EXPERIENCING ROME AS A JOURNEY

HUM 340

1 Twain stated that, for his journey to Rome, What is there in Rome for me to see that others have not seen before me? What is there for me to touch that others have not touched? What is there for me to feel, to learn, to hear, to know, that shall thrill me before it pass to others? (Twain 267) Similarly, The most important monuments I take very slowly; I do nothing except look, go away, and come back and look again. Only in Rome can one educate oneself for Rome. (Goethe 133) The emphasis on this journey of Rome from both authors are particular interesting, as we have seen how great Rome is from different views of American and European authors. Despite these noticeable similarities in their statements Goethe emphasizes that amazed at the lack of respect so many of them show for all these objects (148) and that it would be better for one to come to Rome for ones own experience. Now, despite Twains irony of visitors coming to Rome which criticize their knowledge of understanding Rome history, and my own desire to visiting Rome one day, it would seem that, at this point, Rome is not only a place to travel but also a place for people who have interest in its history behind it. Twain's paper is thoroughly situated in its post millennium context and reflects a more comprehensive and nuanced dialogue on global culture and the missionary enterprise. He challenges the prevalence of the notion in both scholarship and literature that missionaries are "narrow-minded chauvinists" who destroyed indigenous cultures, thereby becoming agents of colonialism.1 His argument suggests that the popular and scholarly interpretation of missionaries has evolved through varying historical contexts and locales. European rulers in the middle and dark ages, for example, often requested missionaries as a necessary condition to the Christianization of their subjects. The Boxer
1

Ryan Dunch, Beyond Cultural Imperialism: Cultural Theory, Christian Missions, and Global Modernity, History and Theory Vol. 41, No. 3 (Oct., 2002), 307.

2 Rebellion at the end of the 19th century, however, is an example of non-Western distaste for the products and elements of Western culture, including missionaries bringing Christianity. These culturally and historically variant missionary portrayals do not offer an appropriate paradigm for understanding the full impact of their presence on nonWestern culture, and it is precisely the impact which Dunch considers essential.2 The article approaches both the missionary and the colonialism question from what appears to be a Western position and a historical period during which popular sentiment remains close enough to the colonial enterprise to be wary of it, but far enough removed to examine its moral implications with a critical eye. Dunch's paper reflects a lingering global political climate in which one ecumene spans the globe and in which we are increasingly aware of value laden concepts like cultural imperialism. Implicit in this argument is a modern perspective which divests itself from the simplicity of scientific cause and effect and seeks a more nuanced perspective on history. Dunch's analysis is primarily historiographic in that one of its primary purposes lies in the examination and development of the concept of cultural imperialism. He notes that the term initially emerged in 1970s as part of the critical scholarship on the US media in Latin America.3 Just like many labels and concepts, however, it is incredibly versatile and can be used to describe many phenomena, including the "world currency of the English language."4 Key to his argument is that coercion often is implicit in cultural imperialism, that "alien cultural products are accepted because they are being imposed (emphasis added)."5 Within this context, religion is similarly interpreted as a "product" explicitly packaged for sale in non-Western societies and cultures. This point is important
2 3

Dunch, 308. Ibid, 301. 4 Ibid, 301-2. 5 Ibid., 307.

3 to Dunch's argument and explains why he steers his discussion away from specific references to the China missions and uses it mostly as an illustrative example of a case for which the cultural imperialism label applies. We can see how China might offer a particularly useful example because as a modern and centralized nation state its documentation of missions is likely more accessible and abundant if only due to its relative currency. The existence of amenities in such an established society no doubt also facilitated the missionaries' task of conversion. Dunch, however, makes no reference of Hudson Taylor, whose founding efforts in the China Inland Mission were particularly important to the Christianization of that country. There are some passing references to individuals, such as Mao Zedong, whom Dunch points to as a proponent of "mission education and medicine as [being] simply more subtle forms of aggression."6 On the whole, however, Dunchs examination is restricted to more general referents as he compares different perspectives on missionary work. The missionaries of the early twentieth century claimed, for example, to have brought moribund China into the modern world as compared to the nationalist perspective of the 1920s, which charged missionaries with imperialism and accused them of making the Chinese people docile.7 The general referent points utilized by Dunch are suitable to his subject matter and argument, which does necessarily seek specific events to prove or disprove an argument on the occurrence of cultural imperialism. Dunch, rather, seeks to more precisely understand meaning. It is difficult to do this type of extrapolation with a subject matter including the individuals and events of history. The question, for example, What is meant by Henry VIII? comes across as more of a philosophical and psychological

6 7

Ibid, 314. Ibid.

4 exercise than a historical one. On the other hand, asking What is meant by appeasement? Empire? Colonialism? is more challenging as these are all abstractions developed and commonly used by historians because they facilitate our task. In that sense, it may be more useful to study the uses and contexts of the term, other than a specific historical incidence of them. The discussion, therefore, of the terms in the context of its usage through historical study is much more valuable to his argument than discussing events that could, arguably, be called cultural imperialism. To open such as discussion would be precisely the kind of thing Dunchs paper seems to be arguing against. Cultural imperialism offers an example of a facilitative term often employed in history, and the complications that arise from its use as discussed by Dunch are comparable to those encountered with the concept of globalization which is a sort of framework in which his subject lies. There is great debate on the subject of globalization because, though academics generally agree that it has happened, they differ when in trying to pin it down to a historical period. If we do not know, however, what was its catalyst or what events mark its beginning, how are we to know precisely what we mean when we say globalization? Conservative economists might argue that globalization began in the 1980s, while historians might place it at the turn of the twentieth century, or even as far back as Columbuss voyage to the Americas at the end of the fifteenth century. Parallel with these differing opinions of when globalization began is the consideration of its changing connotations; in the 1980s globalization became a mainstream expression referring to our shrinking world while in the 1990s it developed negative associations to the exploitations of capitalism and sweatshops.8 These examples point to the difficulties in pinning down the meaning of amorphous terms like
8

Following discussion in HIST 388 on May 12, 2007 lecture.

5 globalization or cultural imperialism. An examination of the words denotative meaning similarly suggests the difficulties of its usage. The root word for globe comes from the Latin globus, meaning a round body or mass; a ball, sphere, etc.9 The etymology of globalization suggests that spanning the globe is essential to the terms meaning. Global, however, also means Pertaining to or embracing the totality of a number of items, categories, etc.; comprehensive, all-inclusive, unified; total.10 In that sense, the status of world-wide phenomenon in not integral to the definition and may simply describe the known world or ecumene. Globalization in its modern usage also often refers to the global village concept popularized by M. McLuhan (1911-80): Global village, a termfor the world in the age of high technology and international communications, through which events throughout the world may be experienced simultaneously by everyone, so apparently 'shrinking' world societies to the level of a single village or tribe Hence globalism, internationalism; globalization11 Globalization is a label that has thus evolved through usage as it is employed to clarify and explain events and developments in the world or in a specific ecumene. The above examination of globalization demonstrates the difficulties of using a paradigm like cultural imperialism for discussing cultural interactions if we neglect to situate its development through various historical discourses. Dunch notes it is
9

Globe, Oxford English Dictionary Online. Accessed through SFU Library database, July 18, 2007. Global, OED Online. 11 Ibid.
10

6 problematic for cultural imperialism to be employed in drastically different contexts, from Americas colonization of the European sub-conscious through popular music in the 1950s to the cultural changes in African tribal societies in the colonial period.12 There are vastly different implications for the term in either of these usages and Dunchs paper shows that confusion easily results if historians restrict themselves to studying the events of the past and not to rigorous reflection and examination of their own discipline. A term like cultural imperialism can skew the interpreters gaze to misguided assumptions, painting a picture of missionaries as agents of hegemony and indigenous cultures as mere sponges absorbing the proffered religion, an interpretation Dunch considers too facile. He does not suggest that we purge our language of such terms, but rather that responsibility is key to their usage and that it is incumbent upon historians not only to study the events of the past but also the role played by human agency in the process of interpreting them. It is this human agency that recognizes patterns and conceptualizes cultural imperialism and globalization, and indeed, which shapes global cultures not just through imposition, but interchange and interaction as well. In the modern academic community it has been quite chic to criticize the Wests cultural imposition through by imperialism. Dunchs paper takes this interpretation further and its emphasis on a more global perspective suggests the postmillennial context in which he writes. He handles the historiography of Christian missions in China within a general context that facilitates his elaboration on cultural imperialism and his argument offers many parallels with the debate on globalization. His paper is anchored by a Heisenberg-esque argument that historians, just like scientists, are capable of changing history simply through the process of studying it. Human actors play
12

Dunch, 305.

7 an important role not simply in creating the past, but also in shaping and interpreting our understanding of it.