Cultural Particularity vs. Universal Humanity - Essay Example

Cultural Particularity vs. Universal Humanity This paper is dedicated to Cultural Particularity versus Universal Humanity by Paula M. L. Maya and its analysis. The work by Maya is considering the possibility of escape from the “dehumanizing strictures of collective identity, neoconservative minorities raise a valid concern about the relationship between the culturally particular and the universally human” (Maya 77). The author insists on the assimilation of nondominant groups into mainstream society, argues against the opposition of individual to collective. The paper is written to defend an alternative universal conception of humanity. Collective and individual identities are antithetical to each other according to neoconservative ideas. The main point of both of them is that “racial group membership robs a person of an important aspect of humanity” (Maya 79). This theory insists that individuality is a property of people, who a not included to the crowd or collective. So these persons are seen as individuated ones and they lack human agency. The neoconservative theory describes the fact of being human, configuring racial and cultural particularity against universal humanity. The idea of “being human” contains the ethnic, gender and racial trappings. In some varieties the racial identity is represented as the dangerous and harmful event to human possibility -“though it espouses black pride, it is actually a repressive identity that generates a victimized self-image, curbs individualism and initiative, diminishes our sense of possibility, and contributes to our demoralization and inertia” (Maya 81). The idea of the phrase is that the ideal human should appear as unsexed and deracinated creature, which is having only rationality. All of the mentioned figures, such as Steele, Rodriguez, Carter, and Chavez, understand the word "racial" as non-"white" identity and the conclusion they make is that "white" identity is not seen as an identity by race. They paradoxically agree with the existence of "white" people, despite the racialization “white” process and refer to "male" not meaning gendered identity. Particularity according neoconservative minorities` ideas is deviated “from the middle-class heterosexual white male norm” (*). the author`s point of view is that Rodriguez and Steele err in defining individual identity in opposition to collective one. These identities are not antithetical; however they depend on each other. It is hard to imagine the collective without “individual” base. This happens because these issues are relational, “to know ourselves as selves requires us to know ourselves in relation to others” (Maya 82). When we try to define, who we are, we think about ourselves as a set of human characteristics, which some people have and the other do not. One is defining himself related to group eve trying to cross the boundaries of generality. The neoconservative theories think the individual identity can be understood as antithetical issue to collective one, and it shows the most week points of liberal philosophical assumptions. In the same way there could not exist and individual who is not a member of any collective and, making an output, there is inverse relationship – no collective members cannot help but be individuals at the same moment. Every objective social position in our life is occupied by a human and, according to the paper, it is build “by a multitude of categories of identity” (Maya 82) and each person is satisfying collective with something that no other can give in one or more vital way. The works analyzed contain the idea of American society to be ideal and changing of those individuals, who does not suit it. The author sums according to this idea, that “neoconservative minorities equate assimilation to American mainstream culture with overall societal advancement” (Maya 83). The main argument to assimilate to a white is not to be alienated from public life. However, remembering an idea that other cultures may be "perfectly moral”, Carter is seeing a cultural relativism as a result and refusing the possible relevance of practicing for his own life, such a getting out from intellectual consigning "box". Carters argument is problematic is the idea that he does not defines the way to go about judging "excellence”, assuming “whatever standards are already in use are culturally unbiased and provide an adequate method of judging merit and excellence”. (Maya 84) Neoconservative thought is that American society has no necessity in reforms as all people are already “autonomous agents”. The problems of inequality, according to the author, can be solved with working harder. So, the author is not surprise to find in the analyzed works the perspective of appearing of “blame-the-victim” mentality. Another side of analyzing of the problem discussed is the realist contention, which thinks that it is not necessary to join particularity to universal humanity still “we have a conception of universal humanity” (Maya 86). The author appeals to Satya Mohanty and his book Literary Theory and the Claims of History with realist suggestion to “follow Kant in understanding "reason" as a practical and universal human capacity” (Maya 86). When we agree that all humans are "rational", it will lead us to the recognizing of the concept of human universality from the point of basic capacity of everybody. This makes us to believe that person has no necessity to be a part of a particular group in order to feel worthy. So, the author tries to prove with an example of speaking languages that value of assimilation does not involve minorities, being “a legitimate need” itself for human beings. The assimilation will bring the effect of communication with well-being opposite side, which is predicted to be rewarding involved figures. There are two interesting points in the realistic concept. The first of them is telling the assimilation is going to damage original culture, hurting the psyches of those who were made to abandon their own traditions. Second is called as “the loss of moral and epistemic possibility” (Maya 88). Remembering the fact that changes in culture are not arbitrary, but are a kind of answer for shift of social and economic conditions, we are able to realize the epistemic and moral detriment of assimilation. The author says her own reasons for defending identity politics lie in the epistemological area at first, so according to her “we must give greater weight to socially marginalized identities and nondominant perspectives” (Maya 91). The human beings risk to be “imprisoned” in the process of their intellectual and moral growth, unless they realize their perspectives, which they have in alternative direction. Thus the right way is to pay attention to both identities and social processes, adding them. The author`s idea is that the idea to change the persons social identity is not the best way, which is recommended by neoconservative minorities. This work in general is written to help the reader to define the best way to cut down inequality and social and race discrimination in the world`s society. Works Cited Maya Paula M . L., Cultural Particularity versus Universal Humanity. Print. Read More