Response: Chris' Blog [Week 5]

We are supposed to disagree with at least 3 posts according to the syllabus for MP520. A difficult task since we are all reading the same material and listening to the same class lectures. That, coupled with the fact that most students blogs just summarize each reading or lecture and raise a few questions without giving any opinions of there own... people are sticking close to the vest. Hey, I'm not sayin' people aren't being truthful, but I'd just like to see a provocateur bust one lose here or there. I'm just sayin'...


Last week I disagreed with what Aaron said, so one disagreement is down. Here goes #2. We'll see who #2 works for... Chris posted last week about how Barker believes we are defined by our culture and he feels that strategic essentialism can be valuable "for the improvement of the human condition" (Barker 2003, 244). Chris lamented that "progress in this direction seems unlikely if we are to take Barker seriously in that no one truly knows the essential nature of the human. Who is to define what improvement is?"

I think we can define what improvement to the human condition is by looking at the social injustice around the world and calculating whether or not it is increasing of decreasing. Currently, injustice in the form of war, famine, disease, and oppression happen daily. Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, AIDS, and civil wars clearly show that the human condition isn't perfect. But if one looks back on only the 20th Century, one would see enormous strides in the civil rights movement, womens suffrage, and the fall of communism... all which would point towards the improvement of the human condition. As I have already mentioned, there are still atrocities that occur every day worldwide. That being said, if we are to be defined by our culture, from a historical perspective, we have made progress.