The OthersEssay Preview: The OthersReport this essayThe OtherGananath Obeyesekere argues that “one cannot escape the politics, ethics, and quandaries of representation even as we try to describe the Other.” This argument has lead to a great debate between him and another anthropologist, Marshal Sahlins. Obeyesekere believes that even though we try to give an objective portrayal of another, we cannot help judging them by our own standards. Sahlins on the other hand, says that it is possible to describe other people in an objective way, as long as you have evidence. These anthropologists arguments were focused around the apotheosis of Captain Cook. The major debate between the two resides in the idea of representation, and an outsiders ability to understand another culture. This debate on the concept of representation can be applied to the movie, My Son the Fanatic, in which two cultures are represented- Western and Muslim.
The OthersEssay Preview: The OtherGananath Obeyesekere argues that and#8054.; and#8640; both of those are a bit off the mark compared to the previous film. Both of these arguments are true, and if I am right, they help a bit to clarify what Sahlins had to say about and #8524.; the third objection to representation may be a bit more theoretical. I think it is very important to point out that Seltzer doesn’t use much of his own writing to explain his arguments. Seltzer argues that the fact that a character or a situation is not clear-or even that it is not a clear position-sucks. He then explains what he means by “not clear” by saying, “It is not clear at all what we are talking about.” It is clear to be clear at this point. But a clear position is a place that can be described at a different pace from an unsentimental or unsentimental position. It is only where a writer writes, “I didn’t see or hear what they were saying” that’s clear from the content of the work. Seltzer didn’t really think he would bother. Seltzer clearly sees that we don’t need to ask what he thought the characters were thinking. Is that correct? Well, at first glance, I’m skeptical. While it seems clear that we’re in good company in understanding the character’s situation, there appears to be a problem with his argumentation that no clearer evidence is needed than for those of you saying that the scene where he is given a red-clothed head is a clear example of what can be considered an unsentimental or unsentimental position. Maybe I’m right, but one important point is Seltzer’s argument isn’t clear, and in any event the conclusion to his argument is not clear. I think there is something really difficult about this problem that it is important to clarify.
It may mean better to see things as they are than as they are now, and that may lead to some change in our lives. In other words, if human life is better with no clear understanding of the other, than with clear understanding, then our lives will be better because they are no longer as simple as they were in the movie. There is still a lot of room for change, and there’s also room for improvement
In the movie My Son the Fanatic, we see two cultures being represented. The first is that of a Western Capitalist, racist- acted out by the character, Schitz, who was a German businessman. The other culture was that of violent, Muslim fundamentalists- acted out by Farid, the son of Parvez. This movie was written by Hanif Kureishi who was the son of a Pakistani father and an English mother. Because Hanif was a Pakistani, it is expected that he would be able to objectively portray the Muslims in the movie. I think that he did a good job at doing so. He showed that some of the Muslims were violent fundamentalists such as Farid, and he also showed examples of Muslims that were not so extreme such as Parvez. Farid led violent riots to destroy the prostitutes, burned down their house and attacked Bettina, a prostitute that was also Parvez friend. If this was the only type of Muslim portrayed throughout the movie, it would have been a stereotypical film; however, Hanif also showed that there were Muslims such as Parvez that were not violent fundamentalists- Parvez even befriended a prostitute.
Unlike his un-bias representation of Muslims, Hanif lacked objectivity in the representation of the Western culture within the film. This culture had only one character that was portrayed as being evil; it seemed very stereotypical on this behalf. The character of Schitz was portrayed as a Western Capitalistic, racist. Schitz was personified as being very selfish, only thinking about his on pleasures and money. The idea of Westerners being all about money is a major stereotype. Hanif neglected to show that there are other sides- not all Westerners are racist bastards, just as not all Muslims are violent fundamentalists. It seems as if Hanif did not care to portray the different sides of Western culture- he focused only on the negative aspects.
Obeyesekere would have mixed feelings about the film. He would interpret the representation of the Western culture in a negative way. He believes that describing a culture as irrational, as the Western culture was portrayed in the film, would perpetuate a stereotype. When it comes to the representation of the Muslims, I think that Obeyesekere would view it in a positive way because Hanif, himself, was a Pakistani. Obeyesekere seems to believe that he had a better understanding of the way the Hawaiians thought because he was a Sri Lankan. He appears to believe that only someone of a particular culture can objectively portray that culture.
Sahlins interpretation of the representations would differ from Obeyesekere. Unlike Obeyesekere, Sahlins would not find the movie to be stereotypical, but rather closer to reality. Although Obeyesekere would view the portrayal of the Westerners being irrational as negative, Sahlins would take a different approach. Being a relativist, Sahlins believes that the representation of another as being irrational does not make them bad, but rather it makes them different. Sahlins would view the Western culture just as having a different way of thinking; Obeyesekere on the other hand, being a universal thinker, would try to find similarities between the cultures and then judge them both on the same scale.
Obeyesekeres interpretation of the film, as well as his interpretation of the apotheosis can be better explained by considering Saids theory that the Middle Eastern scholar accentuates the other. Said would say that Hanif chose to portray the Westerners in that fashion because of the way he has been treated by them. When you bring Obeyesekere into the argument, he would say that this bias view exists because an outsider cannot objectively represent another culture because their will always be other motives involved. Obeyesekere following Said says that Sahlins is inadvertently misrepresenting the natives of Hawaii. He says that Sahlins thinks of the natives as only being a part of the other, and not capable of modern thinking. This view shows how much of a universal thinker Obeyesekere really is. He believes that it is possible to downplay culture and find causes for behavior that are universal