"Whatever the advantages of a particular landscape, people seem always to reshape it according to their vision of what it should be."-(Nature's Metropolis, William Cronon, 55)
This passage from the very first page of todays reading struck me not only for its literal implications as the rest of the chapter discussed, but interpreted abstractly I think this concept applies to every problem people face. I believe people are generally optimistic beings. We are trained by experiences to be pessimistic at times. We have no reason to pessimistic until we have had experiences which train us to expect negative outcomes. We hope for a greater future. We invest so much faith in making that possibility a reality and once we arrive at that reality there is a greater future then to reach for. I think this idea is amplified in America, perhaps because of our system of government. Whitman's Democratic Vistas emphasized, "America, filling the present with greatest deeds and problems, cheerfully accepting the past..., counts, as I reckon, for her justification and success, (for who, as yet, dare claim success?) almost entirely on the future." Later in the paper he uses an image of America's potential being asleep to illustrate this concept. I feel in a way that is the beauty of democracy. Because democracy allows for change, the potential of the country is always asleep in comparison to the future democracy can bring.
The hope is always there that we can reshape our world or our problems according to our optimism. I think the problem with this comes when we deceive ourselves into believing an impossibility or a nonreality. I think people mentally or physically reshape situations based on what they wish they were or hope they could be, however, ultimately, if we allow that to obscure our sense of reality, we will one day have to face to truth. For example a lot of the 'progress' we have made since railroads and factories and cars is hurting what Cronon refers to as the 'first nature' of our environment. Although we have reshaped the world in our image, nature, which we also need to survive, is suffering. Thus I believe that it is good to remain optimistic, but important to allow that optimism to be rationally guided by reality.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Middling Effect
"It is curious to me that while so many, pens, minds...are discussing intellectual topics...Our fundamental want to-day in the United States...is of a class, and the clear idea of a class, of native authors, literatures, far different, far higher in grade than any yet known..." (Dem. Vistas 759)
Whitman is essentially asking is, 'in a political system where so many people are given equal opportunity to participate, why have not any minds, of the great multitude of participants, emerged as exemplary in describing their own system?' I think Tocqueville answers this question in describing a middling effect which is equally important to making democracy work. "A middling standard has been established in America for all human knowledge. All minds come near to it, some by raising and some by lowering their standards." (Dem. in America 56) If American intelligence hovers around this middle level based on differences in access to upper education, it is no wonder we have not lived up to the potential of democracy. We have not adequately been able to justify our system of government because our general comprehension of it is not widespread. Even if a great writer was able to accomplish Whitman's dream, it would be lost on those below the middle standard, thus effective literature can only exist on the middle level. I also think the nature of democracy pushes the bar higher for its own potential as this middle standard of intelligence rises. As the intelligence of a people grows, their potential grows, and thus the potential of the way they organize themselves grows. For this reason I do not think the potential of democracy can or will ever be reached, because that is it's beautiful nature. There is nowhere to go but up.
Whitman is essentially asking is, 'in a political system where so many people are given equal opportunity to participate, why have not any minds, of the great multitude of participants, emerged as exemplary in describing their own system?' I think Tocqueville answers this question in describing a middling effect which is equally important to making democracy work. "A middling standard has been established in America for all human knowledge. All minds come near to it, some by raising and some by lowering their standards." (Dem. in America 56) If American intelligence hovers around this middle level based on differences in access to upper education, it is no wonder we have not lived up to the potential of democracy. We have not adequately been able to justify our system of government because our general comprehension of it is not widespread. Even if a great writer was able to accomplish Whitman's dream, it would be lost on those below the middle standard, thus effective literature can only exist on the middle level. I also think the nature of democracy pushes the bar higher for its own potential as this middle standard of intelligence rises. As the intelligence of a people grows, their potential grows, and thus the potential of the way they organize themselves grows. For this reason I do not think the potential of democracy can or will ever be reached, because that is it's beautiful nature. There is nowhere to go but up.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Equality and Sameness
Today it was raised in class, the question of equality among Oles. Dan mentioned one of the greatest things about St. Olaf is that all its students are equal or at least treated equally, and because the members of this community each other equally we all have access to the same opportunities. A contrary point was made that in fact all Oles are NOT all equal, particularly in the domain of financial matters. It is not true that all Oles have the same opportunities based on personal barriers, but that perhaps because we still treat each other equally even though we aren't is also a the problem. Treating each other equally is rooted in the assumption that we are all equal. Paige suggested that this leads to an expectation that everybody actually is equal and should be able to reach the same opportunities She specifically mentioned going abroad. Particularly for language majors there may be some expectation that students will spend time abroad, even though it is not explicitly required. Paige claimed this expectation is unreasonable because not all Oles have equal opportunity and the school is not unlimited in its ability to help students reach their goals. Along the same lines Eric later commented on another aspect of inequality at St. Olaf. He identified seniority as a point of inequality among students. Upperclassmen get first pick and consideration for classes, room draw and competitive opportunities and internships. I, however, think that these two points confuse the concepts of equality and sameness. Of course Oles are all different from one another because we are individuals. No individual is going to be the same as the next because we all grow up separately. We experience different situations and learn different lessons and come from different backgrounds with parents who are also separate individuals and make livings in different ways. Upperclassmen are not offered extra privileges because they are any better individuals than we are but they are not the same in that they have had more experience here so they have in a sense earned their 'first pick'. Additionally often it is because certain courses are required for specific majors that upperclassmen have priority for those classes. They get priority out of necessity not because the administration values upperclassmen more than freshmen. In conclusion no we are not all the same. We all have had different experiences and different levels of experience which earn certain individuals or require certain individuals to be considered first for certain opportunities, but regardless I do believe that those opportunities on a basic level ARE available to all Oles.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Decline of Relationships
"Their ties, in short are to common symbols, common leaders, and perhaps common ideals, but not to one another"(Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital, 5)
Putnam defines "social capital" as "features of social organization such as networks norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit."He proposes that this is declining. I think the passage above offers a reason why. Its not simply that social capital is declining because civic engagement is declining. Those two concepts are almost one in the same according to his definition so one cannot cause the other. Perhaps social capital is declining because Americans allow the goals and benefits of the networks and organizations themselves to overpower the sense of camaraderie that people get when they participate in these activities. Instead of tying people together directly through relationships that form when people come together, these organizations almost serve as a 'middle man' in tying people together. They are only related to the extent of that group and only for the goals and purposes of that group. They aren't actually bonded as people. This is a complicated process to reverse because you can't make people bond over nothing, but you can't measure how much of something to encourage before it overpowers their natural relationship. This is why the decline of social capital is so dangerous. If people don't form meaningful bonds with each other, they are less likely to sympathize and cooperate with one another which is essential to making democracy work.
Putnam defines "social capital" as "features of social organization such as networks norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit."He proposes that this is declining. I think the passage above offers a reason why. Its not simply that social capital is declining because civic engagement is declining. Those two concepts are almost one in the same according to his definition so one cannot cause the other. Perhaps social capital is declining because Americans allow the goals and benefits of the networks and organizations themselves to overpower the sense of camaraderie that people get when they participate in these activities. Instead of tying people together directly through relationships that form when people come together, these organizations almost serve as a 'middle man' in tying people together. They are only related to the extent of that group and only for the goals and purposes of that group. They aren't actually bonded as people. This is a complicated process to reverse because you can't make people bond over nothing, but you can't measure how much of something to encourage before it overpowers their natural relationship. This is why the decline of social capital is so dangerous. If people don't form meaningful bonds with each other, they are less likely to sympathize and cooperate with one another which is essential to making democracy work.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Our Selfish Imperative
"...each man is the best judge of his own interest and the best able to satisfy his private needs." (Tocqueville, 82)
Continuing from my last blog, if religion isn't the check of democracy, perhaps it is something a little more selfish. Democracy does depend on a common sense of morality so that the participants do not abuse their power to participate, but it is also highly regulated by self interest. Less than twenty pages earlier Tocqueville says "He obeys society not because he is inferior to those who direct it, nor because he is incapable of ruling himself, but because union with his fellows seems useful to him and he knows that that union is impossible without a regulating authority." (66) In order to got what they want out of a society people must take an active role in society and this also keeps democracy in check. So are we a pious nation or a selfish one? Perhaps both are necessary. It is our selfish imperative that encourages us (as American citizens) to participate, but moral guidelines which keep us from over-participating or preventing others to participate to the best of their ability.
Continuing from my last blog, if religion isn't the check of democracy, perhaps it is something a little more selfish. Democracy does depend on a common sense of morality so that the participants do not abuse their power to participate, but it is also highly regulated by self interest. Less than twenty pages earlier Tocqueville says "He obeys society not because he is inferior to those who direct it, nor because he is incapable of ruling himself, but because union with his fellows seems useful to him and he knows that that union is impossible without a regulating authority." (66) In order to got what they want out of a society people must take an active role in society and this also keeps democracy in check. So are we a pious nation or a selfish one? Perhaps both are necessary. It is our selfish imperative that encourages us (as American citizens) to participate, but moral guidelines which keep us from over-participating or preventing others to participate to the best of their ability.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Religion of Democracy
"In America it is religion which leads to enlightenment and the observance of divine laws which leads men to liberty." (Tocqueville 45)
Here Tocqueville has touched on a number of "dense facts" so to speak: religion, enlightenment, divine laws, liberty.... What do these mean? and What is he referring to? Firstly; religion. America is known as the cultural melting pot. That is one of the greatest aspects of our democracy is that everyone is permitted to participate regardless of their background, one aspect of which being religion, but the point is not everyone follows the same religion. Does that matter? Maybe the "divine laws" of religion agree enough to guide people towards "enlightenment." I think by this Tocqueville means a general sense of morals. I wrote earlier in commenting on Whitman's, Democratic Vistas, that a communal sense of morality is essential to making democracy work because it is based on equality of all participants. You need a sense of what is moral in order to achieve equality because equality is based on what is fair. This common sense of morality, Tocqueville says will lead people to liberty. I believe the liberty he is referring to is the ability to participate in government freely.
After deciphering Tocqueville's passage I want to now question it. I don't believe that there is a religion of America. I do not believe that religion is a point on which we are necessarily unified because America is a melting pot. So many practices exist here including atheism, but there is a guiding sense of morality and conservatism. If there is no real religion of America, how can our morality come from religion of the citizens alone? I believe that morality can come from other sources. For example, people who are atheists have a sense of morality too, but theirs isn't derived from any religion. These people function just as effectively in society as do those who are religious, thus I disagree that religion is what holds democracy together.
Here Tocqueville has touched on a number of "dense facts" so to speak: religion, enlightenment, divine laws, liberty.... What do these mean? and What is he referring to? Firstly; religion. America is known as the cultural melting pot. That is one of the greatest aspects of our democracy is that everyone is permitted to participate regardless of their background, one aspect of which being religion, but the point is not everyone follows the same religion. Does that matter? Maybe the "divine laws" of religion agree enough to guide people towards "enlightenment." I think by this Tocqueville means a general sense of morals. I wrote earlier in commenting on Whitman's, Democratic Vistas, that a communal sense of morality is essential to making democracy work because it is based on equality of all participants. You need a sense of what is moral in order to achieve equality because equality is based on what is fair. This common sense of morality, Tocqueville says will lead people to liberty. I believe the liberty he is referring to is the ability to participate in government freely.
After deciphering Tocqueville's passage I want to now question it. I don't believe that there is a religion of America. I do not believe that religion is a point on which we are necessarily unified because America is a melting pot. So many practices exist here including atheism, but there is a guiding sense of morality and conservatism. If there is no real religion of America, how can our morality come from religion of the citizens alone? I believe that morality can come from other sources. For example, people who are atheists have a sense of morality too, but theirs isn't derived from any religion. These people function just as effectively in society as do those who are religious, thus I disagree that religion is what holds democracy together.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Humble Beginnings
"Modest beginnings were no longer a somewhat embarrassing obstacle to be overcome but rather the indispensable bedrock of distinction." Cullen (68)
The concept of the "American Dream" arose in 1931 when James Truslow Adams described saying "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement." Cullen renames this concept the "Dream of Upward Mobility," and it affects everything about the way American politics work. I won't pretend to be an expert, but a quick glance at America's most cherished figures will show how important it is that the common man can understand the politics and politicians of his nation. Andrew Jackson is a prime example. He was a popular because of his humble beginnings and president in spite of them. He was said to have come from the wild, raised in the woods, yet, through education and experience was able to rise above his modest start to the highest seat in American government. He perfectly illustrates American favoritism of the "underdog" that began as early as the Puritans. Although there were many flaws in their society, the Puritans were a persecuted people in Europe who searched for a certain spiritual "upward mobility"and rose above their obstacles to move to a new land where they could have the opportunity to practice their beliefs. I think this 'underdog' quality is even essential to the proceedings of our representative system because people need to feel that they related to their representatives in order to feel confident in the decisions they make on behalf of the people. Andrew Jackson was popular because people felt that they could relate to him. He was "just like them," and that gave people confidence in his political decisions.
The concept of the "American Dream" arose in 1931 when James Truslow Adams described saying "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement." Cullen renames this concept the "Dream of Upward Mobility," and it affects everything about the way American politics work. I won't pretend to be an expert, but a quick glance at America's most cherished figures will show how important it is that the common man can understand the politics and politicians of his nation. Andrew Jackson is a prime example. He was a popular because of his humble beginnings and president in spite of them. He was said to have come from the wild, raised in the woods, yet, through education and experience was able to rise above his modest start to the highest seat in American government. He perfectly illustrates American favoritism of the "underdog" that began as early as the Puritans. Although there were many flaws in their society, the Puritans were a persecuted people in Europe who searched for a certain spiritual "upward mobility"and rose above their obstacles to move to a new land where they could have the opportunity to practice their beliefs. I think this 'underdog' quality is even essential to the proceedings of our representative system because people need to feel that they related to their representatives in order to feel confident in the decisions they make on behalf of the people. Andrew Jackson was popular because people felt that they could relate to him. He was "just like them," and that gave people confidence in his political decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)