I’m
not exactly sure what the class consensus was about Horace Miner’s intent on
writing The Body Ritual of the Nacerima.
If it was that it was written as any kind of critique of American society, I
strong disagree. If Miner was half the scholar a collegiate professor should
be, there is absolutely no way that this piece was a serious criticism of
American culture. If it was, the egregious logical fallacies and erroneous
examples he proposes warrant a serious scholarly demerit. Rather, I am as sure
as one can be that this allegory was meant to show how easy it is to be
ethnocentric and swiftly condemn a foreign culture.
Let
me start by explaining why I feel certain that this was not an allegoric
criticism of American society in the 1950s. Once you realize that this piece is
an allegory, you see that he is comparing the ‘rituals’ of two societies. He
pairs together the brutish practices of the Nacerima to the practices of
Americans. In essence, he is comparing two similar proposals on body practices;
two similar arguments. Once this becomes clear, it is easy to recognize that in
almost every instance, Miner is making a straw
man argument. In one instance, he takes the safe and practical activity of
shaving and compares it to “…the rite involves scraping and lacerating the
surface of the face with a sharp instrument,” a process which he describes as
barbaric and masochistic. In another example of his increasingly fallacious straw man comparisons, he criticizes
modern dental practices by comparing them to the “…almost unbelievable ritual
torture…” of having "…an awl [stabbed] into an exposed nerve.” The reality
is that this ‘magic’ is not magical at all nor is it torturous; in reality, it
is science backed up by empirical data. Dental science has improved all of our
lives vastly in many ways that we often neglect to notice, like the addition of
not-so-magical fluoride to our water system half a century ago—since then,
cavities in children have decreased by almost to 40%. Finally, in the most
upsetting example, Miner criticizes the advent of condoms and contraception by
comparing them to “magical materials.” Of course, all of this is only upsetting
if this essay was written to criticize American society. Which is my point: it
wasn’t.
Rather,
it is clear that Miner wrote The Body
Ritual of the Nacirema to show us how quick we are to judge other cultures
and to trick us into understanding how naturally trusting we are in authorities
on such subjects. Unfortunately, I must admit that when I first read through
it, I thought it was a serious anthropological report and I didn’t realize
otherwise until I got into class the next day. It shocked me how ready I was to
condemn another culture without trying to understand the more genuine reasons
behind their practices or having any desire to dig deeper into the evidence.
Rather, I took Miner’s word at face value and because I didn’t feel the need to
escape, nor did I even realize that I was in, my ethnocentric mindset, I didn’t
consider the possibility that Miner could have been making fallacious
arguments, biasing our views, and only telling half the story. To me, the point
of making it an allegory was so that we would have to watch ourselves judge and
criticize this culture, only to realize that it was mocking our own and only
then could we realize the true extent and damage that our preconceived and
ignorant notions can cause.
Now
onto something more agreeable. My name is William Kelly and I’m from Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. I’m not Amish nor do I know any Amish people; I actually went to
an urban public school in Lancaster City, where Amish were almost never seen.
Through taking this course I hope to achieve a number of important things. I’d
like to become more self-aware by being exposed to a diversity of thought and
culture and I’m excited to read the books on our syllabus, some of which I’ve
heard of and am really interested in reading—particularly Dubois’ Souls of Black Folks and Paine’s Age of Reason. Oh, and most importantly,
I’d like to fulfill my existential search for my IH GenEd requirement.
When
I grow up, if you can do such a thing, I’d like to be a criminal defense
attorney. It’s a mixture of my innate contrarianism and a genuine belief that
there are a number of unjust practices in our justice system. In particular,
how disproportionately difficult it is for racial minorities to receive equal
treatment in all parts of our justice system. Regardless of race or any other
kind of status, being arrested, charged, and having you liberty held in the
hands of twelve angry men is an overwhelming task—especially when you consider the
power and resources that the State has at its hands to try to put you behind
bars. Oftentimes people ask me if I’d have any stain on my conscious for
helping a guilty person escape the claws of justice; or even a step further,
what if they murder somebody again. But as preeminent legal and ethical scholar
Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School, explains: a lawyer should
be no more guilt ridden by saving the life of a client that goes free and
murders somebody, than a surgeon should feel bad for successfully saving the
life of a patient that goes out and murders a person [paraphrased]. It’s all part of the system and if the government
doesn’t have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s essential that there is someone
there to oppose them and make sure the system stays intact and as fair as
possible.
Now
onto something less agreeable. Tasked with choosing the most Miner-esque thing
about our contemporary society, I’d have to admit that I find religion pretty
strange. It bewilders me how prevalent superstition is in our society, even
among the ranks of intellectuals. To keep it simple, I’d like to just refer to
the metaphor that Clarence Darrow used to explain his own atheism: “I don’t
believe in god for the same reason that I don’t believe in Mother Goose.” Feel free to comment on this below, I'd enjoy having a respectful conversation on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment