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.

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.

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.