Week 3 Discussion
I think one reason that would make it easier to develop ideas and be better critical of one’s own nation is by leaving the nation and engaging in conversations with outsiders. Every nation creates a sort of political and ideological bubble for those living inside it. For early 20th century reformers, I’m assuming that the only sources that would allow them to be exposed to other ideas would be either through imported books or through conversations with other foreigners. (I think this is really interesting because these days, the internet is an unlimited source that exposes us to so many radically different ideologies from all around the world). Understanding more about different societies probably enabled them to compare and contrast between them which led to them being able to come up with more progressive critical thoughts.
I was born and raised in the Middle East and only came to the US about 2 years ago. Ever since I’ve been noticing a gradual but noticeable shift in the way I perceive myself and others. It’s very difficult to articulate the shift in perspective, but I’d say it allowed me to see a bigger/broader picture of the world and how certain social and political issues can transcend borders.
I think their politics diverged because of 2 main reasons:
- Their gender differences: I’m assuming they personally were exposed to different issues that were specific to their genders and overall life experience.
- The people they engaged with: the conversations they had with others played a big role in forming their ideologies and their eventual achievements. For example, He’s involvement in groups that were active in the socialist/anarchic political movements would allow her to shape ideas the lean to the socialist/anarchic side of political thought.
