When we think of humiliation, it generally has a negative connotation. It conveys a sense of shame and embarrassment that most people would not embrace, which is why I found it interesting that humiliation is such a large part of cultural change in general and, more specifically, for the Urapmin’s colonization and their transition to Christianity. I think it raises an interesting idea that furthers the notion that discomfort invokes change. The Urapmin society underwent a drastic and widespread change that was sprung forward by humiliation—by discomfort. I wonder if this change would have occurred to the same extent had this humiliation not happened or had it been to a lesser degree. And does humiliation always bring change? What would the effects have been had the Urapmin not used humiliation as a vessel for change and?
It’s also interesting to me that the humiliation arose from values already ingrained in the Urapmin’s culture, and caused them to strengthen those values instead of abandoning them. The Urapmin deeply valued law, and were therefore humiliated when told that their law and morality standards were not up to par. The humiliation was so profound because it threatened one of their deeply held beliefs and they were eager to remedy it. They were also humiliated when they began to realize “their loss of ritual priority and growing economic marginalization (Robbins 32),” which also furthered their desire to distinguish themselves by embracing Christianity. It underscores how strong these values were held by the Urapmin culture and how far they would go to protect them.
Why is it that humiliation is the key component for the cultural change of the Urapmin? Why does it hit our egos and societies so profoundly that we are kickstarted into action? Is humiliation actually good for us, and if so, how do we know when it’s helping us or hurting us?
No comments:
Post a Comment