In Rosenblum’s Horizons, she argues that the only way to keep these phenotypically different human beings safe is through sovereignty over their own land. One interpretation of this idea is that sovereignty protects difference. However, I disagree. This can also signify that sovereignty defends common interests, values, and goals.
The threat that faces these slightly different humans is persecution from earth-dwellers that only see their differences. The natives are very aware of the differences as well, “They just know that you smell wrong, move wrong… don’t seem like them. Body language, facial expressions, body odor… you’re different. Not tribe” (158). Furthermore, Rosenblum demonstrates throughout the novel that human nature is to hate anything that is different, which explains the vast amount of genocides. Therefore, the push for secession in the novel comes from the native-borns out of their need for protection. Therefore, sovereignty doesn’t preserve those differences; it simply acts towards the common goal of protection from persecution.
A real life example would be that of the United States. Does our sovereignty protect that which differentiates us from the rest of the world? No because there is no one culture that can be identified as wholly “American.” There are specific ideas and values that do, such as democracy and individualism. In this sense, our sovereignty defends our rights to pursue these common goals and values. If others around the world disagree, then they can theoretically find another sovereign territory in which their values are upheld.
Sovereignty is not simply a means of protecting differences. I believe that its true function is to allow people to pursue common goals together. We can coexist because we have sovereign territories that protect our common goals within our communities, rather than our differences in comparison to others.
I like your example of the United States as a country whose citizens don't need to be from a specific cultural background to be American, so America's sovereignty isn't defined by making us culturally different in the traditional sense. However, I would argue that the collective goals and ideals you mention is actually new kind of "culture" that is distinctly different from the cultures of other countries, and whose differences our sovereignty does preserve.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what your saying here. You say that in the novel, "sovereignty doesn't preserve those differences; its simply acts towards the common goal of protection from persecution." So, sovereignty protects against persecution. This persecution is persecution of difference. Therefore, sovereignty protects difference. By your own logic your thesis is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteYou go to say that on the US sovereignty does not protect difference because no one is American. However, sovereignty is what theoretically allows all the various peoples in the US to coexist. First of all, our economy is founded on the concept of consumer sovereignty. Each person can decide for themselves exactly what they want to buy and what they want to sell. There is no state distributing the harvest or telling farmers what to grow. Therefore, many different peoples can coexist consuming in different ways, each pursuing their own self-interest – no compromises have to be made. People also have the political sovereignty to believe whatever they want and the social sovereignty to live the way they want. In fact, the US is the perfect example of how sovereignty protects difference.
Finally, I’ll ask an open-ended question. You say that sovereignty, rather than protect difference, “defends common interests, values, and goals.” But what is difference besides just that: “common interests, values, and goals.”