Issuu

UNDERGRADUATE EJOURNAL

VOLUME 5

contributors this issue Jason Cohen Faculty Director Featuring articles by Victor Zou • Ethan Johnson• Hsin-Ta Tsai • Cameron Bunker• Christopher Albert Jacques D’Silva

to publish superior examples of undergraduate humanities research from a variety of disciplines as well as intellectual approaches.

ibutors this issue Find more articles, watch in depth interviews, submit a paper, join the Apollon team and more at www.apollonejournal.org

VISIT THE WEBSITE

All work copyright by individual authors and/or illustrators.

The Lonely King Victor Zou

4-7

Legacy of the Mongol Empire Ethan Johnson

8 - 11

Outcry From Tibet Hsin-Ta Tsai

12 - 16

A Distinction Between Sense of Personal Identity and the Produced Self Cameron Bunker

17 - 23

The Paradox of Globalization Christopher Albert Jacques D’Silva

24 - 28

The Lonely King: A Comparison of Heroic and Kingly Values within Beowulf By Victor Zou

Beowulf is a classic and ancient Anglo-Saxon hero’s tale. The various monstrosities he faces define his story and character. His defeat of Grendel, his atrocious mother, and the dragon all reflect his prowess and courage as a heroic champion. But these victories also encourage the growth of ill-fated attitudes. As J. Leyerle describes, he is a hero that “follows a code that exalts indomitable will and valor in the individual.”[1] In fact, the more Beowulf grows as a heroic warrior the more independent and prideful he becomes. And yet, in the midst of this he is pushed towards taking on the role of a king, which is a role he is woefully unfit to take. To lead a people-group requires a willingness to cooperate and a humility that a Beowulfian hero is simply disinclined to have. This disconnect between both ideals is the crux of Beowulf’s journey. While Beowulf assumes both positions, there is a clear distinction between the characteristics of a successful hero and a successful king. Thus, the tale acts as a critique of a heroic culture that values pride and independence by showing the dangerous tendencies that this encourages, and what can happen when a hero is given power and responsibility.

alone.

In addition to his self-awareness, Alfred the Great was also largely successful as a king because of his willingness to work with others. By working with other learned men he reportedly attained his renowned wisdom. As Asser writes in The Life of King Alfred, “his noble nature implanted in him from his cradle a love of wisdom above all things.”[4] Alfred chased after wisdom and knowledge by inviting teachers and scholars from afar to teach him in his court. Although he was unlettered during his youth, his eagerness to learn from more knowledgeable men quickly transformed him into a wise king. More evidence of Alfred’s willingness to cooperate can be found in the preface of his translation of Gregory’s Pastoral Care.[5] This preface, along with the translated text, was directed and sent to holders of ecclesiastical office throughout his kingdom. In the preface, he calls attention to the rapid decline of literacy in England, and urges church leaders to take action against it by renewing the teaching of English and Latin to the laypeople. Again, this points towards Alfred’s tendencies towards teamwork and synergy as he calls for his subjects to join him on his mission against Before we examine Beowulf’s character, it is important that illiteracy. Looking at these examples, it is no wonder that the we begin in a proper Anglo-Saxon context of leadership, Anglo-Saxons respected Alfred greatly. He was not a lonely and specifically kingship. By having an example of an ideal crusader trying to tackle problems by himself, but rather, leader, we will be able to compare and contrast attributes he is excellent example of a leader who made use of his more effectively. Thus, I have chosen to use the historical resources and worked with others as a team. character of Alfred the Great as an example of the ideal Anglo-Saxon king. I have chosen him as he was widely With this framework in mind, we can begin to analyze the regarded as a wise and successful ruler, and was certainly characteristics of Beowulf and examine how he matches up one of the most celebrated kings in Anglo-Saxon history.[2] against the idea qualities of an Anglo-Saxon king. Beowulf The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle outlines much of Alfred’s rule begins with the protagonist portrayed as an ideal heroic and actions, and provides a wealth of history that can be figure. He sails from his native lands in order to help defend used for interpretation. One of the most crucial points of his an allied leader, Hrothgar, from a monster named Grendel kingship was the decision to retreat from an overwhelming that is stalking his lands. But alongside his immense courage Danish army in A.D. 878[3]. Alfred was in the town of and strength, his actions demonstrate this prideful attitude. Chippenham when an enemy army took the town by A prime example takes shape in Beowulf’s response to surprise. Although Alfred could have tried to stay and fight Unferth’s provocations. Unferth is a warrior under the service with the rest of his forces, his actions here demonstrate that of Hrothgar, and gives him a rather cold welcome shortly he is conscious of the importance of a king. If Alfred fell after his arrival. After Unferth belittles Beowulf by reminding here, the Anglo-Saxons would have been leaderless and him of his loss in a swimming competition, Beowulf tries to at a severe disadvantage. Instead of attempting a heroic defend himself by spinning a tale about how he encountered but possibly unwise attack, Alfred retreated and regrouped sea-monsters and had to slay them. Though Beowulf may his armies, ultimately defeating or neutralizing most of the have been telling the truth, the legitimacy of his defense is foreign threat. Alfred’s decision suggests that he understands arguable, as many scholars have noted.[6] It is a rather his importance as a king to the Anglo-Saxons, and knows extraordinary claim, however it is simply a case of Beowulf’s that some situations are too dangerous for him to undertake word against Unferth’s as he tries to defend his reputation.

Also, Beowulf’s response to Unferth includes a sweeping judgment of the Danish people. “He [Grendel] knows he can trample down you Danes / to his heart’s content, humiliate and murder / without fear of reprisal,” he claims. (BW 695) Beowulf follows up with a claim of his own, “he will find me different. / I will show him how Geats shape to kill.” (BW 601) While mocking the Danes for their inability to solve their own problems, he simultaneously claims himself to be the solution to their misery. Whether or not this is true is beside the point: the strong language used shows just how self-confident Beowulf is. This encounter with Unferth is one of the first examples of Beowulf’s burgeoning pride. After Beowulf defeats Grendel and his mother it seems that Hrothgar no longer views pride as an admirable quality in Beowulf. His tone changes drastically now that Beowulf could become a king in the future. He cannot condone prideful behavior in Beowulf because it would be unbecoming of a king. This is evidenced by Hrothgar’s sermon to him, where he directly says, “do not give way to pride.” (BW 1760) Firstly, this statement implies that Beowulf was prideful in the past, and that Hrothgar observed this. There would be no point in correcting Beowulf for an attribute he did not have. Secondly, Hrothgar’s quick change in attitude toward pride reinforces the division between expectations of kings and heroic warriors. Hrothgar first tells the story of Heremod, a king that was “eminent and powerful and marked … from the start / for a happy life,” (BW 1717-1718) but ended up bringing about the destruction of his people. Hrothgar further describes him as a man who “vented his rage on men he caroused with, / killed his own comrades,” and was “a pariah king / who cut himself off from his own kind.” (BW 1713-1715) In the end, Heremod is blamed for refusing to honor his people with wealth, and for becoming increasingly bloodthirsty. In many ways, he is very similar to Beowulf, and acts as a foreshadowing of his future tragedies. Beowulf is, like Heremod, naturally blessed with great strength and a position of power as the son of King Ecgtheow. He is also pariah of sorts, as he maintains his sense of heroic independence even after he becomes a king. This is best exemplified in his last battle with the fire-dragon, which he chooses to fight alone. Lastly, Beowulf also brings about his nation’s downfall when he sacrifices himself to kill the dragon. Without an heir or designated regent, the Geats are leaderless and more vulnerable than ever. With all of these striking similarities,

it can be safe to argue that Heremod’s story is meant to be a warning for Beowulf. Hrothgar presents Heremod as an example of behavior to avoid when it comes to kingship.

has continued to carry his old pride and independence with him, even up until this point. The formal boast he gives to his personal compliment of warriors is also highly indicative of this, as he plainly states, “as king of the people I shall pursue Hrothgar’s sermon to Beowulf also reveals a great deal this fight / for the glory of winning.” (BW 2351) Here, he about the tradition of kings. In addition to Heremod’s tragic blatantly admits that one of his main reasons for fighting is story, Hrothgar also shares his own past. He talks about how for the glory of it. Again, this type of behavior is reminiscent he “ruled the Ring-Danes’ country / for fifty years, defended of Beowulf’s heroic character. He’s fighting for himself, and them in wartime / with spear and sword.” (BW 1769-1771) he displays a great pride by deciding to fight alone. Out of his successes came a self-confidence and arrogance, as he admitted “I came to believe / my enemies had faded Beowulf’s dismissal of his personal guard is also a key from the face of the earth.” (BW 1772-1773) But with recurring example of his sweeping self-confidence. After he Grendel’s attacks, his fortunes and pride were completely gives his formal boast, he tells them to “remain here on the reversed and he was put at the monster’s mercy. Coupled barrow, / safe in your armour … This fight is not yours, / with Heremod’s story, a pattern emerges that portrays pride nor is it up to any man except me / to measure his strength as a tragic and damning flaw within kings. Both stories against the monster / or to prove his worth. I shall win the include how pride was a handicapping and undesirable gold / by my courage.” (BW 2356) This is not the first time attribute for kings, and point towards a tradition of pride as Beowulf has done this. When facing Grendel’s mother, he a ruinous thing to have. chooses to fight by himself as well, despite having a band of warriors that had journeyed with him for the purpose of After his victory over Grendel and his monstrous dame, helping him fight. While that previous choice to fight alone Beowulf’s vanity and sense of independence continue to might certainly considered to be foolish, the decision to fight grow. Soon after he returned to his home country, Hygelac the dragon alone proves to be catastrophic. Beowulf is no would fall in battle and Beowulf would fill his throne. As longer simply a warrior when he fights his last battle – he is King, the poem records his rule as rather bloody. Beowulf a king with a responsibility to his people. Recognizing this, led the Geats to a “comfortless campaign when he killed one of the warriors that accompanies him named Wiglaf Onela,” who was responsible for the death of Hygelac. (BW bewails the fact that “when the worst happened / too few 2476) Furthermore, he is noted to have “had survived / rallied around the prince.” (BW 2890) Beowulf’s insistence every extreme, excelling himself / in daring and in danger.” to fight alone continues an ongoing pattern in his behavior, (BW 2478) Even after he takes on the role of a king, Beowulf reflecting how his heroic pride and independence severely is still trying to act like a hero by putting himself in battles handicapped him in his last battle, and may have even cost and dangerous extremes. This is a dangerous gamble as a him his life. king, since Beowulf is now the heart of the Geatish people. If he dies, they would die leaderless, especially since he However, it would also seem reasonable to consider whether has no offspring to inherit his throne. This outcome is fully Beowulf actually feels prideful, or is merely posturing. Several realized in Beowulf’s last battle with the dragon. statements made by Beowulf seem to support this, such as the farewell he gives before leaving to fight Grendel’s mother. One of the last, and arguably most convincing examples of He says, “if I should fall / and suffer death while serving Beowulf’s ego is provided right before and after he goes to your cause … If this combat kills me, take care of my young fight the fire-dragon. Before the fatal battle, the poet directly company, my comrades in arms.” (BW 1487-1481) Here, addresses Beowulf, explaining that “the prince of the rings Beowulf’s words seem to stem from a genuine fear of death, [Beowulf] was too proud / to line up with a large army which would not be the case if he were wholly confident in / against the sky-plague. He had scant regard / for the his ability. While this may be the case, there is no denying dragon as a threat, no dread at all.” (BW 2340) The poet that there is an underlying expectation of heroes. This can goes on to explain that Beowulf’s confidence stemmed from be seen clearly in the reaction that Beowulf’s audience gives. the great number of battles he had fought, including his Immediately after his boasts, Hrothgar is recorded as being fights with Grendel and his mother. This shows that Beowulf gladdened, and affirms his trust in Beowulf’s ability. (BW

605-610) This reaction is quite unexpected, since Beowulf’s broad insult towards the Danes was targeted towards his vassal warriors, and indirectly insults Hrothgar himself as the leader of the Danes. Thus, it can be inferred from Hrothgar’s acceptance that attributes of pride and arrogance may have been socially expected qualities in a heroic warrior. The differences between the roles of a hero and a king can be further illustrated by comparing Beowulf and Hrothgar. Hrothgar never confronts Grendel directly in battle, but deals with the problem through warrior vassals. In fact, the only real progress against the monster’s intrusions starts when Hrothgar welcomes Beowulf to fight on his behalf. This cautious behavior might seem cowardly, but could actually be a very valid strategy. From what we observed with the Geats and Beowulf, a kingdom dies when the king dies. Thus, it would make very good sense for a king to stay away from combat and leave it to his warriors. Risking his life in personal battle would not only endanger his own life, but the livelihood of his entire land as well. Hrothgar’s cautiousness opposes Beowulf’s reckless battles, particularly his last battle with the dragon. Looking at both approaches, it is demonstrably apparent that Hrothgar’s strategy triumphs. He survives the ordeal with his life and kingdom intact by reserving his strength and relying on others, while Beowulf loses everything because he constantly risks death on the frontlines of battle. With the end of tale, we can see how the character of Beowulf critiques the heroic culture of arrogance and independence, as demonstrated by his tragic rise from a heroic warrior to kingship. The dangers of pride are summed up quite well by Hrothgar, who warned Beowulf by saying, “For a brief while your strength is in bloom / but it fades quickly; and soon there will follow / illness or the sword to lay you low … and death will arrive, / dear warrior, to sweep you away.” (BW 1768) A truly effective leader, from the angle of Beowulf and from the example of Alfred the Great, is not simply a particularly skillful warrior. Otherwise, the nation’s fate will be reliant on a single person, which would put them in a very precarious situation should that person succumb to injury or death. True nation building and leadership requires a willingness to cooperate and delegate authority.

NOTES

[1] Leyerle, Medium Aevum, pg. 89 [2] Asser, The Life of King Alfred, [3] Trans. Ingram, J. H. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Echo Library, 2009. Print. [4] Asser, The Life of King Alfred, pg. 8 [5] Alfred, Pastoral Care, pg. 2-3 [6] Hughes, G. (1977). Beowulf, unferth and hrunting: An interpretation. English Studies: A Journal of English Language and Literature, 58, 385395.

REFERENCES [1] Leyerle, J. “Beowulf the Hero and the King.” Medium Aevum 34 (1965): 89. ProQuest. 28 Jan. 2014. [2] Asser. The Life of King Alfred. Trans. Simon Keynes. London: Penguin Books, 2004. Print. [3] Trans. Ingram, J. H. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Echo Library, 2009. Print. [4] Gregory. Pastoral Care. Trans. Alfred. Print. [5] Hughes, Geoffrey. “Beowulf, Unferth and Hrunting: An Interpretation.” English Studies: A Journal of English Language and Literature 58 (1977): 385-95. ProQuest. 28 Jan. 2014.

Legacy of the Mongol Empire: The Last Great Age of the Silk Road By Ethan Johnson

Acts of war fuel change—changes in foreign and domestic relations, changes in politics, and most often changes in national boundaries. The conquests of Genghis Khan in the 12th and 13th centuries C.E. absorbed such boundary lines into the Mongol Empire, extending his rule from the steppes of Mongolia to the eastern shores of the Black Sea. His reign over such a vast expanse of land and large collection of people was due to his strict military leadership, paired with a powerful army to carry out his will. At the head of his army was a handful of generals who answered to him directly, and obediently followed his orders. These men played a major part in many of the Khan’s conquests, but most importantly in conquering the Khwarezmian Empire.[1] The Khan’s victory in Khwarezm, which one of the largest kingdoms to fall during Mongolian westward expansion, created stability that would keep the Silk Road alive throughout Mongol rule and allow the empire to become the last great patron of Silk Road trade. By exploring first the offense that led to the war, understanding the trade atmosphere before Mongol invasion, then evaluating the state of restored trade, and finally tracking the decline of Silk Road trade after Mongol rule, we are led into an ongoing debate concentrated on the long-term impact of Mongol rule on the Silk Road. On the one hand, there is the wasteland left in the path of the Mongol army. On the other hand, there is the economic stability of a unified nation that allowed locals to manage their own economies.[2] While the Mongol army undoubtedly wrought destruction to resistors, the Khan and his generals worked quickly to restore, and gradually increase, economic stability that would keep the Silk Road alive--thus making the Khan’s empire the last great patron of Silk Road trade. Warring with the West The Khan initially had no interest in conquering the neighbouring, strange land in the west known as the Khwarezm Empire—he was only seeking a trade agreement that would protect his people traveling between the two nations, and reopen trade routes closed for nearly three centuries. With the lure of artisans and merchants that carried prestigious goods,—most of which were from agrarian societies—the Khan also sought to foster trade that would be mutually beneficial to both empires. [3] By establishing this agreement, the Khan could restore the connection between the Central Asia and China, which was cut off after the fall of the Tang Empire. Skeptical of the newly forged power from the east

who had conquered his Kara-Khitain neighbors, Shah Mohammed II of Khwarezm accepted this trade agreement.[4] With a solid foundation of trade lain from Inner Mongolia into Central Asia, the Silk Road was traveled at a frequency not seen since the peak of the Tang Empire.

pay for his transgressions with his crown and empire. The Mongol troops flooded the Silk Road, their primary point of access to the west, causing chaos that caused momentary destabilization but later opened the entirety of the Kwarezm Empire to trade with the Far East.

The skill and determination of the Mongol generals commanding the Khan’s army resolved the war with a massive victory within only a few years. One by one, the Khwarezmian cities fell at the hands of the Mongols. First to fall was the city of Otrar, where the governor had massacred the Mongol caravan. After being taken alive, the governor met a painful demise; silver was poured in his eyes and ears until he perished. [10] Next to fall were the cities of Kojend and Jend, major cities in the east. Hearing of the fall of Jend, Shah Muhammed sent 50,000 troops from Samarkand to meet Jebe and his cavalry before they could reach Transoxianan ground. Jebe and his troops overtook their enemies and pressed onward toward the Shah’s command post in the east: Samarkand. Transoxiana, Samarkand, the plain of Nasaf, Amu Darya, and the lands between them became subject to Mongol rule as they searched for the Shah. [11] The tireless militant power of the Mongol army led the Shah to be abandoned by his people, ultimately leading to the defeat of the Kwarizmian state. The Shah died on January 10, 1221 of pleurisy, spending his last days in poverty.[12] With most of the land ravaged and the natives without a resident leader, Genghis Khan placed Khwarezm in the hands of military governors and prepared to leave. The western lands were, therefore, under Mongol rule, and With the trade agreement shattered, there were no goods a newly forged peace was restored along the Silk Road. flowing between the west and the east: only soldiers. The Growth from this peace was lucrative; Muslim merchants Khan rallied his forces in order to seek revenge, “His arrow began trading so heavily that goods flowed freely from the messengers were dispatched in all directions to summon half northern reaches of the Yellow Sea to the oasis cities in the of the continent, reaching from the Altai Mountains to the Yel- Taklamakan. low Sea, for a campaign of vengeance.”[8] The Great Khan called on his nation of soldiers to confront the Shah, who Restored Trade and Trade in New Lands had chosen war over commerce. There were six leaders of these leagues of soldiers: Genghis Khan himself, the great The conquests of the Mongol Empire in the early thirteenth Subutai, the khan’s sons, Ogedei and Chagatai, and gener- century left the nomadic people with a sense of wealth and als, Jebe and Jochi. Subutai conceived the plan of attack, a taste for luxury. The Silk Road was a major provider for dividing the army of some 200,000 men into four corps of both, allowing the elite to indulge and the poor to thrive. cavalry. The first was division led by Genghis and Subutai, Silk under Mongol rule was a lucrative trade supported by the second by Ogedei and Chagatai, who would both de- their ability to impose. They established new silk factories to scend from the north, and the third and fourth led from the boost the production of silk in the newly acquired lands in south by Jebe and Jochi.[9] Their mission was clear: kill the Khwarezm, and sent Chinese silk weavers to Samarkand to governor who had committed the crime, and make the Shah work with local Muslim weavers.[13] This kind of organized

Two years after the agreement had been signed, the Shah received news from a governor of Utrar, a city that stood in modern Khiva, that there were Mongolian spies among the Mohammedan merchants trading within the city.[5] The Shah ordered them to be put to death, breaking the agreement. The governor (reportedly the Shah’s uncle) did so, and confiscated camels, silk, and other valuable goods in the caravan.[6] Only one member of the Mongolian party managed to escape the massacre by fleeing to the nearest Mongolian post—then being sent directly to the Khan. The Khan, finding it hard to believe that the Shah ordered the murders, sent an ambassador to Samarkand to speak with the Shah and demand he turn over the corrupt governor. The Shah then beheaded the ambassador, and refused to turn over the governor—disrespecting the authority of the Khan. This was a blatant act of war, which led to the first invasion of Central Asia under Mongol rule: an act of revenge, that would kick start the crumbling of an already uneasy relationship.[7] Ultimately, this invasion had a major effect on the traffic of the Silk Road because of a temporary halt in trade between the east and the west, which would set the stage for Mongol rule across Central Asia that would support the last era of a flourishing Silk Road.

technical training allowed the Silk Road to flourish like never before, opening more routes along the road and catering to a broader array of travelers. After the western lands were laid to waste, the Mongol empire was able to build infrastructure that could make travel on the Silk Road easier. This infrastructure and desire for luxury goods, both the result of conquest, would give the Silk Road the staying-power it needed to outlast the Mongol Empire—though it fell to a more lucrative maritime trade shortly thereafter. The most highly sought commodity on the Mongol Silk Road was cloth-of-gold. It represented power and wealth, as it was used as draperies in palace tents of the elite and worn as clothing during grand festivals.[14] It served as a symbol of wealth, which the Mongol elite had grown accustomed to after fifty years of cross-continental reign. They would hold massive festivities, celebrating at every opportunity, but this luxury good had to be produced and moved across the Silk Road to reach wealthy Mongols in north-western Asia. This lust for precious foreign products was a driving force for Mongol expansion. As these precious goods were traded across Eurasia, so were localized goods that came with religious and ethnic minorities. Tracking this trade signifies the reach of the Mongol empire; as the Silk Road flourished and expanded, so did their reach. Under the leadership of Ogedei, the Mongol Empire had expanded as far east as Hungary by 1257 C.E., with the trade network reaching as far as Italy. The poor and the elite were able to benefit from Mongol expansion, as most of those subjugated by the Mongol Empire enjoyed exotic luxury goods, gold, and the finest silk. The merchants on the Silk Road provided a crucial service for the Mongols, allowing gold, silver, and their spoils of war to be exchanged for goods the Mongols really wanted, such as silk and clothof-gold.[15] Were it not for the merchants—most of which were Muslims engaged in small scale commerce—these goods could not have made it so far. To ensure the safety of its merchant partners, the Mongol Empire had to maintain, and often restore, oasis cities they had recently destroyed. In the arid western reaches of the Mongol Empire, agrarian societies depended heavily on irrigation systems, previously destroyed by Subutai’s troops.[16] The only way to support these systems and reestablish trade was to rebuild the wartorn cities. After these cities were rebuilt, silk factories were erected while Chinese and Muslim weavers began learning one another’s technique for cloth making. These cloth mak-

ers brought in more merchants, and nurtured the growth of the Silk Road as new routes opened to sell goods throughout the end of the thirteenth century. Without these merchants seeking wares for their Mongol counterparts, trade on the Silk Road would have slowed dramatically.

stroy” campaigns against other oasis cities and worsened, in many cases, the damage done by Genghis Khan, only partly repaired thereafter. “Cities were depopulated, fields and orchards dried up, and the Silk Road trade never recovered.”[18] He reduced any opposing city to rubble, and crippled foreign relations with his neighbors. Even when the The Mongols had to rebuild Samarkand in the same way Ming Dynasty took control of East Asia in the latter half of they had to rebuild cities closer to the central empire, but the fourteenth century, the Silk Road was unable to rise from more was at stake with this city of commerce because of its the destruction left my Tamerlane. The Ming, still very aware link with European trade. The importance of Samarkand as of the pain caused by the tyrant ruler, turned its politics ina trade city is paramount, considering it served as a gate- ward and shut out the rest of the world. way to the western trade routes on the Silk Road. When the rebuilding process began, the Mongol empire relied heav- Tamerlane’s conquests were incredibly destructive, burning ily on preexisting systems of economic support. The com- cities and leaving economies crippled, but he did leave a plex irrigation systems in Samarkand, established during the glimmer of hope seated in the west. Trade in the city of Saearly Middle Ages, took a major hit during Genghis Khan’s markand reached its height during his reign, proving Monconquest of the Khwarezm Empire, but were slowly rebuilt gol influence on Silk Road trade routes. A slow rebuilding throughout the reign of his Mongol predecessors. These re- from the ruin by his predecessors had left Tamerlane with the built irrigation systems boosted the small agrarian economy, right to rebuild Samarkand at his own discretion. He: reduced disease, and made the city more appealing to Silk Road travelers.[17] Samarkand’s merchants, the Sogdians, Gave orders...that a street should be built to pass right were another column of economic support during the re- through Samarkand, which should have shops opened on building period. Their commercial interests in trade and either side of it in which every kind of merchandise should their well-established connections with merchants in the west be sold, and this new street was to go from one side of the made them an indispensable resource for rebuilding the oa- city through to the other side, traversing the heart of the sis city, and boosted trade even after Mongol ruin. With township.[19] trade beginning to regenerate in Samarkand and other oasis cities under Mongol reconstruction, the Silk Road entered Tamerlane rebuilt much like Khubilai and Ogedei had, its last great age. boosting the local economy by erecting shops and drawing merchants to the oasis cities that had been destroyed. SaDecline of the Silk Road markand was the final outpost of trade on the Silk Road for the Mongols, but its trade could not support the weight of a The decline of a nation most often comes with a great defeat, crumbling empire. whether it be economic, political, or in warfare. After the death of Ogedei, a new Khan was chosen. Khubilai Khan, Conclusions nephew of Ogedei and grandson of Genghis, reigned much like his predecessors: conquering multiple foreign lands. His The rise, prosperity, and decline of the Mongol Empire was most notable conquest was that of the Southern Song Dy- interlocked with that of the Silk Road. Under mostly Mongol nasty, which reigned south of the Yellow River Valley. His control, the Silk Road saw moments of chaos during wars synthesized politics, which were meant to appeal to the with western nations. Although conquest was not Genghis Chinese as well, opened the floor for leadership of a new Khan’s initial intent, he had a responsibility as a leader to government based on Mongol rule. The Yuan Dynasty and a take the crown of Shah Mohammed, and punish the corrupt stable, prosperous state was the product of Khubilai’s reign. members of the Shah’s government. Great generals, under After nearly seventy years of Yuan Rule, Tamerlane came to the order of the Khan, stormed the foreign land seeking venthe throne in 1360 C.E. He was one of the most ferocious geance. After discovering the vast benefits of conquest in conquers the world had seen at the time, reducing the Geng- the west, the Khan grew to believe all the land under the hisid to nothing more than figureheads. He led “kill-and-de- sky should be unified under one sword—his own. Peace

grew from destruction and ruin that was left in the lands in the west, and with that peace locals regained the right to trade freely. The Mongols encouraged this trade by restoring the infrastructure of destroyed cities, training people in new technical skills acquired in the west, and financing merchants. The Mongol Empire revitalized trade on the Silk Road, stretching Chinese silk as far as the shores of Italy. The global impact of the trade and conquest led by the Mongols was the last wide-spread, land-based global exchange known to mankind. It fostered in a new maritime trade that revolutionized global relations, just as the Silk Road once had done. The Mongol Empire fell in sync with trade on Silk Road, as a new dynasty came to power. The legacy of the Mongol Empire is undoubtedly riddled with complications, but it gave rise to the last great age of the Silk Road. As academics are still puzzled over the rapid development of the Mongols from a divided people to a conqueror of nations, their first step into Central Asia is a major point of disagreement. Though there were clearly moments that left central Asia in ruin, we can see that development, trade, and a stable Mongol government led the Silk Road into its last great age. NOTES [1] This empire occupied current-day Iran. It was crucial largely because of its proximity to the Aurel Sea. There are several variations on the spelling of this empire’s name, but I have elected to use the most common. [2] Xinru Liu, The Silk Road in World History (The New Oxford World History, 2010), 109. [3] Xinru Liu, The Silk Road in World History (The New Oxford World History, 2010), 114. [4] Timothy May, “Central Asia: The Mongols,” The Great Empires of Asia (University of California Press Berkley, Los Angeles,2010), 24-25. [5] Michael Prawdin, The History of the Mongol Empire (London George Allen and Unwin LTD, 1953), 155. [6] Xinru Liu, The Silk Road in World History (The New Oxford World History, 2010), 112. [7] Morris Rossabi, “The Mongols in World History: Asian Topics in World History,” [8] Michael Prawdin, The History of the Mongol Empire (London George Allen and Unwin LTD, 1953), 155. [9] James Chambers, The Devils’s Horseman: The Mongol Invasion of Europe (Antheneum New York, 1979), 9. [10] James Chambers, The Devils’s Horseman: The Mongol Invasion of Europe (Antheneum New York, 1979), 13. [11] Bertold Spuler, History of the Mongols, Based on Eastern and Western Accounts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (University of California Press, 1972), 29-39. [12] Chambers, The Devils’s Horseman: The Mongol Invasion of Europe, 16.

[13] John Masson Smith Jr.,“The Mongols and the Silk Road” [14] Smith Jr.,“The Mongols and the Silk Road” [15] Valerie Hansen, The Silk Road (Oxford University Press, 2012), 231. [16] Monks and Merchants: “The Silk Road, a Larger View.” [17] Daniel C. Waugh, “Silk Road Seattle – Samarkand” [18] “Monks and Merchants “The Silk Road, a Larger View.” [19] Daniel C. Waugh. “Silk Road Seattle – Samarkand”

REFERENCES Chambers, James. The Devils’s Horseman: The Mongol Invasion of Europe. Antheneum New York, 1979. Franke, Herbert, and Denis Twitchett. The Cambridge History of China: Volume 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907-1368. Cambridge University Press, 1994. Hansen, Valerie. The Silk Road. Oxford University Press, 2012. Liu, Xinru. The Silk Road in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Masselos, Jim. The Great Empires of Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Millward, James. Eurasain Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang. Columbia University Press New York, 2007. “Monks and Merchants | The Silk Road, a Larger View.” Monks and Merchants | Silk Road Treasures from Northwest China, Gansu and Ningxia. Prawdin, Michael. The Mongol Empire: Its Rise and Legacy. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. London George Allen and Unwin LTD, 1953. Rossabi, Morris. “The Mongols in World History | Asian Topics in World History.” Asia for Educators. Smith, Jr. John Masson. “The Mongols and the Silk Road.” The Silk Road Foundation Newsletter. Spuler, Bertold. History of the Mongols: Based on Eastern and Western Accounts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. University of California Press Berkeley and California, 1972. Waugh, Daniel C. “Silk Road Seattle – Samarkand.” Walter Chapin Simpson Center for the Humanities at the University of Washington, 2001.

Outcry from Tibet:

The Inadequacy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights By Hsin-Ta Tsai

“Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind...human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want [, which ] has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people” 1 “Some of us Tibetans were singled out and checked right away by armed police who led us at gunpoint into their courtyard” 2 Previously a theocratic nation, Tibet became a part of the People’s Republic of China after the Chinese Liberation Army set foot on Tibetan soil in 1950. Defenseless against the sophisticatedly equipped Chinese army as a religious community, Tibet was brought under the Chinese rule after the occupation mission concluded with the signing of a treaty. This official treaty, the Seventeen-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, promises Tibet “control over its cultural, economic, and domestic political affairs.”3 However, evidence from the past sixty and more years demonstrates proof to the contrary. Most significant are the human rights violations, which the Tibetan people face on a daily basis—even in the present-day. In their latest annual report, the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy points to the deteriorated human rights situation in Tibet with “laws enabling the abuses [that] targeted more people more severely.”4 Such a fact leads people to question whether the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) can be of any help in mollifying the human rights issue in Tibet. But first, should the universality of the UDHR be applied to the people of Tibet in the first place, discounting its sociocultural context? To answer this question, we have to consider the appropriateness of having some principles or a set of human rights regulations that all cultures and nations can agree upon, a rather Western cosmopolitan view on international ethical issues. In cosmopolitanism, national borders are morally irrelevant because “a truly moral rule or code will be applicable to everyone.”5 However, it raises concerns knowing that most of the debates about international ethics come from Western traditions of moral theory.6 The inclusion of Dr. Peng-Chun Chang of the then Republic of China, who was arguably the only non-Western leader in the UDHR drafting committee, did have its effect (though limited) on balancing the representative diversity of this overarching documentation. This is particularly true when Dr. Chang was known to be proactive in bringing

Chinese values onto the predominantly Western discussion table. The UDHR was, in fact, the post-war product of the Second World War experience and was mainly intended to respond to the horrific history of the German Holocaust. As one of its prime historical significances, the Holocaust awakens concerns about human rights issues at an international level, giving birth to, for example, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Leaders of the post Second World War era, including non-Western powers, then began signing on to various efforts that ensure world peace. That said, the intolerance of mass atrocities in our highly globalized contemporary society should be clear— but is it so in the case of Tibet? In this paper, the effectiveness of the internationally drafted UDHR is examined using the case of Tibet to advance the understandings of and to press the awareness of human rights violation in Tibet. In particular, this is also a study of the impact of globalization on Tibetan human rights issues that involves intricate relationships between politics, economics, and societies at an international and national level.

Nevertheless, as history progresses and efforts to create “solutions” for post-war issues continue, have we, as a globalized society, truly manifested the essence of what we came up with collectively after all these decades? Careful scrutiny of the situation in Tibet, unfortunately, provides unpleasant answers. As a direct outcome of the Chinese incursion, it is estimated that “nearly 1.2 million out of about 6 million [Tibetan people] died through armed conflict and famine; large numbers of Tibetan children were forcibly taken from their families and sent to Chinese orphanages for ‘reeducation.’”8 Even today, more than sixty years since China “liberated” Tibet with armed force, Tibetan people’s demands for basic human rights are incarnated via drastic forms of protest with self-immolation being the most noticeable as it has claimed the lives of over a hundred Tibetans since 2009. Former communications consultant of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and experienced journalist and researcher on Tibetan affairs, Maura Moynihan once puzzled:

“There appears to be a collective global amnesia about Communist China’s Crimes against humanity, past and present. Mao Zedong killed at least 60 million people The Tibetan Human Rights Issue at an International Level— -some studies put the number at 80 million. Mao’s police the Role of Bystanders state routinely tortures and murders its subject peoples for the crime of ‘counterrevolutionary thought’. The students of As an interesting parallel to Tibetan human rights issues, Tiananmen were punished for seeking democracy, Tibetans the Holocaust is hard to avoid when discussing the topic of for practicing the Buddhist faith. No one would think of international human rights, given that it spawned epochal, walking into a party in New York or New Delhi wearing a international-level documents in this field unseen before the Hitler T-shirt, but it is chic to sport an image of Mao Zedong Second World War. The prominent Holocaust scholar Raul (fig. 1), one of history’s greatest brutes. Why?”9 Hilberg stressed the ordinariness and bureaucracy of the Jewish genocide, arguing it was put together by “German Inescapably, the extreme self-immolation protests were also society, its ministries, armed forces [the private armies], party the result of global obliviousness toward what has been formations, and industry” and that “no organized element happening in Tibet. The first and most telling petition was of German society was entirely uninvolved.”7 A further step drafted by the 10th Panchen Lama (Tibet’s second highest can be taken in regards to the accountability issue and the Lama) in 1962. This document revealed a diverse set of possibility of an indirect and shared involvement from the historically significant points, amongst which Professor Robert rest of the world, for the first few large- scale killings of the Barnett from Columbia University argued, “the Chinese Jews were made internationally known through major news policy system had moved to almost blind attack on Tibetans publications. How did communities worldwide respond to that it suspected of being dissident or being un-loyal.” More the “known” Jewish massacre? The infamous appeasement recently, since the internal demand for religious and social policy of, the then British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain freedom turned into a large-scale protest in 2008, brought is a good example for demonstrating how the Nazi power about by hope that the Olympic Games held by China that was essentially acting with consent from other world powers. year could potentially draw the world’s attention to extreme

issues occurring on the Mainland, more Tibetans have risked their lives in street protests. However, those daring individuals were met with imprisonment, beatings, death, or “disappearance” (being filed as missing persons). It is the unresponsive outside world, unfruitful petitions outside and within the Chinese system, and the long-term systematic annihilation of the local culture, religion, politics, and society at the hands of Chinese authorities that transformed the Tibetan struggle into a new radical form.10 From a panoramic view, the international community fails to be more ethically conscious—but why does it fail? Is it so hard to negotiate with China about applying the most fundamental human rights to its people? Though complex, the answer is a definite yes. The most intuitive reason is the concern of economics. China has successfully positioned itself as the “factory of the world.” It is nearly impossible to avoid products made in China. The cheap labor, overall lower production costs, as well as the astonishingly large market are appealing factors for profitdriven businesspeople to support the bosses in Beijing. This unique dependency relationship between China and the rest of the world then formed, unintentionally, a group of financially influential apologists for the Chinese Communists. In fact, Chinese exports to major markets around the world, particularly the developed states, suggest China’s influential role in the global economic system, which ultimately entails the high magnitude of its influence to swing the stances of other nations regarding thorny issues. A recent manifestation of China’s strong economic influence can be found in a statement by the incumbent President of Senegal in West Africa, Macky Sall, which he made in response to rising concerns about China’s growing investment harming African democracy. In his words, “[the] cooperation with China is much more direct and faster than the cooperation we have with Western countries...I’m not saying what China is doing is better, but at least it is faster. And we need speed.”11 Additionally, as one of the focal areas, the Chinese government has taken advantage of its booming economy to invest in armaments. China is currently the third-ranked global military power according to the Global Firepower organization, which recognizes China’s “rising power along many fronts including military spending, indigenous development and production.”12 Therefore, for most parts of the world, China is not only a very profitable business partner to work with but also a powerful threat to not be

regarded lightly. The already intricate political issues, given China’s anomalous position in world politics, has been complicated by contemporary economic and military structures.

political propaganda; fortunately, his efforts were met by increasing international attention. Back in the nineties, such actions irritated the Politburo, causing them to implement the infamous “Strike Hard Campaign,” which proclaimed Buddhism “a disease to be eradicated.”15 Aside from the One might argue that the Chinese government might benefit well-respected religious leader, who the Chinese officials from an emphasis on human rights protection and cultural once labeled as a counterrevolutionary bandit and an preservation in Tibet. This is a legitimate conjecture, which incestuous murderer, China is also reluctant to “divest much requires us to look through the lens of China, a shift in this of its control over [natural resources] and development in paper from an international level to a national level Tibet.”16 China considers Tibet a “vast, virgin frontier of lumber, water and minerals, including some of the world’s The Tibetan Human Rights Issue at a National Level—What largest uranium deposits (an ideal source of concentrated does China Fear energy, like nuclear power).”17 It is made clear that Beijing prioritizes its extractive institution in Tibet to serve the nation’s So what good does it bring to the Chinese government if they industrial base rather than focusing on the preservation sit down to settle the Tibetan case with His Holiness the Dalai of Tibetan cultural identity. In addition, there is also an Lama through peaceful reconciliation? One might argue that increased voice arguing that the rather rhetorical approach they will have a better national reputation in the international of peaceful reconciliation cannot compete with the emphasis arena. Unquestionably, this is what the Chinese politburo on more pragmatic developments, such as the betterment of considers an important diplomatic strategy, particularly local infrastructure. within recent years. Perhaps feeling a certain degree of anxiety regarding its neighbors’ increasing powers, Beijing This very point was raised again in 2012 during an open has been extra cautious handling its relationship with other forum at the University of Minnesota’s Law School between nations. China’s relatively more peaceful and open-minded Chinese students and the Prime Minister of the Tibetan tactics concerning Cross-Strait relationships with Taiwan Government in Exile, Dr. Lobsang Sangay. When a Chinese in recent years reflects this point. Moreover, a peaceful student stressed the point that the Chinese government has reconciliation with the Dalai Lama can help China preserve brought immense improvement to Tibet’s infrastructure and the long-standing Tibetan heritage and rich history, because further questioned Dr. Sangay about what he can do for Tibet all that the Dalai Lama has asked for is “[allowing] the Tibetan if it were to be administered by him, Dr. Sangay responded people a measure of self-governance and non- interference by implying the “development” aspect is, in fact, irrelevant. in religion and culture.”13 At some level, this will also help He used Hong Kong as an example to illustrate the point that China develop the region as it opens arms to embrace it was eventually returned to the Chinese communist regime international tourists and scholars interested in that part of after transforming from a fishing village to one of the most the Mainland—a soft power of great strength to promote its developed regions under British control.18 The Chinese economy, reputation and diplomatic relationships, drawing government disregarded the development brought by the true proponents who are, for example, scholastic and non British government and insisted that Hong Kong be returned or less exploitative in nature. Then what keeps China from because “it was theirs.”19 However, was the economic taking the peaceful actions and what is it afraid of? development even a concern or desire for the Tibetan people or would they prefer other means to measure their The Dalai Lama’s extraordinary role as an influential leader own quality of life? We should also bear in mind the social and “living symbol of the Buddhist faith” would certainly discriminatory policies that are still in place within Tibet. It be a threat to the Chinese cadres as they “fear his moral is true that living standards in Tibet have improved (after authority and do not want the international community sacrificing so much of the priceless culture and immeasurable to examine their record in Tibet, because they have a lot rights); however, the improvement benefits mostly the Han to hide.”14 Indeed, when the Dalai Lama began acting Chinese people residing in Tibet rather than local Tibetans. through writings, he uncovered numerous atrocities In Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, 70% of businesses are owned or underneath China’s “Peaceful Liberation of Tibet” and their run by Han Chinese people; more than 30%

of the local communist party members are Han Chinese; and according to the Chinese government, 92% of the people in Tibet are local Tibetans.20 In other words, 8% of the Han Chinese population essentially controls the majority of the Tibetan people. This control has produced unequal hourly wages and unfair employment opportunities between the two ethnic groups. Let us also not forget the unique geographical location of China. Throughout Chinese history, different names have emerged to describe the special location of the Mainland, which demonstrates the rather egocentric attitude of the Chinese authority. The most typical titles are the Central Plain (中原) and later the Celestial Empire (天朝), both of which have their literal and metaphorical meanings of the idea that China is at the center of the world. Geographically speaking, these ideas can still be relevant. The Tibetan Plateau is a part of the Mainland that boarders Burma, India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Kashmir, and which “contributes to security tensions in South Asia.”21 Tibet’s geographic location provides gargantuan incentives regarding military and national security issues for Beijing to secure its “central” position in Asia. At a national level, the Tibetan human rights issue is not of great interest to the Politburo. China fears that the possible influences of the Dalai Lama will attract too much international attention in Tibet, which slows down their economic exploitation work in Tibet. Moreover, they are more concerned about their monopolistic ownership of major resources in Tibet. The impact of globalization, to a large degree, seems to make the situation in Tibet even more detrimental as Beijing continues to profit and advance its national economy under today’s global economic system; and with that, boosting their military power to take full advantage of Tibet’s distinct geographical location. The fact that Tibet is firmly under the communist party’s control also makes it easier for Beijing to carry on, often mysteriously, its systematic annihilation and tactical planning in Tibet even today. Concluding Remarks After exploring core obstacles that stand in the way of Tibetan human rights development, our first question— Should the cosmopolitan view of having a set of human rights acts be applicable to Tibet?—is easily answered.

Yes, absolutely; especially when the UDHR stresses the points of non-violence and the elimination of inhumane treatment to any person regardless of “the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”22 There is no significant conflict between the human rights acts and Tibet’s local cultures—particularly after accounting for the large-scale genocidal project the Politburo has undertaken in Tibetan land. Hence, theoretically, it seems more than appropriate to finally start implementing the universal rights document in Tibet. Nevertheless, here is where the most fundamental question chimes in—how can it be done, practically speaking? We have explored the tangled political and economic facets of China, which seemingly yields little room for the human rights issue to be settled in Tibet. It is thus more important to realize that the Tibetan issue cannot be solved if external forces remain silent. It is imperative to understand that an official document made internationally should also be enforced internationally. As author Moynihan stressed: “This is not just a fight for Tibet. This is a fight...for the human right, and the civil right, and the political right, religious right of the world.”23 Unfortunately, as, arguably, the strongest and most influential power in the world, the United States seems to live up more to its capitalist pursuits than all its idealist chants and campaigns on equality. The United States made its priority clear when the former U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said in her visit to China in 2009, in response to a call for a deeper bilateral partnership, that “[o]ur pressing on those issues (human rights, Taiwan and Tibet) can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises.”24 This remark made Amnesty International feel “shocked and extremely disappointed,” leading them to think “[By] commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton [damaged] future US initiatives to protect those rights in China.”25 Further, the Human Rights Watch also said Mrs. Clinton sent the wrong message to China when her remarks “point to a diplomatic strategy that has worked well for the Chinese government—separating human rights issues into a deadend ‘dialogue’ of the deaf.”26 Interestingly enough, today’s antiterrorism and counterterrorism actions are largely concentrated in the Middle East

or the Arabic World when the combination of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao has been classified as, in the words of an Oxford historian, “the most murderous form of terrorism.”27 How can the international attention turn away from Mao’s dreadful legacies that still live in Tibetan land today? More should be done by governments, private sectors, and communities worldwide to negotiate with the Chinese government to ensure the rights, and most importantly, the lives of the Tibetan people are being protected. They deserve to be granted basic human rights for their freedom of religion and social welfare and not to be forced to buy into the capitalist idea of “development.” It is difficult for Tibetans to appreciate the roads and bridges built under the planning of the Chinese regime while facing the demolition of more than six thousandmonasteries, the centers of their spiritual, political, and educational lives. In fact, by 1962 when the 10th Penchant Lama drafted the petition, Professor Barnett estimated that more than 95% of the monasteries were closed and the monks were forced to leave.28 In the words of the former president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, “[p]ublic ceremonies, theatrical commitments, and magic incantation, even of human rights, do not bring justice. Justice must be made by people in their background vocabularies, each time for the first time.”29 The UDHR should at least ensure China can no longer continue its series of atrocities in Tibet with acquiescence from the rest of the world. Otherwise, how oblivious and hypocritical are we as “global citizens” living in this international community that we allow yet another large-scale genocide to proceed while at the same time condemning the Third Reich so harshly that we build museums, publish countless books, and globally acknowledge the ludicrous wrongdoing of the Holocaust? REFERENCES [1] United Nations, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” The universal declaration of human rights, accessed July 13, 2013, http:// www.un.org/en/documents/udhr [2] Anonymous, “Burning Minds,”Tibetan Bulletin: The Official Journal of the Central Tibetan Administration 17, no. 1 (2013): 23-24, http:// tibet.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Tibbul-Jan-Feb-2013.pdf

[3] Voice of America, “Fire in the Land of Snow: a Documentary on Self-Immolations in Tibet,” Voice of America, assessed August 11, 2013, http://www.voatibetanenglish. com/media/video/1676490.html.

[4] Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy. 2014 Annual Report: Human Rights Situation in Tibet (Online: Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, 2014) 5. [5] John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 198.

[18] Lobsang Sangay, “Lobsang Sangay with Chinese Students Q&A,” Tibetan Prime Minister Dr. Lobsang Sangay in an Open Forum with UMN Students, The University of Minnesota Law School, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/ watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e_2ffCqPCKE. [19] Ibid. [20] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 198.

[21] Moynihan, Occupied Tibet.

[7] Raul Hilberg, “The Bureaucracy of Annihilation” in Unanswered Questions: Nazi Germany and the Genocide of the Jews, ed. Francois Furet (New York: Schocken, 1989), 120 -121.

[22] United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[8] Maura Moynihan, “Genocide in Tibet,” Washington Post, January 25, 1998. [9] Maura Moynihan, “Thanks to India, Tibet Has Not Been Entirely Forgotten,” Bharata Bharati (blog), April 6, 2013, http;//bharatabharati.wordpress.com/thanksto-india-tibet-has-not-entirely-been-forgotten-mauramoynihan/?. [10]

Voice of America, Fire in the Land of Snow

[11] Macky Sall, interview by Stuart Reid, “Africaʼs Turn,” Foreign Affairs 92, no. 5 (2013) htttp:// foreignaffairs. com/discussions/interviews/africas-turn? cid=soc-twitter-in-discussions-africas_turn-1007 [12] Global Firepower, Global Firepower Ranking, 2012, accessed July 10, 2013, http://global firepower.com/ [13] Maura Moynihan, “What China Fears,” Washington Post, April 30, 1997. [14] Maura Moynihan, “Afraid of the Dalai Lama,” Washington Post, October 18, 2007. [15]

Ibid.

[16]

Ibid.

[17] Maura Moynihan, “The Strategic Importance of Occupied Tibet,” Washington Post, August 21, 1998.

[23] Maura Moynihan, “Tibet & the Rights of the World: Maura Moynihan,” Tibetan Independence Torch New York City, 2008, http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=mIGm3OITzto. [24] British Broadcast Corporation, “Clinton Urges Stronger China Ties,” BBC News, February 21, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7903026.stm. [25] Tibetan Review, “US to Talk, Not Act, on Human Rights, Tibet with China,” Tibetan Review: The Monthly Magazine on all Aspects of Tibet 44, no. 3 (2009): 14. [26] Ibid. [27] Mike Radford, “Without Rules: Terrorism Yesterday and Today” (lecture, Oxford Universityʼs History, Politics & Society Summer School, Oxford, UK, June 30 – July 20, 2013). [28] Voice of America, Fire in the Land of Snow. [29] Sari Kouvo, “A ʻQuick and Dirtyʼ Approach to Women's Emancipation and Human Rights?” Feminist Legal Studies 16, no. 1 (2008): 45, doi:10.1007/s10691-007-9077-7.

A Distinction Between Sense of Personal Identity and the Produced Self By Cameron Bunker

The self can be defined as an individual’s experience that one is a separate entity from other beings. This paper will discuss this notion of self, how it is produced linguistically, and its relation to the sense of personal identity. Several theories of the self will be analyzed so this relationship between self and personal identity can be properly defined. In their book, The Discursive Mind (1994), psychologist and philosopher Rom Harré and neuroscientist Grant Gillett argue for a theory of self. Their theory claims that through the use of language we create the self. Harré and Gillett introduce the concept of sense of personal identity; the sense of an identity that one can have of their self and of other beings. By binding this sense of personal identity through pronoun usage (e.g., I), we create an agent that we believe to be responsible for our location, our thoughts, and other mental activity through our discourse. This is the discursive production of self; one can bind the components of personal identity, and express it through discourse. My goal is to bring out the distinction between sense of personal identity and the discursively produced self. Harré and Gillett’s theory does hold limitations, a proper definition of the binding in sense of personal identity and its implications on self-production need to be recognized. This paper will feature a proper definition of the process of binding in order for Harré and Gillett’s theory to be better utilized in my goal. I will also be discussing the implications of how this process of binding is used in self-production.

for the relationship between sense of personal identity and the self to be properly defined. The Discursive Mind (1994) features a series of chapters on discursive psychology, the study of psychological phenomenon through discourse. Harré and Gillett posit the discursive method; the method focuses on how our mental states are not just reflected in our communication (96). Our mental states are understood through internally and externally perceived discourse. Discursive activities display what we think. In addition, all our thoughts can be communicated through discourse. When we think, our mind holds private thoughts, that is to say private discourse, which we can then keep to ourselves (Harré and Gillett 48-49). However, when we communicate these thoughts, they become public discourse. Those thoughts are now open to potential perceivers. Thus, by studying interactions between people, an effective examination of the human mind can understand the mental states exposed by conversational context. Harré and Gillett apply this discursive method to articulate their theory of the self. Language plays two key roles in discursive psychology (99). The first is to exhibit the discursive activities of people; discursive activities contain the mental properties of our cognition (e.g., a person that asserts p gives the observer knowledge that they believe or think p). The second being that language acts as a model for the analysis of non-linguistic expressions (e.g. facial expressions). It is vital, in the discursive method, that non-linguistic expressions be analyzed as if they were a part of language. These non-linguistic expressions can still express the mental properties of our cognition (e.g., When a person believes or thinks p we can observe their facial expression and predict, with limited accuracy, their belief or thought).

In her article, The Presence of Self in the Person: Reflexive Positioning and Personal Constructs Psychology (1997), psychologist Raya A. Jones analyses psychologist George Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory and Harrés positioning theory to posit a theory of self. Kelly’s theory posits that the self is a construct that is innate within humans while Harré’s theory sympathizes with Harré and Gillet’s theory in that the self exists only in discourse. Harré and Gillett make the assertion that people live in two worlds: the discursive and the material (99-100). The disIn addition, sense of personal identity without self-production cursive world is full of symbols and signs and is constrained needs to be examined. I will address this by discussing find- by norms (e.g., social norms such as respect of others). The ings by biopsychologist Gordon Gallup. In his article, Self- material world is the physical world. To elaborate, the mateAwareness in Primates: The Sense of Identity Distinguishes rial world is full of physical objects and is constrained by Man From Most But Perhaps Not All Other Forms of Life certain laws (e.g., gravity). Human beings can effectively (1979), Gallup discusses findings that chimpanzees have thrive in both worlds using skills they acquire. Harré and self-awareness. I will be discussing these findings in light of Gillet posit two types of skills: material and discursive. MateHarre and Gillet’s model of sense of personal identity. This rial skills are those that we use to alter our physical environpaper will analyze all of the previously listed works in order ment (e.g., physical strength). Discursive skills are those that

we use to communicate effectively and manipulate symbols (e.g., language skills). It is important to note that these two worlds do not constitute a substance dualist theory. It is a dualism of what it is objective (the material world) and how we subjectively perceive it (the discursive world that differs from culture to culture). Harré and Gillet make the assertion that they cannot simply reduce the two worlds to one another, but they do not recognize the mind or the discursive world as a mental substance (99-110). If the mind is not considered a mental substance, or if there is no mental substance at all, then how can the self exist? Harré and Gillet use arguments from language usage to provide evidence that the self is part of the discursive world; the world that does not belong to substance but its relation to substance is part of the relation of the discursive world to the material world (100-101). To clarify, the discursive world is a projection of the material world. The discursive world exists only through symbols. This is in contrast to the material world in that the material world exists physically. The self is not part of the material world but is produced from the binding of sense of personal identity. Some components that make up the sense of personal identity remain based on the objective world (e.g., sense of bodily location and time). The self is part of the discursive world in that it is created through our use of language. We can examine this concept of self from a variety of different languages. The English concept of self is difficult to translate into other languages from different cultures (Harré & Gillett 101). The Spanish phrase “Mi mismo” means the personhood of myself. It does not translate to soul or mind. The French phrase, “Moi-même,” does not translate to the meaning of self. Moimême translates to ego and the phrase is taken from Latin. It is not reflective of the Cartesian dualism that posits that the mind or self is a substance. Harré and Gillett do, however, assert that a sense of personal identity is universal and can be found in most, if not all, human cultures. These differences in cultural language use demonstrate that while a sense of personal identity is universal, the discursive production of selves will vary. We all carry the components that make up personal identity, and therefore we can make a sense of it. However, we differ in our binding of these components that allow us to have a sense of personal identity. This difference in binding of the sense of personal identity is reflected in different discursive productions of the self.

Personal identity is a topic that has been debated a great amount. By taking the discursive viewpoint, Harré and Gillett assert that we can explain personal identity and find out the ties between personal identity and the self (103). When trying to learn about someone else one might ask questions about their name, job, favorite food, hobbies, etc. What they are trying to do, Harré and Gillett maintain, is figure out the components within the target person’s sense of identity. Figuring out someone else’s sense of identity is an empirical task. It is a task based on discourse. To learn about the sense of identity of someone else, engagement in communication of some sort is required. What about figuring out one’s own identity? Normally, we do not question whether or not we are the same person we were ten minutes ago or even five years ago. That would be absurd. We have a sense of identity that we can bind into a self through our memories. This sense can include any amount of the moral and social identity components that are remembered and identified with. Harré and Gillet focus on how the production of self is tied with this idea of binding of sense of personal identity (103104). They posit a hypothesis of what constitutes the sense of personal identity. There are four ways we subjectively perceive our identity. First, we have a sense of location of where we are or, in other words, a point of view. Second, we have a sense of time to which we exist moment by moment. Third, we have a sense of obligations that hold us to our relations through external forces. Lastly, we have a sense of social world in which there are statuses and reputations. Harré and Gillet take the stance that we experience ourselves as a location, not an entity, in which we perceive and act upon external beings. We are also perceived and acted upon. In order to examine the production of self through discourse we need not to examine the subjective experience of personal identity, but only the discourse that is a reflection of it. In other words, the aim of the discursive method is to observe a person’s projection of self based on their subjective sense of personal identity rather than the subjective experience itself. This projection of self can be examined through pronouns.

location and as a subject or agent of an action. We create or construct the self in our use of the word I. It binds the complete sense of personal identity to the actions and perceptions going on with the identity. Using I indexes all the four doctrines that constitute personal identity: sense of location, time, agency, and social relation. Even if the statement does not reflect a social or moral role (e.g., I see a window), I still indexes the binding of sense of personal identity. The person still includes their sense of moral and social roles in that “I.” This stream of consciousness that constitutes personal identity cannot be perceived externally due to its privacy. Harré and Gillett present British philosopher David Hume’s view: “We cannot explain the sense of personal individuality we have of ourselves, by looking into ourselves for some entity that is our self and of which all our thoughts, feelings, and so on are attributes” (Harré & Gillett 103). In order to witness an individual’s components of personal identity, we must examine it through their discursive production of the self. However, different cultures vary in their use of pronouns (Harré & Gillett 104-105). This helps further illustrate the difference in discursive self-production from the sense of personal identity. Consider the Japanese culture. In the Japanese language there are more pronouns in discourse than there are in the English language. There are so many pronouns that the Japanese sometimes will not use pronouns in their discourse. This leads to issues regarding production of the self and the binding of sense of personal identity. Cultures who do not use pronouns in discourse will endorse holistic communication. A discursively holistic culture promotes emphasis on diminishing the importance of sense of personal identity in its cohorts. With a diminished sense of personal identity there will be less production of selves in discourse and less emphasis on the importance of individual sense of personal identity binding. By examining the Japanese’s pronoun usage, we can see further evidence for Harré and Gillett’s theory. Cultures have different pronoun usage which entails different senses of personal identities, and therefore there is no universal self that exists in substance. The self is produced from realization of the ability to bind the components of sense of personal identity. This sense of personal identity is universal but differs in the level of strength that it is subjectively perceived and bound.

called Dissociative Identity Disorder) and the pronoun usage of the patient (109-110). Dissociative Identity Disorder is a disorder in which a person (body) seems to have multiple senses of personal identity. Dr. Morton Prince, an American physician, conducted an early study on this phenomenon (1905). He found that his patient, Miss Beauchamp had this condition and observed a series of the different personalities that arose from Miss Beauchamp. In The Discursive Mind (1994), Harré and Gillet set out a table that is referenced from Dr. Prince’s report (109): Miss Beauchamp

Chris/Sally

Miss X

You

She

You

The self can be defined as an individual’s experience that one is a separate entity from other beings. This paper will discuss this notion of self, how it is produced linguistically, and its relation to the sense of personal identity. Several theories of the self will be analyzed so this relationship between self and personal identity can be properly defined. In their book, The Discursive Mind (1994), psychologist and philosopher Rom Harré and neuroscientist Grant Gillett argue for a theory of self. Their theory claims that through the use of language we create the self. Harré and Gillett introduce the concept of sense of personal identity; the sense of an identity that one can have of their self and of other beings. By binding this sense of personal identity through pronoun usage (e.g., I), we create an agent that we believe to be responsible for our location, our thoughts, and other mental activity through our discourse. This is the discursive production of self; one can bind the components of personal identity, and express it through discourse. My goal is to bring out the distinction between sense of personal identity and the discursively produced self. Harré and Gillett’s theory does Consider the indexical use of the pronoun I in the English hold limitations, a proper definition of the binding in sense language. We use this pronoun to bind our sense of perof personal identity and its implications on self-production sonal identity (Harré and Gillett 106-108). When used in To further give evidence for their theory, Harré and Gillett need to be recognized. This paper will feature a proper a sentence (e.g., I see a window) we refer to our body in a examine a case study of Multiple Personality Disorder (now definition of the process of binding in order for Harré and

Gillett’s theory to be better utilized in my goal. I will also be properties of our cognition (e.g., a person that asserts p discussing the implications of how this process of binding is gives the observer knowledge that they believe or think p). used in self-production. The second being that language acts as a model for the analysis of non-linguistic expressions (e.g. facial expresIn her article, The Presence of Self in the Person: Reflex- sions). It is vital, in the discursive method, that non-linguistic ive Positioning and Personal Constructs Psychology (1997), expressions be analyzed as if they were a part of language. psychologist Raya A. Jones analyses psychologist George These non-linguistic expressions can still express the mental Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory and Harrés positioning properties of our cognition (e.g., When a person believes or theory to posit a theory of self. Kelly’s theory posits that the thinks p we can observe their facial expression and predict, self is a construct that is innate within humans while Harré’s with limited accuracy, their belief or thought). theory sympathizes with Harré and Gillet’s theory in that the self exists only in discourse. Harré and Gillett make the assertion that people live in two worlds: the discursive and the material (99-100). The disIn addition, sense of personal identity without self-production cursive world is full of symbols and signs and is constrained needs to be examined. I will address this by discussing find- by norms (e.g., social norms such as respect of others). The ings by biopsychologist Gordon Gallup. In his article, Self- material world is the physical world. To elaborate, the mateAwareness in Primates: The Sense of Identity Distinguishes rial world is full of physical objects and is constrained by Man From Most But Perhaps Not All Other Forms of Life certain laws (e.g., gravity). Human beings can effectively (1979), Gallup discusses findings that chimpanzees have thrive in both worlds using skills they acquire. Harré and self-awareness. I will be discussing these findings in light of Gillet posit two types of skills: material and discursive. MateHarre and Gillet’s model of sense of personal identity. This rial skills are those that we use to alter our physical environpaper will analyze all of the previously listed works in order ment (e.g., physical strength). Discursive skills are those that for the relationship between sense of personal identity and we use to communicate effectively and manipulate symbols the self to be properly defined. (e.g., language skills). It is important to note that these two worlds do not constitute a substance dualist theory. It is a duThe Discursive Mind (1994) features a series of chapters on alism of what it is objective (the material world) and how we discursive psychology, the study of psychological phenom- subjectively perceive it (the discursive world that differs from enon through discourse. Harré and Gillett posit the discur- culture to culture). Harré and Gillet make the assertion that sive method; the method focuses on how our mental states they cannot simply reduce the two worlds to one another, are not just reflected in our communication (96). Our mental but they do not recognize the mind or the discursive world states are understood through internally and externally per- as a mental substance (99-110). ceived discourse. Discursive activities display what we think. In addition, all our thoughts can be communicated through If the mind is not considered a mental substance, or if there discourse. When we think, our mind holds private thoughts, is no mental substance at all, then how can the self exist? that is to say private discourse, which we can then keep Harré and Gillet use arguments from language usage to proto ourselves (Harré and Gillett 48-49). However, when we vide evidence that the self is part of the discursive world; the communicate these thoughts, they become public discourse. world that does not belong to substance but its relation to Those thoughts are now open to potential perceivers. Thus, substance is part of the relation of the discursive world to the by studying interactions between people, an effective ex- material world (100-101). To clarify, the discursive world is amination of the human mind can understand the mental a projection of the material world. The discursive world exstates exposed by conversational context. ists only through symbols. This is in contrast to the material world in that the material world exists physically. The self Harré and Gillett apply this discursive method to articulate is not part of the material world but is produced from the their theory of the self. Language plays two key roles in dis- binding of sense of personal identity. Some components that cursive psychology (99). The first is to exhibit the discursive make up the sense of personal identity remain based on the activities of people; discursive activities contain the mental objective world (e.g., sense of bodily location and time).

The self is part of the discursive world in that it is created through our use of language. We can examine this concept of self from a variety of different languages. The English concept of self is difficult to translate into other languages from different cultures (Harré & Gillett 101). The Spanish phrase “Mi mismo” means the personhood of myself. It does not translate to soul or mind. The French phrase, “Moi-même,” does not translate to the meaning of self. Moimême translates to ego and the phrase is taken from Latin. It is not reflective of the Cartesian dualism that posits that the mind or self is a substance. Harré and Gillett do, however, assert that a sense of personal identity is universal and can be found in most, if not all, human cultures. These differences in cultural language use demonstrate that while a sense of personal identity is universal, the discursive production of selves will vary. We all carry the components that make up personal identity, and therefore we can make a sense of it. However, we differ in our binding of these components that allow us to have a sense of personal identity. This difference in binding of the sense of personal identity is reflected in different discursive productions of the self. Personal identity is a topic that has been debated a great amount. By taking the discursive viewpoint, Harré and Gillett assert that we can explain personal identity and find out the ties between personal identity and the self (103). When trying to learn about someone else one might ask questions about their name, job, favorite food, hobbies, etc. What they are trying to do, Harré and Gillett maintain, is figure out the components within the target person’s sense of identity. Figuring out someone else’s sense of identity is an empirical task. It is a task based on discourse. To learn about the sense of identity of someone else, engagement in communication of some sort is required. What about figuring out one’s own identity? Normally, we do not question whether or not we are the same person we were ten minutes ago or even five years ago. That would be absurd. We have a sense of identity that we can bind into a self through our memories. This sense can include any amount of the moral and social identity components that are remembered and identified with. Harré and Gillet focus on how the production of self is tied with this idea of binding of sense of personal identity (103104). They posit a hypothesis of what constitutes the sense

of personal identity. There are four ways we subjectively perceive our identity. First, we have a sense of location of where we are or, in other words, a point of view. Second, we have a sense of time to which we exist moment by moment. Third, we have a sense of obligations that hold us to our relations through external forces. Lastly, we have a sense of social world in which there are statuses and reputations. Harré and Gillet take the stance that we experience ourselves as a location, not an entity, in which we perceive and act upon external beings. We are also perceived and acted upon. In order to examine the production of self through discourse we need not to examine the subjective experience of personal identity, but only the discourse that is a reflection of it. In other words, the aim of the discursive method is to observe a person’s projection of self based on their subjective sense of personal identity rather than the subjective experience itself. This projection of self can be examined through pronouns. Consider the indexical use of the pronoun I in the English language. We use this pronoun to bind our sense of personal identity (Harré and Gillett 106-108). When used in a sentence (e.g., I see a window) we refer to our body in a location and as a subject or agent of an action. We create or construct the self in our use of the word I. It binds the complete sense of personal identity to the actions and perceptions going on with the identity. Using I indexes all the four doctrines that constitute personal identity: sense of location, time, agency, and social relation. Even if the statement does not reflect a social or moral role (e.g., I see a window), I still indexes the binding of sense of personal identity. The person still includes their sense of moral and social roles in that “I.” This stream of consciousness that constitutes personal identity cannot be perceived externally due to its privacy. Harré and Gillett present British philosopher David Hume’s view: “We cannot explain the sense of personal individuality we have of ourselves, by looking into ourselves for some entity that is our self and of which all our thoughts, feelings, and so on are attributes” (Harré & Gillett 103). In order to witness an individual’s components of personal identity, we must examine it through their discursive production of the self.

are in the English language. There are so many pronouns that the Japanese sometimes will not use pronouns in their discourse. This leads to issues regarding production of the self and the binding of sense of personal identity. Cultures who do not use pronouns in discourse will endorse holistic communication. A discursively holistic culture promotes emphasis on diminishing the importance of sense of personal identity in its cohorts. With a diminished sense of personal identity there will be less production of selves in discourse and less emphasis on the importance of individual sense of personal identity binding. By examining the Japanese’s pronoun usage, we can see further evidence for Harré and Gillett’s theory. Cultures have different pronoun usage which entails different senses of personal identities, and therefore there is no universal self that exists in substance. The self is produced from realization of the ability to bind the components of sense of personal identity. This sense of personal identity is universal but differs in the level of strength that it is subjectively perceived and bound.

To further give evidence for their theory, Harré and Gillett examine a case study of Multiple Personality Disorder (now called Dissociative Identity Disorder) and the pronoun usage of the patient (109-110). Dissociative Identity Disorder is a disorder in which a person (body) seems to have multiple senses of personal identity. Dr. Morton Prince, an American physician, conducted an early study on this phenomenon (1905). He found that his patient, Miss Beauchamp had this condition and observed a series of the different personalities that arose from Miss Beauchamp. In The Discursive Mind (1994), Harré and Gillet set out a table that is referenced from Dr. Prince’s report (109): peer review undergraduate research kentucky berea college university humanities digital publishing The table above lists the pronoun usage of the three different personalities that Prince reported. The first personality, Miss Beauchamp, was Prince’s patient. Her use of pronouns was correct within the rules of the English language. Miss Beauchamp was never aware of the other personalities but would still experience the consequences of their behavior (e.g., sometimes Sally would get severely intoxicated and Miss Beauchamp would experience the hangover). However, the However, different cultures vary in their use of pronouns other two personalities revealed an unintelligible speech in(Harré & Gillett 104-105). This helps further illustrate the volving a confusing use of the English pronoun system. The difference in discursive self-production from the sense of per- second personality, Miss X, never gave herself a name and sonal identity. Consider the Japanese culture. In the Japanese was never in the speech of Sally, the third personality. Sally language there are more pronouns in discourse than there was aware of Miss Beauchamp and referred to her using

“you” or “her” (when she referred Miss B. to someone else) even though they inhabited the same body. Prince thought that by getting the other personalities to use the correct pronoun structure he could fuse the perceived selves. Harré and Gillet interpret Prince as trying to get the other personalities, Sally and Miss X, to use I whenever they referred to themselves and the other personalities. He tried to get the alternate personalities to only use “you” when talking to a person other than the body in which they inhabited. In doing this, he thought he could fuse the perceived selves, and thus only one would remain. Harré and Gillett posit that it is not three agents inside Miss Beauchamp competing for control (109-110). It is three selves presented in her discourse. By examining the chart we can see that the indexical pronoun usage of I was consistent in the representation of the location of the speaker. However, the use of I by the personalities does not infer the same moral agent. For example, Miss. B would say “I walked into the woods” (referring to a task performed by sally), but she would not say “I drank a sinful amount of alcohol to achieve a hangover” (referring to when Sally drank to give Miss. B a hangover). Each personality bound its sense of identity differently. The phenomenon lies in that there were three selves being produced by one body through the discourse. The theory of self-presented in the Discursive Mind succeeds in several ways. It avoids having to discover or elaborate on what a substance self would be (i.e., the metaphysical properties that would constitute a self in substance). Giving evidence that the self has physical properties is a daunting task. Would it consist in the brain chemistry, as a mental substance, or a soul? I would not know. Harré and Gillett argue that the self is created in discourse, therefore it is readily accessible to examination. By adopting the discursive viewpoint, the self in discourse can be witnessed and experienced empirically. We can see how others present their self in their discourse. People construct their self through binding their sense of personal identity. The theory need not be more self explanatory; one can simply use pronouns to construct their self based upon their sense of personal identity and observe identities in others. Their actions, thoughts, and other sorts of mental activity can be witnessed in the discourse. The theory explains how people are able to use pronoun

usage and sense of personal identity to construct their self in discourse. People have a sense of their location, a sense of time in which they are existing, a sense of moral responsibility that is set by their culture, and a sense of a social world that they live in. With these doctrines, people realize a sense of personal identity with their perceptions and actions. Harré and Gillett’s theory of self explains the differences of self-production from a cultural standpoint, as well as explains the Dissociative Identity Disorder problem. The discursive production of selves differs greatly across cultures, which gives evidence that it does not exist in substance, otherwise the concept of self would remain the same across cultures. Harré and Gillett do assert that personal identity is a concept that is universal. Using the case provided by Prince, Harré and Gillett use the discursive viewpoint to explain how a single body could have several senses of selves. Miss Beauchamp had different personalities that appeared to be internal but with the discursive method, the situation can be viewed in a different light. It is not three selves competing for a voice; it is a person expressing three selves in discourse. By taking Harre and Gillett’s interpretation, we can reason that Miss Beauchamp had three different senses of personal identity. Each personality bound the components of personal identity differently.

identity distinguishes man from most but perhaps not all other forms of life (1979), Gallup demonstrates how chimpanzees can recognize themselves in the mirror (418-419). He devised several tests to observe this. He studied the behavior chimpanzees displayed in mirrors. At first, the chimpanzees thought their reflection was another being, but after multiple times of being exposed to the mirrors they were able to recognize themselves. Gallup observed that the chimpanzees would use the mirrors to clean their teeth, clean their hair, and other activities that make sense only on the assumption that the chimpanzees recognize themselves in the mirror.

By taking these studies into account, we can see that the chimpanzees might have a sense of personal identity. They seem to exhibit some of the criteria, presented by Harré and Gillett that constitutes a sense personal identity (e.g., sense of location and time). However, the chimpanzees have no observable ability to produce a self in discourse. Their limited discursive abilities do not show the ability to express personal identity through production of a self. We have no absolute proof that the chimpanzees have a complete sense of personal identity. The ability to recognize oneself in the mirror could be just a sense of self-awareness. As Harré and Gillett describe, the sense of personal identity is a complex phenomenon. It requires more than just self-awareness. The chimpanzees display a sense of location and time in which To conclude Harré and Gillett’s theory, the sense of personal their body exists. This is a remarkable feat, albeit they do identity is experienced by the location of oneself, the relation not display the sense of agency or moral responsibility. In to external objects and the sense of moral and social roles. discourse, that is required for a sense of personal identity This is revealed in the individual’s discourse. Language does similar to a human’s. Therefore, we cannot say that they abnot teach us how to perceive our location and relations, solutely have a sense of personal identity but that they might our perceptual and motor skills do. However, we express have this sense. With the theoretical model of Harré and these perceptions through our pronoun usage regardless of Gillett and Gallup’s findings, we can now look to additional the language. Our sense of agency is learned through our sources to witness this distinction between sense of personal culture’s moral expectations. Discourse is vital to understand identity and the self. human concepts of self and personal identity. The production of selves is constituted in discourse. Without discourse The distinction of sense of personal identity and self-producthere can be no self, only a sense of personal identity with tion can be further examined by the work of Raya A. Jones no ability to express it. in The Presence of Self in the Person: Reflexive Positioning and Personal Construct Theory (1997). “Positioning theory The distinction between the produced self and sense of iden- stresses the contextuality, and understates the dynamics. Keltity can be further examined through observing species oth- ly’s theory of personal constructs stresses the dynamics, and er than humans. American biopsychologist Gordon Gallup understates contextuality. Put together, we may begin to fordeveloped the “mirror test” in which the chimpanzee must mulate a more realistic theory” (Jones 469-470). Jones synlook into a mirror and display behavior of self-recognition. thesizes Rom Harré’s positioning theory and George Kelly’s By examining the results in his studies on chimpanzees we personal construct theory to better elaborate the existence of can observe the difference in between the self and sense of the self. Rom Harré’s positioning theory is an elaboration on personal identity. In Self-Awareness in Primates: The sense of the theory of self-posited in The Discursive Mind. Both Harré

and Kelly’s theories deny the existence of self as an entity, and posit that it is a construct. They differ in the way that self is constructed. Harré’s theory has the reflexive qualities regarding how people position themselves to discursively produce selves. There remain levels of positioning such as the relation of self to others and vice versa. Jones claims that Harré’s view can only work if the world can only be known by observing discursive activities (469). Harre’s positioning theory holds that the positioning of someone into their world is reflexive in that everything that they experience is related to their perceived self. These experiences form perceptual knowledge about the world, and these experiences are displayed through discourse and thoughts (i.e., private discourse). Jones asserts that if we observe the world in this manner then the meaning of selves cannot be understood (469). Harré’s theory focuses on the present moment and the context of the meaning of selves in discourse, but it overlooks the dynamics of relationships to all external phenomena. Jones posits that this understatement of the dynamic relationships of external phenomena can be fixed by the proposal of George Kelly’s personal construct theory (469). Kelly’s idea is that we create constructs of our perceived world. The self, in this theory, is one of those constructs. These constructs are not necessarily based off of discourse. To a person, things are either self or non-self. Anything they do not align with they would consider not a part of their self-construct. Personal construct theory focuses on the relationships of the observer and the observed. It is larger than discourse; it focuses on dynamics in non-discursive contexts. By combining aspects of all the theories discussed, an improved outlook on the distinction in between sense of personal identity and the self can be made. Harré’s positioning theory and Harré and Gillett’s theory of self succeed in describing how we create our self through discourse. However, the theories are limited insofar as they fail to recognize the dynamics of external phenomena that go into formulating this self. They also fail in recognizing the complete role of binding sense of personal identity and its effect on selfconstruction. Kelly’s personal construct theory succeeds in recognizing the role of binding sense of personal identity and its effect on self-creation. It recognizes that external phenomena allow us to bind our sense of personal identity into a self.

However, it fails in showing how this self is created; it ignores discourse and its importance. Thus, we can see the importance of combining these theories together. By examining Jones’ synthesis, we can see how Harré’s theory can be improved to better understand the distinction in between sense of personal identity and the produced self presented in Harré and Gillett’s theory. The combination of Harré’s and Kelly’s theories holds that the way one positions or constructs one’s self is through both discursive and nondiscursive methods. Our dynamic relationships with external phenomena have an effect on our sense of personal identity and its binding in addition to our social relationships and private discourse. However, the produced self remains a product of discourse. Without this discourse, the self cannot be created. While the sense of personal identity can exist without the self, the self binds the components of personal identity; it gives rise to the complete sense of personal identity. Harré and Gillett’s theory of self allows us to see how the self is created and how it binds the components of personal identity. Gallup’s findings allow us to see how sense of personal identity could exist without a production of a self. Jones critique of Harré’s theory allows us to see that the complete role of binding sense of personal identity requires dynamic relationships for self-production. The components of personal identity remain prior to self-production, but production of self gives rise to the sense of personal identity. It binds the components into a sense of personal identity which then, in turn, can construe the self. Neither sense of personal identity nor the self can exist as a physical entity. They are merely ways of categorizing our perception of the world. REFERENCES [1]Gordon G. Gallup, Jr. “Self-Awareness in Primates: The Sense of Identity Distinguishes Man from Most But Perhaps Not All Other Forms of Life.” American Scientist 67, no. 4 (1979): 417-421. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27849330 [2]Jones, Raya A. “The Presence of Self in the Person: Reflex ive Positioning and Personal Constructs Psychology” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 27 no. 4 (1997): 453471. doi: 10.111/1468-5914.00051 [3]Romme Harre and Grant Gillett, The Discursive Mind (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1994), 1-181.

The Paradox of Globalization:

Coming Together Yet Growing Apart By Christopher Albert Jacques D’Silva

The advent of globalization has brought about sweeping changes that have left indelible marks on societies. While newfound interconnectedness between cultures, information, and people creates an increasingly homogenized planet in some respects, such trends also have the effect of isolating certain non-members of the so-called “global community.” This residual marginalization has typically affected those who obstinately cling to the past, and those who are simply dubious towards the current state of affairs. For these persons, methods of coping with this social and psychological schism run the gamut from complete denial and delusion, to important modulations of acceptance. In the case of the main characters in Dave Eggers’ A Hologram for the King (2012) and Teju Cole’s Open City (2011), detachment from society is the answer to globalization’s questions. These novels demonstrate a paradoxical approach that argues that in order to truly understand something foreign, such as globalization, you must separate yourself from it and take an etic perspective on what is transpiring. In essence, the grand scope of globalization necessitates a much more intimate and elemental approach that takes into account the nuances and backgrounds of its subjects. For it is within these nuances that we realize that, although there exist certain truths about globalization, analysis of it can be muddled by subjectivity endemic to its constituents. This atomistic and paradoxical approach of detachment affords us the ability to draw more general and holistic conclusions about globalization’s effects, which can, in turn, be used to ease the process of reintegration back into society. However, as depicted in these two contemporary novels, in order to understand something as large and influential as globalization, one must, first and foremost, learn about something that is ostensibly smaller, but of even greater magnitude: the self. A Hologram for the King is essentially about an average, middle-aged, white, American called Alan Clay, who travels to Saudi Arabia in order to sell his team’s hologram project to King Abdullah, himself. He is burdened by being more than a hundred thousand dollars in debt, and by his fractured family life. Along the way, he becomes further disillusioned with the contradictions endemic to the American worker while also, surprisingly, experiencing a metanoia of sorts that was brought upon by his newfound independence in Saudi Arabia (Eggers 2012). Julius, in Open City, is a Nigerian psychiatrist in New York who becomes just as dis-

enchanted with global and social forces as Alan, except Julius tries to reconcile this by wandering around the city, ostensibly hoping to learn more about others (Cole 2011). In the case of both characters, in their attempts to learn more about others, they end up learning more about themselves.

production plant represents a paradigm of the technology that is “deeply disjunctive and profoundly unpredictable” yet fundamentally is “subject to its own constraints and incentives” (Appadurai, 326). It would appear “unpredictable” for Schwinn to sacrifice its brand and image as “an American company” simply to decrease costs, but that is precisely It is perfectly normal—if not human nature—to remain oblivi- what is happening as Schwinn is “subject to its own conous to the things transpiring around you and to be satisfied straints and incentives” that prioritize minimizing costs over with being another cog in the global machine. The common maintaining an image (Appadurai, 326). Ultimately, these person does not typically worry about globalization’s effects “incentives” are manifested in the emerging markets brought on society, simply because they are concerned primarily about by globalization. with their immediate family and themselves. Inquisitorial behavior only arises from people whose disposition lends itself Due to their tangible nature, the effects of an increasingly to such thoughts. Typically, people who are either pensive or global economy are intensified. The possibility of losing indignant because of past and current experiences possess your means of living can cause palpable fear that paralyzes this disposition. The main characters in the aforementioned both the body and mind. Alan’s musings following his disnovels, Alan Clay and Julius, offer significant credence to cussion with the man on the plane sheds light on this, “Alan this argument as they represent an entire spectrum of disil- had spent a few decades with bikes…And yet year by year lusionment. However, it becomes increasingly evident that there was less work for a guy like him. People were done their discontent does not arise arbitrarily, rather it is a by- manufacturing on American soil. How could he or anyone product of failures in the system and in themselves. Together, argue for spending five to ten times what it cost in Asia?” Alan and Julius’ experiences with globalization construct a (Eggers, 14). This hearkens back to Appadurai’s discussion cogent representation of how globalization’s influence per- on technoscapes and the ensuing complex relationships meates all aspects of life and simultaneously violates the among money flows and labor (Appadurai, 325). In the tenets of global ethics (as defined by Hans Kung). While global economy, the focus on decreasing marginal costs Alan’s frustrations stem from the economic side of globaliza- has led to an increase in marginalized workers. Admittedly, tion, Julius’ qualms lie in the transformation of civil society. an increase in technology is likely to lead to some workers’ skills being rendered obsolete. However, in the case of Scholar, and notable anthropologist, Arjun Appadurai ex- Alan, his skills did not depreciate so much as the demand pands on how this dynamic manifests itself in “scapes” in for his labor. The advent of globalization acted as an impe“Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Econo- tus that led to the emergence of entirely new economies in my.” Appadurai notes how the irregularities of global cul- developing nations. This influx into the labor force allowed tural flows often form the basis of the “disjuncture” present in businesses to drive down costs, but at the expense of the the global economy. In Alan and Julius’ cases, the particular domestic worker. “scapes” of technoscapes and ethnoscapes are suitable theoretical lenses through which one can view their disconnect The portrayal of the new global economy as impersonal and disillusionment. and exploitative makes Alan’s perpetually jaded personality seem warranted and natural. In fact, this evolution from Appadurai defines technoscapes as “the global configura- the past to the present could be construed as tantamount tion…of technology and the fact that [it] now moves at high to the move from local to global. The fact that Alan’s inspeeds across various kinds of previously impervious bound- dignation is palpable and understandable prevents it from aries (Appadurai, 325). The defining characteristic of tech- appearing as being predicated on mere romanticized nosnoscapes is how, by disseminating technology in a seem- talgia. Scholar Arif Dirlik discusses this in “The Global in the ingly random and arbitrary fashion, it leads to “increasingly Local,” “It is possible that the disillusionment with capitalcomplex relationships among money flows, political possi- ism…has played a fundamental part in the resurgence of an bilities, and the availability of both un- and high-skilled la- antimodernism that has redirected the attention of radicals bor.” The outsourcing of Alan’s job at the Schwinn bicycle to local solutions to problems of development” (Dirlik, 26).

Essentially, Dirlik is arguing that dissatisfaction with the present (globalization/modernity) has brought about heightened desire to return to the past (localism). Dirlik attributes this dissatisfaction to a reversal of global roles: “Parts of the earlier Third World are today on the pathways of transnational capital…Likewise, parts of the First World marginalized in the new global economy are hardly distinguishable in way of life from what used to be viewed as the Third World” (Dirlik, 31). It becomes increasingly evident that these aforementioned “parts” are in reference to people like Alan. The plight of the marginalized American worker today does not stray far from the marginalized worker of the past. Appadurai also draws attention to the transformation of civil society in his analysis of ethnoscapes: “landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world in which we live” (Appadurai, 325). In this regard, ethnoscapes are a viable backdrop by which to analyze the character of Julius as he is a Nigerian immigrant living in New York. However, Julius is not representative of ethnoscapes so much as the people around him, as he seeks stability while others live in a constant state of flux and movement. Appadurai comments on the now ephemeral nature of human interaction and the stability of communities, “The warp of these stabilities is everywhere shot through with the woof of human motion” (Appadurai, 325). Human transience and imagination have subverted most of the existing stability in communities, as people “deal with the realities of having to move or the fantasies of wanting to move” (Appadurai, 325). Essentially, the dramatic and comprehensive changes that Julius undergoes of both culture and lifestyle (as a result of ethnoscapes and transience) is one that ultimately leaves him jaded yet pensive. Julius’ issues with globalization seem to stem from how it has changed the social dynamic of society. He believes that the increased homogenization of cultures and people has simultaneously siphoned any sense of individuality. Julius expands on this, “The sight of large masses of people hurrying down into underground chambers was perpetually strange to me, and I felt that all of the human race was rushing, pushed by a counterinstinctive death drive, into movable catacombs” (Cole, 7). Julius is describing subways here, but he also admits to the existence of solitude “above-ground,” which portrays society as paradoxically growing apart despite its coming together.

In what appears to be a recurring theme, Julius finds solace in his version of the “local:” the elderly. Interestingly, Julius’ interactions with people often come across as terse and ephemeral, save for the few interactions he has with older people. The scenes preceding and including his visit with Professor Saito support this theory. In order “To escape the din” of the plaza Julius took a diversion to a bookstore until he realized that “the entrance was full of the crowd overflow from the street.” Julius then, “changed his mind, and decided to visit an old teacher” (Cole, 8-9). This scene succinctly depicts present-day society as enervating Julius to the point where he seeks refuge in the past, i.e. Saito. His noticeable agitation with society depicts him as an anachronistic being. This hearkens back to Dirlik’s localism and how the past is often viewed favorably, and where the elderly act as a static medium of the past (Dirlik, 26). This idiosyncratic behavior is demonstrated further by both his study of the elderly and strokes, and his relationship with the older woman (Dr. Maillotte) on the plane. It is now apparent that the arrival of globalization has negatively impacted the main characters in concrete and substantiated ways. It then becomes reasonable to extrapolate from this and assert that globalization is rife with negative externalities that harm people in many facets of life, whether it is economically, socially, or psychologically. In fact, it could be argued that the process/institution of globalization is inherently flawed in its structure and thus fails to satisfy scholar Hans Kung’s definition and criteria of global ethics. Kung, in A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics, gives a broad definition of a “global ethic” calling it a “basic consensus on binding values, irrevocable criteria and personal basic attitudes, without which any community is sooner or later threatened with anarchy or a new dictatorship” (Kung, 40). Alan and Julius, by deviating from an increasingly homogenizing world, represent a subversion of this ideal and thus threaten what globalization sets out to accomplish. Globalization fails to maintain this “global ethic” as it threatens the stability of society by marginalizing and subsequently angering people. A system that is not conducive to some of its subjects is one that, consequently, harms all of them.

could lead to a concurrent moral regression: “Humans must always be the subjects of rights, must be ends, never mere means, never objects of commercialization and industrialization in economics, politic, and media…” (Kung, 4). In this regard, it is evident that globalization has violated these sacrosanct rules. Economically, the focus has been not on maximizing total welfare, but rather on maximizing profits. As previously discussed, Alan’s experiences represent a paradigm of how globalization affects the domestic worker in a global economy. This would be an evaluation that puts the rights of enterprise above the rights of human beings. Kung’s definition of “global ethic” could be viewed as being saccharine and too idealistic to bear any real significance today. After all, it is foolish to believe that there exists a global system where everyone is respected and no one is harmed. It is simply not feasible. As the global economy is predicated on capitalism, it would be erroneous to not expect inequity and eventual dissatisfaction. However, when the global system marginalizes people like Alan and Julius, who is to say that it does not adversely affect others like them? Ultimately, although Alan and Julius are atypical characters, their strengths and weaknesses are representative of the larger population. Like all of humankind, they both exhibit a desire to be desired in society. When a person loses their sense of self-worth, they lose their ability to be productive members of society. This is precisely why Hans Kung’s humanistic emphasis on self-worth and collective success is extremely pertinent in this discussion.

A person’s reaction to adversity is often more insightful and revealing than the adversity itself. In this regard, Alan and Julius take similar, albeit slightly different, paths. They both detach themselves from society through a multitude of outlets, but none greater than through the rather unassuming act of walking. The fascinating thing about this form of catharsis is how those affected by the advancement of technology and society find solace in one of the most elementary actions of humankind. This regression back to something familiar and comforting clearly depicts them as longing for the past, but not knowing how to get there. So they walk, not with a destination in mind, but rather, they wander to try and escape Kung expands on his definition of a “global ethic” by ar- their economic and social fetters, and to demonstrate their guing that it has two basic tenets: “1. Every human being autonomy and independence. must be treated humanely, and 2. What you wish done to yourself, do to others” (Kung, 4). Kung also acknowledges that humankind’s insatiable drive for technical progress

The importance of walking is made clear from the very beginning of Open City, as Teju Cole prefaces the novel with exposition on the subject. Julius describes this seemingly idiosyncratic ritual, “Walking through busy parts of town meant I laid eyes on more people…than I was accustomed to seeing in the course of a day, but the impress of these countless faces did nothing to assuage my feelings of isolation; if anything, it intensified them” (Cole, 6). Julius’ description of walking could be construed as a metaphor for globalization. The increased homogenization of the world has led to a concurrent decrease in individuality. Even though the world is “coming together”, it is primarily for economic reasons rather than social ones. As Dirlik mentioned, the expansion from local to global was economically driven (expansion of labor and global market) and this has rendered most people into characterless drones: mere cogs in the global machine (Dirlik, 31). Julius reveals his cultural dissonance while talking about his late-night introspection, “I rehearsed in the dark the numerous incidents and sights I had encountered while roaming, sorting each encounter…My futile task of sorting went on until the forms began to morph into each other and assume abstract shapes unrelated to the real city…” (Cole, 7). It is evident that Julius is not apathetic towards his situation but actively tries to understand and contextualize what is happening around him. It is also equally apparent that he comes to no real conclusions and has to settle for abstractions. Although Julius goes directly into society, his subconscious is elsewhere which makes the whole effort a little disingenuous. It seems as if Julius is almost enjoying being a contrarian and malcontent. For instance, while riding public transportation Julius notes the appearance and actions of everyone around him, and draws sweeping and cursory conclusions from this. He particularly notes the banality of people: “Everyone in the car seemed to be wearing black or dark gray…No one on the train spoke and no one, it seemed, knew anyone else” (Cole, 45). Julius does, however, contrast this with the next train car that was “brightly lit” and had “a few people in the train talk[ing] to each other” (Cole, 45). What is particularly revealing is when Julius suddenly leaves the train car when the Wall Street workers get on. The fact that Julius does not describe them individually, but rather as one mass, is indicative of how Julius values some types of people over others.

What Julius fails to do, is scrutinize himself as he does others. To an outsider, Julius would seem like a brooding man who does not stray far from normalcy. Julius’ presumptuous behavior is ironic in a sense, as others may be viewing him in the same assuming light. It becomes clear, now, that Julius must first introspect and understand himself before understanding others (globalization). Detachment from society is ineffective if the person has no desire to reintegrate and if they actively seek to differentiate themselves from others. Otherwise, it is merely an exercise in futility or pretension. In fact, it is only towards the end of the novel that Julius truly learns that he, rather than globalization, is inadequate and that he is projecting his dissatisfaction with himself on the whole of society. It even appears as if Julius, by reminiscing about the past, is seeking to find something that never truly existed. Julius is mixed (half Nigerian and German) which potentially represents a dichotomy between the past and the present. In fact, Julius often laments his lack of control over identity (the self) as people assume that he is solely black and ergo attempt to construct artificial familiarity and camaraderie out of this. Thus he takes solace in the modicum of control gifted to him by virtue of him living in both Nigeria in the past and New York in the present. The diametrically opposed locations allow Julius to associate and differentiate between the major phases in his life, and he ultimately chooses idealized nostalgia (Nigeria) over reality (New York). Scholar Susan Stanford Friedman in “Migrations, Diasporas, and Borders” touches on this phenomenon: “Many migrants and diasporics associate home not with a particular geographic location but with an ‘imaginary homeland’, with the experience of being perpetually in between cultures…” (Friedman, 262). Julius is not smitten with the country itself, but rather the notion that Nigeria offered familiarity and simplicity that the bustling city of New York cannot provide. To Julius, New York is a cacophony of randomized movement whereas Nigeria represents a much tamer and deliberate way of life that affords him the time for introspection. However, although Julius’ reflections are inundated with innocuous and ostensibly anecdotal stories of things like Coca Cola, he chooses (perhaps deliberately) to omit the event that most likely shaped both his feelings of inadequacy and disillusionment today: the rape of Moji. This epiphany occurs when Moji confronts Julius about how

he forced himself on her when she was fifteen years old. Moji was a childhood friend who Julius later encounters in a party in New York. In what is, by far, the most poignant and resonating part of the novel, Julius comes to terms with who he really is: “Each person must, on some level, take himself as the calibration point for normalcy, must assume that the room of his own mind is not, cannot be, entirely opaque to him…And so, what does it mean when, in someone else’s version, I am the villain?” (Cole, 243). In this passage, Julius admits to having a misguided view of himself that is founded on egoistic delusion. This delusion operated on the assumption that he was “normal” in a world full of deviants, and this ultimately masked his own imperfections. When directly confronted with this truth, Julius finally admits that he is not an omniscient being who can make sweeping assumptions about groups of people as he does in his psychiatry practice. He is as much a part of the same social fabric as everybody else. It is in this fabric that immense subjectivity lies due to the pretenses that people put up in order to keep social order and stability. Modi attests to this quite explicitly, “He (her current boyfriend) sees through you anyway, you, the psychiatrist, the know-it-all…he’s a better man than you. He is wiser, he understands life better than you ever will” (Cole, 245). This focus on “understanding life” depicts Julius as someone who is more nascent and ignorant about life, than he would like to believe. This revelation forces Julius to change his “detachment” from society. Instead of detaching himself from society by his walking, Julius learns that he must detach from himself and his ego in order to learn more about himself and his repressed thoughts and actions (Cole, 244). Ultimately, Julius learns from his detachment that, although globalization may have harmed social relations, it was merely a scapegoat that masked his innermost demons and regrets. Whereas Julius walks toward people, Alan chooses to isolate himself by walking away from them. In innumerable instances, Alan willingly separates himself from his coworkers and wanders to places like desolate buildings. Alan describes his coworkers as having “no interest in manufacturing or the type of person-to-person sales he’d spent his life perfecting (Eggers, 130). Alan is ruing how the current state of business operations is dominated by impersonal interactions. He then begins to attack their physical manifestations as he associates them with being willing pawns in a bastardized game: “Cayley and her upturned nose. Brad and his caveman brow…” (Eggers, 130).

Alan, unable to even be near them, leaves and wanders off to a seemingly abandoned building where he introspects by himself. It is in this isolation that Alan tries to make sense of what is happening and what has transpired, “He listened to his own breathing. He tried not to think of anything” (Eggers 2012, 132). Alan then ruminates about his former failings, whether it be emotionally or economically, until startled by a worker. It is here that Alan’s disillusion with society and himself becomes apparent, “You are not supposed to be there, fifty feet under the earth, walking like that, pacing, angry, recounting unchangeable events from not just your own past but that of the country as a whole. But Alan knew this…He was well aware of everything he was not supposed to be doing” (Eggers, 137). Alan’s distancing from society, by his own admission, is solely discretionary. He chooses to detach himself from the world because it is cathartic to him and allows him to contextualize his past. When he is not wandering, he plays the part of a recluse in his apartment in a drunken stupor, preferring a delirious state to his reality. This is another form of detachment that allows Alan to be uninhibited without any conscious effort besides drinking. Alan explains, “There was something to this, to this drinking alone in one’s room. Why hadn’t he done this before? He could do all this and no one could say boo… The moonshine makes me an adventurer” (Eggers, 110). This passage reveals both Alan’s discontent with society and himself as he laments his lack of control and his mundane existence. Alan possessed complete dominion over everything in the hotel room and this offered him something that he had not had since globalization’s onset: control. In the past, Alan was subjected to the whims of his wife, distant economic entities, and even his coworkers. This newfound independence took Alan by complete surprise, and he, evidently, was not ready for it. His drunken escapades and experimentation on his body demonstrates just how marginalized and jaded he had become (Eggers, 115). It also depicts a person who has a tendency to put the onus of accountability on external sources, while simultaneously seeking easy, ephemeral solutions, rather than solutions that address the root of the problem.

bia—of all places—has made him into a more efficacious and resilient person. When discussing with al-Ahmad about the prospects of Alan staying in Saudi Arabia, al-Ahmad offers to help him out, “I certainly would like to help you. ‘You would?’ Sure, why wouldn’t I? Alan could think of so many reasons. But he had to presume goodwill. He had to hope for amnesia” (Eggers, 331). Ostensibly, it appears as if Alan has become resigned to his fate. However, this is not to say he has grown so apathetic that he no longer cares. Contrarily, Alan stays because “he couldn’t go home yet, not empty handed like this” (Eggers, 331). Here we see then, that he has not resigned to his fate so much as he has accepted it. Alan recognizes that globalization has damaged people like him, but—for the first time—now seems willing to confront it instead of fleeing from it. Detachment from society is not tantamount to escapism, provided that the person involved makes a concerted effort to understand their situation. Passing this litmus test turned out to be a struggle for both Alan and Julius, as they often regressed to their coping mechanisms of alcoholism and egoism, respectively. Despite this, they were able to learn more about themselves, which, in turn, allowed them to learn more about others. Globalization, as demonstrated in the two novels, played the role of a scape-goat that ultimately overshadowed more structural deficiencies— not within the global community— but within people themselves. This is not to argue that globalization was harmless, as it demonstrably caused substantiated harm to both Alan and Julius. It is more so to draw attention that this “conflict” between global forces and the self was not a zero-sum game where if one entity wins, the other loses by the same amount. Rather, globalization appeared to compound existing problems and deficiencies within the self.

For Julius, it was the lingering feelings of impotence that were brought upon by the repression of his rape of Moji. Globalization merely brought to light these feelings of just how powerless and alone he is in the world. Julius’ rape of Moji and his increased interaction with people because Despite not receiving the contract from the King of Saudi of globalization may bring him “physically” closer to them, Arabia (the reason Alan went there was to sell his team’s but in reality, he could not be further apart. Julius’ story eshologram project), Alan remains strangely optimistic; which sentially was a microcosm of globalization’s paradox about is indicative of a type of metanoia on his part. It appears how people can socially and psychologically drift away deas if the independence experienced by Alan in Saudi Ara- spite being physically closer.

Similarly, Alan’s feelings of inadequacy were transformed into concentrated, and arguably misplaced, disdain for globalization and the global economy. Alan took this project with the hopes that it would bring about a windfall of money that would enable him to both pay off debts and pay for his daughter’s education. In a sense, this entire project and the prospect of riches would not be possible without globalization and the ensuing creation of the global economy. This lends credence towards the idea that the global economy is fair in that it is somewhat random in the benefits and costs it offers. With this in mind, it is only natural that we turn the locus of control back onto the self and how people need to realize their own shortcomings before assessing the shortcomings of others. Throughout this examination, it becomes increasingly evident that globalization simply exacerbated existing problems rather than being the original source of them, and it is only when Alan and Julius realize this, that they are able to be accountable for their actions and situations. Ultimately, the realization of the self—that is brought upon by detachment— clears any preconceptions and biases that we may have, and this allows us to objectively evaluate something as ubiquitous yet personal as globalization is. REFERENCES Appadurai, Arjun. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Economy.” In Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, 24-47. Minneapolis: University of Minesotota, 1996. Cole, Teju. Open City: A Novel. New York: Random House, 2011. Dirlik, Arif, Rob Wilson, and Wimal Dissanayake. “Global in the Local” In Global/Local: Cultural Production and the Transitional Imaginary. North Carolina: Durham: Duke UP, 1996. Eggers, Dave. A Hologram for the King: A Novel. London: Penguin, 2012. Friedman, Susan Stanford, and David Nicholls. “Migrations, Diasporas and Borders.” In Introduction to Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures, 260-293. New York: MLA, 2007. Kung, Hans. A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.