Otherizing

This week in my world literature and global issues classes, to accompany our study of Reading Lolita in Tehran, we have discussed the concept of "otherizing."  No, that is not a word in the dictionary, but allow me to explain:

"Otherizing" refers to idea that we have certain norms with which we classify our culture, and that anyone outside of these norms is the "other," and therefore completely different.  Take the example of the US.  Cultural norms of America say that we are white, Christian, English-speaking, and middle class.  Most Americans fit within these categories, and we thus define how we perceive ourselves and the culture we live in through this lens.  The "other," therefore, is anyone that doesn't fit into one or more of these categories - in the case of America, this can mean a black person, Jew, Muslim, Spanish-speaker, etc.  Once we have labeled someone as the "other," we tend to believe that, for everything we do and believe, they do and believe the complete opposition.  Take this example:

Part of the narrative in Reading Lolita in Tehran (see a previous post, where I talk more about the book) takes place during the 8-year long Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988).  During the war, the Islamic regime in Iran creates propaganda against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime and all of Iraq, calling Iraqis "heathens," and even "Zionists."  First of all, most Iraqis are Shi'a Muslims like Iranians, although Hussein's regime was Sunni.  And second of all, I wouldn't exactly call Saddam Hussein a Zionist (one who supports the Jews' right to a state in Israel).  But the Iranian regime sought to classify Iraq as the "other," and therefore assert that Iraq believed the opposite of everything Iran believed.  If Iran was good, Iraq was evil.  If Iran was Muslim, Iraqis were heathens.  The people of Iran could not understand the commonalities between themselves and Iraqis.  Maybe, had they not characterized them as the "other," but rather as similar peoples under rival regimes, they could have prevented such a destructive war.

So what does this have to do with our lives today, as Americans?  Well, today we fight in two wars against our nation's greatest threat: terrorism.  Robert Pape's article, "It's the Occupation, Stupid," in Foreign Policy, explores the narrative Americans have created of Muslims, and how that has affected our "war on terror."  He writes:

A simple narrative was readily available, and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Because the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill Americans. Within weeks after the 9/11 attacks, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, "Why do they hate us?" and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of "who we are, not what we do." As President George W. Bush said in his first address to Congress after the 9/11 attacks: "They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

The growing belief among Americans, propagated by our President, that Islam caused the terrorists to attack us formed within our minds the concept of Islam as the "other."  Bush claimed that Muslims didn't believe in freedoms of religion, speech, voting, and assembly.  How could they?  We do, and they are the "other," so they must not.  Pape goes on to claim that our mission to Westernize countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, to bring democracy, women's rights, free trade, etc., stemmed from our belief that only our way of life was right, that it was either Western peace or Islamic terrorism.  This forced dichotomy created when we refer to Islam as the "other," or, in Bush's phrase, the "axis of evil," has brought us to equate Islam with terrorism.  Thus, this war on terror has truly become a war on Islam.

Unfortunately, the more we allow for this otherizing, the more the split between America and Islam grows, and the more the terrorists are out to get us.  Instead, I suggest we take a more open-minded approach, finding the commonalities and valuing the differences between us and the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom have never even considered terrorism.  By humanizing, instead of otherizing, the Muslims, we can turn this un-win-able ideological war into a more pragmatic approach to counterterrorism.

The Lame Duck

With the election a month behind us, politicians can finally take off their campaign buttons and get down to the business of governing the country.

If only.

November 15 marked the beginning of the "lame duck session" of the 111th Congress, and our legislators are well on their way to getting little to nothing done in the home stretch of an already disappointing term.  Republicans have heightened their obstructionist talk, with all 42 GOP Senators refusing to bring any issue to the floor until the Bush-era tax cuts are extended for everyone and the continuing resolution (CR) is passed to continue funding the government.  Although these are important matters on the Senate's hands, Jay Newton-Small, writing for Time.com, notes that such issues are usually saved until the end of the session, and that this is merely a way for  Republicans to block action on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the new START Treaty, and the DREAM Act.  

So here we are, in another typical lame duck session of Congress only one month after millions of Americans showed their displeasure at the polls with the inaction of our legislators.  But I wonder how the term "lame duck" came do describe this legislative moment, and how it affects our perceptions and expectations of the session.

According to Ed Quillen, a columnist for the Denver Post, the term goes back to 18th century finance, where a "lame duck" was a stock dealer who could not pay of his/her losses, or someone who defaulted on a loan.  The phrase was first used in politics in 1863, and the first "lame duck" president was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.  Now, the term is used to describe an elected official in his/her final term, or one who was voted out of office but whose term has not ended.  In addition to this definition, The Oxford American Dictionary also defines "lame duck" as an "ineffectual or unsuccessful person or thing."  And thus, the "lame duck" session of Congress, the one-and-a-half month session destined to be ineffectual, unsuccessful, and, it seems, merely a formality, a buffer period before the inauguration of the next Congress, 

But why must it be so unproductive?

This blog, called "Goodbye Incumbents," points out that 81% of the next Congress beginning in January will be made up of incumbents, or people already in Congress now.  So, although the political balance of this 111th Congress is certainly different from that of the 112th Congress to come, most of the people in there were voted for to keep their jobs.  And plus, the electorate votes for 2 (or 6, in the case of the Senate) year terms, and these legislators have a job they were voted for to do until the day the next term begins.  The country still needs legislators to deal with real issues like the START Treaty and DADT - PM Vladimir Putin has already said that the failure of Congress to ratify the START Treaty this year could push Russia to build up its nuclear arms.  Maybe, if we stopped referring to this important session of Congress, especially after such a divisive election cycle and stagnant action the past two years, as a "lame duck" session, expectations would be higher for our legislators to address the critical issues of the day.  

So here's to a successful, not lame - and not particularly duck-like - rest of this session.