Rights which were designed to ensure the protection and liberties of the individual from an oppressive government, was himself scorned by other founding fathers (Alexander Hamilton ahem ahem) for giving to much power to the lower classes. So i would say the western world is no where near as progressive as Eco makes it out to be; and these examples were strictly from within our own culture.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am not so familiar with the advances of the mid-east, from what i do know is that the Muslim world is almost as aggressive to change and challenge of religious doctrine as we are. What about the Black September events in Jordan, or middle kingdom period of Egypt (where Semitic tribes decimated the most powerful civilization of the time) or the recent persecution and execution of homosexuals in Iran or the outlawing of non-Muslim religious proselytizing in most Islamic nations.
Now, I am not condemning either culture, the mistakes of the past should not be the determining factor in what a culture is today. However, I would say it is wrong to view either culture as advanced enough to earnestly accept another and coexist. On the whole, neither has proven to be mature enough to accept challenges to their doctrine and ideology. We are all the true barbaric cultures, and it is only a few progressive thinkers, who appear in all cultures, that develop these notions of understanding and toleration that we all falsely venerate as our own belief. It is wrong to fabricate any of these societies as peaceful, understanding civilizations. So, how are we expected to accept foreign culture, if we can not even accept differences in our own?
The purpose of Eco’s essay is I believe is to portray that all cultures are different and maybe if they consider themselves the best who’s to say that they really are. The title “the roots of conflict” explains that that is where conflict comes from and that is the nature of humans to want to be better than another. In one paragraph he says how Greeks used to call people who speak different languages barbarians showing that because they are different they are “stupid”. I do like that he also notes “But a few more mature Greeks, like the Stoics, noticed that although the barbarians used different words, they referred to the same thoughts” this statement shows that is may be possible for other cultures to understand each other and realize that humans from all locations of the world are similar in their goals.
ReplyDeleteEco’s position throughout the essay seems to be that cultures should understand and respect the differences of one and other. He talks about how culture can be described objectively but says that that can be a problem when what one culture can think of something as a positive another group may think that it does not matter. His example for this is the longer age expectancy he says he thinks it worthwhile while mystics may call that gluttony and that a fuller life can be accomplished in a much shorter time. The fact that this essay comes right after 9/11 I believe that this is almost his reasoning of why something like that could have happened and that is the fact that cultures do not understand others and cannot coincide. I doubt that Eco is a proponent of what happen so that leads me to believe he thinks people should put more time and effort into understanding other peoples beliefs and ideas to possibly make their way of life better.
Western civilization’s peculiar interest of foreign cultures and the contradictory nature of western ideology are two points that I agree with in Eco’s article. It seems fitting that this article was written after September 11, 2001, as though it’s mere creation was to enlighten the confused on how such an attack could possibly occur.
ReplyDeleteWestern civilization has always had a fascinating with other cultures. Classic western civilization can include Europe, while modern western civilization has the pleasure of adding North & South America into the cultural mix. These curious cultures, mostly mistreated, were neither taken seriously, nor were they appreciated. As mentioned by Eco, the primary purpose for said interest was the promise of possible economic expansion. This “false” interest would most certainly lead to mistreatment and the eventual disdain for the influencing nation or party. However, this path of self-destruction would not last forever, as Eco mentions in his article, “from the second half of the 19th century, cultural anthropology developed as an attempt to assuage the guilt of the west towards others, and particularly those others who had been defined as savages”. Cultural anthropology had arisen out of the guilt that was evidently felt, and out of this guilt raised the need to preserve and respect these cultures. Despite our best attempts to even the playing field, the damage has already been done. Simply put, western civilization, good old USA included, is still experiencing the consequences of its disparaging behavior. The very same people, who were labeled barbaric and uncivilized one hundred years ago, are returning the favor. This, of course, is to be tolerated if we are to remain a mature culture.
A mature culture, as perceived by many westerners, is one that accepts every cultural background, every personal belief and insists that we should all live peacefully. This is true, of course, unless one of these cultures conflicts with our own personal belief. Westerners live a double standard life, with many of their ideas being contradictory. From birth, social mores and folkways are injected into our heads. Moral boundaries are established and personalities are formed. A common believe shared by many is that in order for society to progress, the members of society must pursue higher education. This belief becomes contradictory when we are applying to 15 Universities and are quietly cursing the multitudes, wishing destruction of their applications (at the very least) in order to be one person closer to acceptance. This belief will not apply to everyone, but I’m sure the next one will hit a little closer to home. Consider food distribution. I’m fairly certain that many westerners would agree that there is not enough food in the world, and that something needs to be done. I am also fairly certain, that many of those same people would find it difficult to give up some of their own food. Of course, western culture isn’t the only culture with contradictions, though is just happens to be the one that I am most familiar with. One only needs to look around them to notice others.
These are just two of the many points of interest that can be obtained from Umberto Eco’s article, and both of these points can be attached to September 11 in numerous ways. There are many other points in his essay that can entertain a college writing 1 classroom for an entire day, I just chose these. Like Rachel, I too did some research on Mr. Eco and his academic honors are numerous enough to form a pamphlet. Unfortunately, I do not read Italian; therefore I could not read the original version.
After reading “The Roots of Conflict” by Umberto Eco, I felt very confused. Yes, he had made a lot of good points but I felt everything he was saying was kind of jumping around a bit. I think this essay is a good example of an exploratory essay. It seems that every time a question is semi-answered, he directly moves on to a new question. These questions kind of fit together but make the reader feel a bit jumpy. Which is what I think we want to portray on the exploratory essay. Since the beginning of time it seems like wars between religions have as been around. People have had their different view points, when it comes to believing in something. This also applies to everything else in our lives, which is another point I feel he was trying to make. Whether people are fighting over if God is real to fighting over that fact that the environment is more important than driving a big Hummer to impress all your friends. These fights will always happen because well lets face it, without fighting what else would we do to entertain ourselves. Being able to fight for your beliefs and what you feel is right has become a daily thing for us. We crave that feeling of telling someone they are wrong and everything you believe in is right. Now that you just read that do you see how true that is? Also do you see how stupid that sounds? Our need to fight has come down to fighting over silly things. I feel this whole essay is basically saying WAKE UP. Look at all the things we waste our time on everyday fighting about! We are even taking the time to bring other people down because of what they do or believe in. Come on everyone knows we make fun of the “stinky” French food. Why not use that time on something more productive. Like Eco mentioned about the problems we are having with AIDS. Maybe if you used those two minutes it took to fight with someone about food, you could have been used to help further help the Africans. You never know what your time could have been used for until you sit down, stop the fighting, and try to fix something in this messed up world instead of adding to the mess.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Umberto Eco is trying to make his point by explaining that since the beginning of people we have judged other cultures and types of people based on how we were brought up. We automatically try and characterize them by comparing them to our society and beliefs. Like he said in his article, one culture may have an average life span of 40 years and ours is 80 years. Who is to argue that the person who lived longer lived a fuller life? I would agree with this because there are no real parameters to which we should judge people lives on. There is no set guidelines stating that we have to live long in order to have a full life. He then goes into talking about how the western culture is open to many cultures and does not discriminate. He says that the reason we do this is to try and show other parts of the world that it is ok to do this and we can hopefully get them to do the same. I also would agree with this because we are looked at as a super power and a strong country that has a lot going for it, therefore we have people that would be willing to follow in our footsteps. This can be a very good tactic and in time might work out. In life there are really no rules on how to live it or what we need to do to say we have the best. I think this is what Eco is trying to prove by what he has written. I read the first paragraph over a few times after reading through the whole article. I think this really helped me understand what his purpose of writing this essay was. He is basically saying that no matter what we do, we always have a counterpart who thinks that what we are doing is wrong. Not everyone can agree on specific thing and be ok with it. We are always separating ourselves by some sort of system that makes us better than the other or different from them in some way. I don’t want to sound like the hippies but we need to stop finding ways that we can separate ourselves and start looking for things we have in common.
ReplyDeleteKyle Pankuch
The societys of today find every way to torture those they see as inferior, even in America miniorites are given a perverbial shaft during the 21st century. It seems that even as societies advance there always seems to be somewhere in it's depths the populations of the poor that are unable to take part in upper society. Civilization contines to advance and religions seems to stay stagnant, giving it's reasoning and values to every generation regardless of the technology they are exposed to.
ReplyDeleteOkay so im extra pissed off now because this is the THIRD time i am having to re-write this essay!!!!
ReplyDeleteLike i was trying to say before, I agree with Umberto Eco because this country really is all about race, culture, and diversity. I think Ecos purpose in writing this essay was to enlighten people that they can look past skin color or culture. Its not about that, we are all human! "So in order to define one culture as better than another, it is not enough to describe it, but it is addvisable to have recourse to a system of values which we do not feel we can relinquish. Only at this point can we say that our culture is better, for us." Eco expresses. I bet anywhere you go if you cut somebody they will bleed red. Just like you and I. Ecos position in this essay to me is saying that nobody shouold judge anyone for who they are, what they do in live, and what they look like. Being an Italian man im sure he has some stories of being treated differently in life.
According to Eco "we consider our culture mature because it can tolerate diversity, and those who share our culture while rejecting diversity to be uncivilised, period." Diversity is huge in the U.S. Colleges, high schools, elementary schools, jobs, hospitals, neighborhoods,and communities are very diverse. Some people blame their "racism" on history because their ancestors were racist, and their ancestors ancestors were racist so they think they have to follow their history. Eco states " no, the problem of parameters is not set within history, but in our times." He is so right!!
In the essay “The Roots of Conflict”, Umberto Eco analyzes the beliefs and philosophies of various cultures. He delves in to topics such as social norms and references the fundamentalism that he believes leads to a better overall understanding of ones culture. In my opinion, the purpose of Eco’s writing is to expose the inconsistencies and transgressions in various civilizations. He offers opinions on how people view their own individual culture, as well as how they look at those with other values and beliefs. I found his essay to be very thought provoking and I feel that he was very effective in expressing his beliefs. There were several ideas that he discussed which I found very thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteI was in agreement with Eco on his belief that the prolonging of life is worthwhile. However, I would have liked to see him express more personal opinion as to why he feels that way. He provides an example involving a saint who lived for 23 years and a glutton who lived for 80; stating that mystics would say that the 23 year old had lived a fuller life. In this instance, since I found myself sharing a similar belief with Eco, I would have liked to hear him divulge on the topic a little more. It is my belief that the longer someone has lived, the more they have experienced in life. I find stories of the elderly to be fascinating, thus making their years on earth very worthwhile.
Another topic of Eco mentioned that I found myself in agreement with were his thoughts on identifying with ones own roots and understanding those of others. After my initial readings, I found this topic to be much more broad than I had first expected. With our society having so many different races, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds, identifying with the beliefs of others is a very daunting tasks. It made me think of today’s society, and the difficulties that I have understanding others beliefs. Its not necessarily because I have a closed mind; as Eco would put it, I am identifying myself with the culture in which I grew up in.
The only real disagreement I had in reading Eco’s essay were his thoughts on the objective viewpoint in which he believes certain cultures are identified. I think that today’s society is much more progressive than he gives it credit for. Certain mannerisms and values that may have been looked upon with distain decades ago, are now becoming more socially acceptable. Based upon his writing, I don’t think that Eco is closed minded in his thoughts, I just disagreed with his generalization on the identifying of culture.
Umberto Eco’s “The Roots of Conflict” was a very in depth read offering examples on cultural progression in today‘s society. Eco discussed many interesting topics using examples from early western civilization through present day social norms. I found his essay informative and very thought provoking. His ideas on identify with those sharing different beliefs and values was a very eye opening topic for me. You don’t often put yourself in the shoes of someone of a different social, religious, or economic situation. After reading Eco’s essay, I intend to be more open minded and analytical of my surroundings in today’s society.
Eco makes a lot of good points. He’s 100% right in everything he says. We can’t define anyone as superior. Everyone’s condition is different. All races, religions, all groups of diversity have separate conditions. Can we define superiority by these? I don’t believe so. Everyone wants to think they’re the best, the top of the line so to speak. We all believe our own truths, but does a real truth even exist? His article is enlightening; its purpose is to open people’s eyes. As Kayla said he leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I think this is to help make people think and understand. All cultures are different and always will be. He mentions the 23:80 yr life span. Who’s to say the saint lived as fuller life? No one can say and justify such means. “But it is at times of bewilderment that the weapon of analysis and criticism comes into its own, to be applied to our own superstitions and those of others.” This statement is one that all people need to see. In times of bewilderment such as 9-11, we criticize all others. Immediately start pointing fingers. Calling other cultures ‘savages’ and ‘barbarians’. Never step back and look and the picture as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIn the completion of reading The Roots of Conflict by Umberto Eco, I have come to realize the vital immorality of society and the way we interact with each other. Every culture and ethnic group has a different outlook on themselves than people on the outside looking in. “The criteria of judgment depend on our own roots, preferences, habits, passions [and] system of values.” Diversity is seen as unacceptable to many people. Diversity leads to stereotypes and the harsh criticism from one culture to another. For example, Eco speaks of how the “Greeks referred to those who did not speak their language as barbarians” and stupid. This, however, was contradicted when he later on articulates that the “more mature Greeks” realized that “they referred to the same thought” even if they did use different words. In many cases, people, no matter what their religion or cultural background is, have very similar thought processes. Culture and religion make up this world, yet the people who live in it are unable to see the majestic objectivity of each as an individual and vital part of their everyday lives. Unable to see the future and past for what it is, humans living in the present insist on acting upon their instinct of judging the unique aspects of each cultural difference or inequality. Many believe that the west thinks they are “superior” to all others, but it has been made clear that “[they] are not superior, but, [instead], impoverished by [their] ideology of progress.” The west tries to make themselves be seen as the “leader,” almost. They allow mosque to be built in their country in the hopes that someday there will be Christian churches in their countries. Stepping stones to globalization are essential to worldly bond between separate cultures and ethnic groups, but Eco’s essay has made it clear that no matter what human civilization does to become globalized, there will always be a new factor that plays a role in the vast range of disagreements one culture can have with another. Total utopian living is unreachable. Though, this brings up a whole new question as to what a utopian society really is. Just as how cultures view one another, the answers vary and very well may never have a solid answer.
ReplyDeleteGiovanna Knudsen
I have a feeling that because this essay was originally written in Italian that some of its meaning may have been lost in the translation, however Eco does make some very interesting points. I very much like his take on what makes a culture superior to another, actually more along the lines of how impossible it is to say one culture is better than another. We as Americans may say that we are the best because of our rich lifestyles, clean water and our dependence on fossil fuels but we make the most pollution and who is to say that some tribe living on the banks of the Amazon doesn’t actually have it better than we do? It’s all about perspective and what we hold most important. The fact that this article was written after 9/11 is also very interesting. We as Americans or really as a western society have so many negative thoughts and views about the middle eastern cultures, we can’t see how they could kill so many thousands of our innocent people, well lets take a little step back, in the western world we had Adolph Hitler who murdered untold numbers of people just for their religion or race. Also let us not forget who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, that’s right boys and girls, it was the United States of America. Of course this happened during a war but what difference does it make when we as a country killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Of course I can’t say that I condone what the Taliban did on 9/11 but really who are we to judge an entire culture, really an entire region when we have such terrible skeletons in our closets.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this article because I agreed a lot with what Eco had to say. The western civilization is known for being a civilization of acceptance and diversity. I also liked the way explained how each society would understand one another. He made a lot of sense when he said the criteria of judgment depend our own roots, preferences, habits, passions and system of values. I agree with him because I have also observed the same such things before. He described the western civilization as a group of people who accept people so that one day people would learn to accept them. When he talked about hypocrisy indirectly by saying “we allow them to build mosques on our lands hoping one day they would let us build churches on there’s”. That is basically how the western civilization is, and in my eyes I prefer it over any other civilization. I prefer it because the western civilizations point of interest was expansion. One of the other strong points that appealed to me was when Eco mentioned how two different civilizations were speaking different languages but were talking and agreeing about the same topic. I did some research over Umberto Eco and I read that he had fought in three different wars, meaning he had the time to observe other cultures and civilizations while he was traveling to the wars or when he was at the war zone. Umberto also shows his maturity when he sees that behind each culture and religion and civilization there is something good about or unique about that specific group. With Eco believing in this, it truly shows how the western civilization works; by accepting each and every single individual given that each person following a certain culture or religion has a purpose as to why they are following it. Eco is a brilliant man, and in his writings he really has proved many points that hopefully more people are educated about.
ReplyDelete