Objectivity and "Citizenship"

I can see a few ways in which the question can be interpreted. Given the connotation of the novel in which it is contained, it refers to the process of constructing "the other." It likely implies the best and worst ways of doing this. It can hold a sort of universalist "the best person is a citizen of the world" sort of connotation. Potentially, it could even be used as a critique of nationalism, in that nationalism blinds someone to the glories of other cultures. However, all of these interpretations skirt around one critical fact, and that is that nationalism obscures objectivity. I would argue that this is true, but ultimately irrelevant, as this nationalist bias cannot be overcome in the short term.

Nationalism certainly implies a certain bias in favor of one's own culture and way of life. In establishing this bias, one removes any semblance of objectivity in discussing foreign affairs. I consider myself a fairly worldy individual, but I can't deny an obvious bias in favor of the United States in discussing global politics. This likely wouldn't exist if I saw myself as a "citizen of the world," but I don't feel as though I can realistically do this, as I will discuss later. This bias is key to nationalism's existence in a discourse. In order to remove this bias, one has to completely remove the lens through which one sees others. Regardless of one's status, one will see the world through a certain constructive lens. This is affected by basic psychology, upbringing, surroundings, etc. and cannot be overcome, especially in the short-term. Governments operate in the same fashion as individuals. Even the most objective of governments will see affairs only in the capacity with which the observed thing will affect them, and at worst will view them with a severe inferiority bias. To remove this lens would be to defy the very aspect of the current national construct.

I'm a big fan of the idea that people join into a family, city, nation, etc. only because they feel a sense of belonging and a desire to belong. This is the reason Americans connect with Americans in a national sense, why Quebecois see eye-to-eye with other Quebecois, or why Thai live in Thailand. These connections run deeper than a simple familial construct. I don't sit here as a Tennesseean and feel a fundamental connection to every other person who lives in the United States today. The ties that bind us together are far more shallow than those that connect me to my family. Yet these ties still exist, and "cloud our judgement." To overcome these ties is to remove the lens through which one views the world. I would argue that because of humankind's fundamental grouping instinct, it is difficult, especially right now, to overcome this barrier. Though the world is more connected than ever before, humans still do not feel a fundamental connection to each other on the basis of their mere humanity. We see that all other humans are humans, but see no "other" to unite us as humans. Rather, Americans see Mexicans as "the other," because though vastly similar in cultural values and similar histories, the two have not lived together and shared identical cultural experiences. This fact inhibits the abilities of the two cultures to effectively communicate because they do not feel enough in common. I would argue that this bias exists even among the "global citizen" Todorov sees himself as. This character still views the world through a certain lens, that of multiculturalism. All nations are foreign to him, meaning he doesn't have a firm grounding of a national home (which establishes a large part of my critique of this statement, as it's pretty hard to get someone to give up identification with their home). This very fact gives him a bias: in quoting Said, he feels an element of connection with other expatriates, ascribes to a certain set of values expatriates typically hold, and as a result, makes himself no different from the nationalist. He still views the world through a lens, and this lens is just as cloudy as mine.

This fundamental desire to belong is nearly impossible to overcome. Though it is possible for it to be taken away in regards to global affairs, the creation of a new "other" is the only thing that will bring us to that point. Alien invasion, anyone?