Response to Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World

In Scott Russell Sanders’ written response to Salman Rushdie, Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, Sanders reveals his view that moving devalues the sentimentality of land and causes greediness by first introducing Rushdie’s naive ideas, and then exposing the flaws, as well as creating an extended metaphor that compares moving to a toxic relationship built around lust.

Sanders references Rushdie’s arguments in order to reveal the flaws in Rushdie’s naive reasoning by parodying his statements and presenting historical evidence to counter his logic.

One of the reader’s first encounter with Rushdie’s perspective is his metaphor of the restriction of nationalism and the personification of patriotism as nationalism’s “ugly sister.” Sanders mimics the personification by sarcastically stating that Americans could surely use less nationalism along with her “ugly siblings, racism, religious sectarianism, or class snobbery.” By parodying the style of Rushdie’s figurative language, Sanders’ mocks Rushdie for presuming that the greatest problem associated with nationalism in America is patriotism rather than the clear grander issues in society.

Shedding chauvinism is a good thing; Sanders makes use of the rhetorical question “And even if…we shed our chauvinism, is that all we lose” and develops his perspective of the duality that resides in this topic. His question leaves the readers asking themselves, what good do they also sacrifice for the sake of moving? This presumption causes those that agree with Rushdie to be blind to the reality that everything cannot possibly be “inherently good.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified

Proficient in: Home

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Sanders uses this argument to reveal that resettlement has both benefits and setbacks. Rushdie highlights the glory of a mongrel society full of the blending of “cultures, ideas, politics, movies, [and] songs.”

By placing Rushdie’s claim into historical context, Sanders supports his retort that the perfect hybrid of people is not the case. Sanders alludes to the Spaniards who ruined South America by “imposing on this New World the religion, economics, and the politics of the Old;” to the colonists that brought the trade of slavery; and even to the Americans that took wet region farming techniques to the Great Plains, and in turn introduces the imperfections of people who “force identical schemes onto differing locales.” All of these methods, values, and cultures prospered where they began, but the false ideal that they could easily shed their background and mold together to form “new types of human being,” is, as inferred from Sanders use of historical allusions, naive.

The concept of greed and the loss of sentimental value towards land as the results of resettling are developed by Sanders through his extended metaphor of moving as lust juxtapose love. Typically people are never satisfied; they move on to the next thing before valuing what they have. This discontent thrives from the naive dream of fulfilling destinies, constantly searching for something better to move to in the future. The author argues that this future- seeking habit could instead be used to settle into a land, take time to cherish it, and construct a lasting home-instead of, house-for the present to last until the future.

Sanders compares disrespect for nature to an abusive relationship and manipulates this concept to emphasize the dangers for both members. By showcasing a hypothetical situation where as soon as land is destroyed, or not ideal, americans are seduced by the “romance of unlimited space,” Sanders develops his claim that humans are constantly victims of hedonic adaptation with the metaphor that moving is a deceitful, baneful, seductive relationship that people lust for. As soon as the passion is over, people simply move on to the next, with no emotional attachment. Thus leading to the conclusion of seeking land that is full of passion and intimacy, but not commitment.

In Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love, passion, intimacy, and commitment are the foundations of love; passion and intimacy without commitment is termed “empty love.” By extending his metaphorical relationship, Sanders contrasts lust with the concept of consummate love to support the value of sentiment in caring for the earth that is owned and respecting it as one would to their loved one. The contrast between the metaphors for infatuation and consummate love build Sanders’ endorsement that without consideration of the consequences infatuation of the positive qualities of moving will lead to downfall. Through this comparison, Sanders demonstrates that mobility will not appease the continuous cravings for more land.

In this complex world, respect for both types of results, good and evil, are beneficial to avoid falling into the naive fixation of solely positive aspects. Acknowledging that resettling suffers negative consequences–dissatisfaction and ignorance to flaws–is proven by Sanders’ analysis of Rushdie’s reasoning and Sanders’ correlation of moving to meaningless, passionate love.