Pagden argues that travelers arriving in the New World had a number of complicated processes by which they tried to impose order and cultural commensurability. Much depended on the traveler and their personality; Pagden, like Hodgen, points to Columbus as a unique individual who was prepared to note and praise native ‘religiosity.’ However, Pagden rightly points out that any true objectivity is lost simply by the nature of the exercise. In plunging Europeans into a new and unfamiliar world, the very voyage could turn neutral observers into invested and highly partisan individuals. Humboldt, for example, who traveled to the New World armed with all the instruments of science, was left completely overwhelmed by the alien world that he encountered. Travelers encountered a world completely foreign to Europe, and instinctively tried to colonize it, if only to incorporate their new discoveries into an existing worldview.
Pagden’s ‘principle of attachment’ is one of the ways in which travelers tried to link their new experiences to the society with which they were familiar. By taking native customs or traditions and equating them with an ostensibly similar European equivalent, travelers could create a sort of cultural touchstone to anchor them in an unfamiliar setting. Pagden notes “the principle of attachment may give some degree of understanding… but it may (and in deed frequently does) lead us simply to assimilate the unknown to the known.” (24) Here Pagden seems to be arguing that Europeans are actually establishing a false equivalency that impeded understanding rather than facilitating it. I think he makes a persuasive argument for that case, given Columbus’ odd interpretations of native customs in panning for gold, and Oviedo’s comparison between ancient Thracians and the Taino that he encountered. However, I feel that Pagden takes a simple concept and complicates it more than necessary for the reader. Oviedo assuming that Taino would share all of the behavioral traits of the ancient Thracians because both societies practiced polygamy seemed similar to the ethnographies that Hodgen discussed. There is a basic human impulse to find the familiar in the unknown that Pagden seems to isolate as a phenomenon seen only in Europeans encountering the New World. I thought his argument that Europeans sought to impose mobility onto the New World was better contextualized as a human impulse to retain identity even while traveling vast distances. I also thought Pagden’s discussion of the Native Americans who returned to Europe as curios was absolutely fascinating.
I found your comment that Pagden over-complicates concepts very interesting. I think it's true of his style throughout when classifying methods of coping with the New World (principle of attachment, autoptic imagination), but I'm not sure if it's true that Pagden is asserting that these (overly complex) methods are unique to Europeans encountering the New World, rather than just typical of these Europeans.
ReplyDeleteHey Cameron, I like that you challenged Pagden at the end of your response. While the "New World" was certainly as described, it also wasn't the only place where Europeans tried to find "familiar in the unknown." Though they may have been aware of the existence of Africa and Asia, they still knew very little about them. Their knowledge of Europe vs all of these foreign lands was relatively similar.
ReplyDeleteHi Cameron, Love your discussion of Pagden's account of how Europeans sometimes established a false equivalency between themselves and the natives that impeded understanding. I think you're right that this is not unique to European encounters in the New World. I wonder: In our first class some people compared studying history to traveling; is this establishment of a false equivalency also something we risk doing when aiming to understand past societies and individuals? What is the study of history training us to do?
ReplyDeleteAlso thought your point that this principle of attachment could actually impend understanding was good. However, I wonder if that is simply a natural human process. I feel like in general when someone is trying to understand something new they try to relate it to something they do understand. I would imagine the Natives probably trying to do a similar process of attachment in order to understand the Europeans. Does anyone think there could have been an alternative route?
ReplyDelete~Mackenzie
I agree with many of your points. While it is necessary for historians to analyze biases, it is important for them to recognize that they are often motivated by basic human, and not individual, desires. I was also interested in finding out why you found Pagden's description of American Indians in Europe so fascinating (although I agree with you).
ReplyDelete