Migration as Anthropocentric in Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, a Book by Scott Russell Sanders

Introduction

In Scott Russell Sanders’s book, Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, Sanders addresses Salman Rushdie’s and the mass majority of the American public’s views on how migration brings tolerance in order to exemplify his point that migration is anthropocentric, and that claims that migration causes tolerance are overblown and idealistic. Sanders also offers an alternative viewpoint in order to further his perspective.

American Mythology and Migration

In order to establish his viewpoint on migration, Sanders begins the passage by describing the American “hero.” The archetypes he describes, “sailors, explorers, cowboys…” all have one thing in common: They all seek a “Promised Land,” and they are all glorified in American mythology. Sanders claims that even after centuries during which technology has advanced and taken over almost every part of all Americans’ lives, American mythology still captivates the American people, leading them to idealistically believe that migration brings tolerance. Sanders writes that despite the cultural and technological changes that have occurred, Americans still believe that the “worst fate is to be trapped on a farm, in a village, in the sticks, in some dead-end job or unglamorous marriage or played-out game” (Sanders, 1993, p. 27). Sanders is criticizing Americans for adhering to an archaic and overly idealistic belief that migration brings tolerance and should constantly be strived for.

The Irony of Migration and Tolerance

Sanders then addresses the irony of Americans believing that migration brings tolerance. Both Rushdie and Sanders agree upon the fact that nationalism, patriotism, and their “ugly siblings racism, religious sectarianism, [and] class snobbery” are all negative qualities that we should aim to get rid of. However, Sanders points out that hating nationalism and patriotism while supporting migration is a contradictory action. By doing so, he undermines the reader’s trust in Rushdie, and therefore Sanders effectively convinces his audience that his viewpoint is correct. Sanders highlights the ironic fact that although Americans themselves take pride in their nationalism and patriotism, they still over-glorify migration and its supposed benefit of tolerance. By doing so, Sanders further establishes his perspective that migration brings harm, not good. This contradiction is pivotal in understanding the complexities of human movement and its real impact on society.

Anthropocentric Harms of Migration

Sanders furthers his perspective by addressing the anthropocentric harms of migration. He writes that Rushdie’s perspective that migration causes people to change is incorrect; instead, Sanders posits that people strive to stay the same, even amidst major changes. Sanders refers to a few distinct historical examples in order to exemplify his perspective. Sanders writes about how the Spaniards desecrated Central and South America by trying to impose their own cultural practices onto the New World, how the colonists brought slavery and disease upon the Native Americans, and, more recently, how American farmers caused the Dust Bowl when their greed and refusal to acknowledge that the environment was drastically different from the regions they came from. By addressing the anthropocentrism harms that are caused when people move away simply because “a neighbor’s chimney begins to crowd the sky” (Sanders, 1993, p. 45), Sanders effectively refutes Rushdie’s philosophy that migration is good for both the environment and the people. This historical insight provides a deeper understanding of how migration has historically disrupted societies and ecosystems.

An Alternative Viewpoint

Finally, Sanders offers an alternative viewpoint in order to further his perspective. He writes that staying put, instead of frequent migration, is better for both the people and environment. Sanders hypothesizes that by staying put, people will be able to appreciate the environment that surrounds them. By staying put, people will be able to root themselves, and their identities to a specific place, which allows for more growth than frequent migration. Eventually, people will have a sense of identity in the place they live, and will strive to take care of the environment, which would counter the harms that are caused by migration. This idea challenges the common narrative of migration as a necessary step for personal and communal growth, offering instead the potential benefits of stability and continuity.

Conclusion

Therefore, in Scott Russell Sanders’s book, Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, Sanders addresses Salman Rushdie’s and the mass majority of the American public’s views on how migration brings tolerance and solves problems in order to exemplify his point that migration is anthropocentric and that claims that migration causes tolerance are overblown and idealistic. By providing an alternative viewpoint to address the harms that Sanders claims frequent migration causes, Sanders effectively conveys his point that frequent migration is both detrimental towards humans and the environment (Sanders, 1993). Through his arguments, Sanders encourages a reevaluation of the perceived benefits of migration in modern society.

References

Sanders, S. R. (1993). Staying put: Making a home in a restless world. Beacon Press.