The Weave by Sal Cania

Why American Students Need to Go Abroad

An Op-Ed Published in the Watertown Daily Times, March 9, 2007
By Sal Cania

As I sat listening intently to what I could understand of the conversation, I was asked by a friend what I thought of President Bush. No matter what my real thoughts were, I knew what the answer had to be.

I was living in Rouen, France, a year after the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and my friend, or rather an acquaintance through my host family, was looking to embroil me in a heated political discussion. The conversation swirling around me - entirely in fast, confusing French to my then-barely-trained ears - was about the state of international politics and the direction the European economy might take if the Iraqi incursion wasn't successful. I have my opinions concerning the policies of the current administration, and so do the French; remarkably even more so than most of my American friends. Certainly, Mission Accomplished meant much more to these French students than it seems to in the United States.

I realized that after living a semester in France and traveling around Europe, international education programs aren't merely about getting on a plane and having a great time for several months. Unfortunately, that's the attitude of many of my friends and classmates who travel abroad, and who don't realize that the implications of their naïve and sometimes obtrusive behavior only adds to the resentment that much of the world feels towards us as the moment. This was clearly evident by the demeanor of my acquaintance, but thankfully I was knowledgeable enough about European politics to avoid what could have been an uncomfortable conversation.

When American students go abroad, for many it is their first time experiencing a culture unlike their own. By contrast, the average French student of about similar age knows so much more about the nature of social theory, world politics and the environment than their American counterparts. In this respect, many American college students know only about as much as the typical 13-year-old in France.

We are, in the simplest sense, ambassadors of the next generation of Americans, and I'd like to hope that we can project an image of a more tolerant and responsible culture. Given this gap in cultural sophistication, I believe there are things we can do to catch up. Before giving consideration to studying abroad for a semester or a year, students should:

- Read a daily newspaper, if even only the first page. This will give you a sense of the world's daily events.
- Watch the news. Many colleges have cable access to non-U.S. broadcast news sources, so try flipping on the BBC or other foreign news channel.
- If you have an opinion, no matter how undeveloped, share it constructively. This encourages others around you to engage in discussion, and can help you understand more about the topic. You might even change your mind!
- Finally, take the time to learn a foreign language and customs. The simple effort of trying to order off a menu in broken French when you're in Paris will make the waiters (who have a somewhat deserved reputation for snobbiness) glow with pride.

Americans really aren't any different than anyone else in the world, ultimately. Unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to become insulated to the extent that it haunts us when we do venture beyond our borders. Despite global concerns about safety, more college students each year express interest in studying abroad for part of their time in school. Perhaps if we better prepare, we can start to more fully appreciate how our entire world works and work with it, rather than continue going at it alone.

Ok, enough ranting, time to get serious. As I've mentioned, I'm researching the Wall in Israel/Palestine and its effects on the world community and more specifically the Palestinians. According to the StopTheWall campaign, this "Apartheid Wall" is not only illegal under international law but also violates the Geneva Conventions and quite simply, destroys the lives of thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank.

This however, is no ordinary wall. While the Berlin Wall or our proposed fence along the Mexican border may be intended to separate two people, the Wall is not designed necessarily for this purpose. from what I've read so far, it is less a military strategy and more of one devoted to the rhetorical struggle for international opinion based on theories of warfare. It is meant to economically strangle the Palestinians and push them ever east-ward, some argue toward Jordan which is already over 50% Palestinian.

The Wall is both a military throwback to the ancient tactic of wall-building and a futuristic concept of implementing modern technology into the concept. Surrounded by UAV's, cameras, motion sensors, barbed wire, mines, guards, and other enforcement technologies, the Wall represents the technological domination that Israel continues to hold over the Palestinian population that it is squeezing into irrelevancy.

What is original subalternity?

I was asked to write an op-ed recently about American students who travel abroad and encounter a much more sophisticated world than the one they imagine while insulated here at home. When I submitted the first draft, my boss handed it back to me and said, “You can’t use ‘American hegemony’ in news writing”. I figured as much, but it made me think about why this word just isn’t used. Confined largely to the mystical realm of out-of-touch, dusty old academics who whittle their time away in little caves with evil plans to take over the world with magic death rays (see my first posting); the concept of ‘hegemony’ is something really not talked about directly by Americans.

 Hegemony in a nutshell is simply domination by the consent of the dominated, the subalterns. According to Marxist dogma, hegemony can be considered the process by which the economic base creates the ideological superstructure by which they control the particular society. The subaltern class unknowingly in most cases submits to this economic domination and exploitation because the superstructural elements are in place to make the system seem like the only natural one, or for the greater good of the nation, humanity, etc.

 My question then becomes one of history – who was the first subaltern class? Or what was it? Was it the first group of people who submitted to Rousseau’s old enemy – ownership of property? According to him, it would seem that this is the first manifestation of an organized society, albeit quite simple, but it would require an ideology to support the economics put forth by said property owner. Did they use God/gods? How about ‘I’m going to kill you if you don’t submit?’ That seems to work in a lot of cases when the superstructure wears thin upon the proletariat.

Anyway, I think it goes back even further. The first subaltern class was not even human, nor could it even think. It was nature, and the hegemonic force was humanity’s evolution into cognizance and manipulation of their ecological surroundings. Soon, nature became the first unwitting subaltern class through the ideological domination of man’s attempts to subdue it for his benefit. Kind of like those little Filipino workers who made your Nikes.

What was the first ideological superstructure that people created in order to subdue the environment? The environment is an indirect subaltern per se in that by definition it can not have (or can it? gettin’ all new age...) an awareness of its own submission, it can only conform to natural processes of destruction and re-growth. The proxy subalterns were people. Those who worked the land and attempted to cultivate it were both subduing it and acting as its proxy subalterns at the same time. As they evolved into an economic system (which came very quickly as we learned agriculture, even if the system were very primitive), they became the unwitting hegemonic force subdued by their own reliance on the submission of the land. So in effect, the environment is the original subaltern and hegemonic force at the same time.

Not sure if that really made any sense.

The Honesty Wall

I'm currently doing a lot of writing about the Separation Fence in Israel/Palestine and aside from serious academic inquiry, it's raised a lot of issues to me about academic honesty and truthfulness. I was reading the NY Times (you'll see that I do that a lot) and noticed an article about a geology doctoral candidate and his evangelical views. You see, he was of the school of thought personally that the earth wasn't more than 6,000 years old, while his research about bone strata and fossils indicated millions of years of difference. So the question was, what really is academic honesty? What happens when the main point of your research is something that you ardently do not believe in?

My contention with the Separation Fence or "Apartheid Wall" as it is so disaffectionally known by most of the world is that it is an illegal, immoral, and militarily obsolete structure which emphasizes underlying Israeli designs on the West Bank. So what about my research? How do I write objectively about a subject that I believe to be immoral and should be reviled?

Academic honesty used to be simply an issue of plagarism and using other's work as your own, but this new level of contention raises quite a few ethical issues for myself. Am I being honest when I talk about the history of Zionism as just that - history? In my opinion, Zionism is one of the most diluted colonial projects the world has ever seen, but to research it an honest manner I must give it a fair shake - something which is very difficult for me to do. So I ask you, is my research truly honest? I really am not sure myself, I'd like to think it is but then again, it's pretty apparent that I'm biased.

Professor McPissedoff

I was reading the New York Times the other day and saw an article that really irritated me. The writer began by condescending to academia by noting how when intellectuals supposedly debate, the way you know it’s going to be nasty is whether or not they compliment their opponent first. He went on to say that given that most intellectual debates don’t matter, most people don’t notice anyway. The point of his article wasn’t this at all, and actually discussed climate change debates, but setting it up in this manner certainly gives the reader a clear indication of where he is coming from.

First of all, who is an intellectual? And why do the debates between these seemingly untamed beasts go unheard? I would argue that first, defining someone as an intellectual in mainstream American culture is akin to discrediting them, since they’re generally only paid attention to when they are being attacked by some nut-job Evangelicals or ignorant-people-with-strong-public-opinions. What the hell is an intellectual? Is it someone who likes history? Is it maybe someone who likes social theory? My point is that an intellectual could be any number of things, but they are uniquely singled out by our culture and vilified for their brain processes. When was the last big movie that had a serious “intellectual” character that didn’t look like a Playboy model? Since when were people working in the field of human resources defined only by their job by society? And when was the last time you flipped on some horror movie and the villain was “Professor SomethingOrOther”.

Academia and intellectualism have no place in modern American culture save for one thing; as a tool for furthering one’s stance in our meritocracy. The “we’re only here to party” mentality has so engrained itself into our culture students don’t leave liberal arts educations with any clue of what windstorm they just went through. If you ask 90% of them what a liberal arts education means they most likely couldn’t tell you and couldn’t give a crap. Daddy’s got a job for them, so why should they care? Liberal arts colleges have become the tool of rich people to maintain their fortunes and poorer ones to raise themselves up, and throughout the past fifty years, in my opinion largely due to the media’s lampooning of our pursuits, become the butt of many stereotypes.

I am sick of this. This arrogant self-righteous naiveté that America is flaunting is a huge component of the basis for the hatred that is felt by so many millions of people around the world. Islam doesn’t hate education. The Chinese certainly don’t, they’re kicking our butts when it comes to cranking out fantastic thinkers and engineers. So why are we on this path to self-destruction through apathy? What motivation do we have? The American Century is OVER people, and it’s our faults.