Reflection 11: Diffusion of Self?

I am very sorry that I missed first half of our class on Thursday. Yet, it was better than missing the whole class session. I found our class activity very thought-provoking, but I wished we discussed in more detail why we saw the pattern that was on the board. After my 3rd encounter with Todorov's Conquest of America, I am left with more notes and scribbles in my books' margins than ever. Since I did not speak up in class this week, I would like to make up by giving Todorov's book a different twist.

Todorov, at the end of his book mentions how communication allowed both explorers (Colombus and Cotres, but especially Cortes) to succeed. This is funny, because if that is the case for Western superiority- is it still working? As I mentioned couple weeks ago, when we were reading Stephenson's book, there are no more lands to conqueer- but minds. In the past, inernet was a powerful tool which could trump any internal authority (as long as you had some money to get a modem and get connected). However, some countries have cencored public internet usage, and some websites are not accessible in China and in Turkey (when I say "some," I actually mean "main arteries:" youtube, google, blogger and facebook). These countries are missing out on some communication with the rest of the world on these platforms...maybe for the better, or perhaps for the worse.

Michael Mandelbaum, in his book "The Ideas That Conquered the World" writes that "culture diffuses through voluntary means: exchange, example, imitation." He also notes that, culture might spread coercively via conquest and/or imposition. Most of us will probably agree that the conquest of America did not entail any consent from the inhibitants. However,with Columbus, story is slightly different. The exchange of gifts between the natives and the Spaniards seems a rather voluntary consequence. After all discussion in our class about measuring the level of understanding through manipulation of the other or through the desirability of the outcomes of any given interaction, I believe it's necessary to consider the cultural diffusion between the two sides -even if for a brief period of time.

On a side note, I was particularly suprised to see how a lot of people gave such low ratings to the midnight meeting story of Bradbury, where the strangers agree to disagree. I guess as westerners, or as people influenced by the west, we really expect something to follow an action-reaction dichotomy to be accountable as an interaction. However, sometimes understanding does amount to nothing. Allow me to toss out another paradox, given the popularity of the previous one: if understanding amounts to nothing then, would non-understanding lead to something? Love? Violence? Coexistence? Genocide? Fraternite? Disorientation? Orientation? Cultural exchange programs (on which I'll write about when I have more time)?

A good approach might be to distinguish between non-understanding and misunderstanding. I'm not even sure if there is an answer to the question that I am asking. I guess, understanding can kill, but that is always the easiest solution we find by not coming over the communication blocs between the self and the Other.