Benjamin M. Barondeau (South Dakota State University): Human Rights Advocate or Anachronistic Monarch?: Transnational Interpretations of the XIV Dalai Lama
The West usually views the XIV Dalai Lama with reverence and respect. This is due to the ways in which Westerners, especially in the U.S., identify him as a spiritual teacher and an advocate for human rights, nonviolent resolution, and interreligious (particularly monastic) dialogue. As a result, he has received the Nobel Peace Prize (1989), honorary Canadian citizenship (2006), and the United States’ Congressional Medal of Honor (2007). He has also become friends with President Bush, though he disagrees with Bush’s policies concerning the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition, the Dalai Lama has created an ethics “based on universal rather than religious principles,” and understands how he might be perceived as “attempting to propagate Buddhism by stealth” (xiii and 22). Moreover, Kim Gutschow writes how Westerners adore his “timeless message” while disregarding Tibetan diasporic, political, and “class and gender” issues (253). Yet, even in the West he has critics, including animal rights activists (as the Dalai Lama eats meat).
The Chinese Communist press, on the other hand, interprets the Dalai Lama as a celebrity, a politico who uses religion for his political ambitions, a traitor to Buddhism, a separatist who has no affection for his nation (i.e. China), and a monarch who does not support secular democracy or religious freedom. Therefore, it appears that the Chinese press questions not only the Dalai Lama’s integrity and motives but also questions why the U.S. honors a man who appears to be at odds with American ideals of democracy and freedom.
Works Cited
Gutschow, Kim. Being a Buddhist Nun: The Struggle for Enlightenment in the Himalayas. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2004.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Ethics for the New Millennium. New York: Riverhead- Penguin Putnam, 1999.
Jessica Eikmeier (South Dakota State University): Monumental Memorialization: The Idea of an 'American' National Monument.
Benedict Anderson argued that the idea of “ America” is an imagined community; people from such a range of backgrounds can in no way form a “community” as the term is commonly used. However, as Americans we attempt to place importance on the same symbols of our nation whether we live in Seattle or Tallahassee. We all are expected to feel a surge of pride when we view the Vietnam Wall or Mount Rushmore. The idea of memorialization and monumentalizing calls into question if what Americans see as symbols of our nation through various memorials and monuments are truly an indication of our American ideals and patriotism.
Following memorialization from ancient Greek times, Pericle’s Funeral Oration, and the concept of the citizen soldier to American memorials/monuments such as the World War II Memorial, Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial, and the Lincoln Monument will provide the framework for the argument of current American memorialization. Lauren Berlant’s idea of the national symbolic is also key in this argument as she asserts that national symbols thrust a collective history upon the citizens of the country.
To accurately understand how other nations view “ America” and, at the same time, how Americans view other nations, we must first understand how we see ourselves. If we as a nation can identify ourselves and form an American community through symbols, we must first understand the danger of using slabs of stone and engraved granite to represent us as a people.
Steve Binkley (South Dakota State University): Same-Sex Marriage as a Site of Heteronormative Contagion
The process of defining issues surrounding sexual politics and identity in the U.S. Supreme Court has become increasingly contentious since the early 1970s, when post-Stonewall gay and transgender communities began organizing politically active groups to challenge the traditionally heteronormative institution of marriage. In response, a conservative/religious movement has sought to re-establish the definition of marriage as existing between spouses of opposite gender; judicial activism, proposed legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and more recent attempts to amend the Constitution have shaped the conservative political response. At the moment, the nation divides itself—states range from recognizing same-sex marriage, to acknowledging “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships,” to refusing to accept the marriage licenses of other states. Whatever the political rhetoric surrounding this debate, the public discussion seems to concentrate on civil and legal rights as a premise for same-sex legislation, ignoring issues of personhood and sexual identity as justification for equal legal status. This paper seeks to examine the discursive site of identity politics, arguing that the same-sex marriage debate can be thought of as an instance of heteronormative nationality struggling with what Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri term “contagion.” It also examines various legal rulings and political attempts that seek to define marriage and reposition the nuclear family structure as a foundational unit of nationhood.