Author Archives: Alexandra Grusky

Democracy in Please Vote for Me

Posted on by
7

In Please Vote for Me, what should have been (from an American viewpoint) a friendly and innocent vote for class monitor, became a vicious week of name-calling, bribery, and emotional stress. In short, the Grade 3 Class 1 of Evergreen Promarh School, became representative of all the worst characteristics of democracy.

Fascinatingly, much of the bad behavior demonstrated throughout the film is instigated by the parents of the children. From writing speeches to preparing bribes to forcing the children to stay in the running, the parents of the 3 candidates were just as, if not more, important characters in the documentary than their children. This discrepancy can probably by explained in a couple of different ways. Similar to Iran, when investigating the much higher voter participation in elections that in the US, the effort into this third grade class monitor election, is due to the lack of any other elections in the country. To the Chinese parents, this election, then, counts as a chance, a hope, for some small control of the government institutions. Even though the third grade class monitor election is virtually nothing in the grand scheme of politics, it is symbolic of the hope for larger change and influence. In this way, the only chance to parents have to participate in an election is to do so through their kids. On the other hand, the actions of the parents are distinctly done to put their children in a better position- a purely selfish (but understandable) maneuver . As was mentioned in the film, being class monitor could be the first step to having a political career all the way up to President, like that of (then) current President Hu Jintao. Finally, the actions of the parents can be attributed to the parenting culture in China. Many of the parent-child interactions, such as threat of beatings or forcing extra work after bedtime, were very different from Western images of parenting styles.

Ultimately, however, it is critical to note that none of the participants in the documentary had any idea of what democracy was, and why it was important. If examined through a Toquevillian perspective, it is clear that although the institutional design (individual votes, peaceful transition of power, etc) of the system linked with our Western perception of democracy, the lack of the social culture  lacks causality of true democracy. This lack of a social culture is exhibited by the parents and adults and through them the students. In this way, although the class monitor election was presented as a new democratic opportunity, in fact, it was just a bad facimile of true democracy, and a way to appease the Chinese people of a need to participate and matter in politics.

The Culture of Democracy

Posted on by
1

Ultimately, my “gut feeling” is that the imperilment of democracy in the US stems from the loss of the culture of democracy within our country. It is the Tocquevillian “‘informal mechanisms’” that lead to a civil society that fosters and supports the institutions of democracy. The founding of the US is a perfect example of this itinerary from the ideas and culture of democracy to an institution of democracy. Although, as Zakaria mentions in the Sean Illing article, the founding fathers were wary of “democratic majoritarianism,” the introduction of liberal democracy was a completely unique experiment, based on the informal stipulations of the colonies. The presence (and lack of) cultural norms supported by the regime of the British monarchy, ultimately lead to the the emphasis of the key aspects of the Constitution—freedom of expression without fear of punishment, elected officials, control over policy invested in those elected officials, etc. Today, those same cultural stipulations are not as celebrated. In class, we mentioned the discrepancy between the voter turnout in the Iranian 2009 presidential elections (around 85%) and that in the US 2008 elections (around 50%). The conclusion we can draw from such a comparison, is that the US culture has become complacent and content. Citizens in the US don’t feel the need to vote, because there is no need to change things. Comparatively, in Iran, the elections are the only chance, albeit very little, to change things. In this way, I find it laughable and ironic that the very cause of the “imperilment of democracy” that has the media up in arms is what makes our country unique and successful.  

The Process of Modernization

Posted on by
2

In “The Passing of Traditional Society,” Lerner examines the process of modernization. He writes of Tosun’s account of the Chief and the Grocer to juxtapose the dichotomy between “the traditional Turkish values” and the new modern, national and global values of “an expansive world” (Lerner 23). The Chief is solely focused on the local issues about “women and cows” surrounding his town of Balgat. His ancestral heritage supports his authority, and the townspeople respect him and those traditional values of “obedience, courage, loyalty” that he represents. In contrast, the Grocer wants to “get out of his hole” and preferably move to a city for a more urbane life. His authority is based on his necessity as the only merchant in town who understands how the markets in Ankara work. The Grocer is focused on the larger national and global issues of  “a different world, an expansive world, populated more actively with imaginings and fantasies” (23). The one point of transition between these two worlds symbolized by the Chief and the Grocer is the use of the media, and, in particular, the radio. The radio, as a forms of communication, allows the Chief to begin to hear the national and global news, in this way, bringing the modern world into that of the traditional. Fascinatingly, this method of modernization works, as in 4 years, there were “over 100 radio receivers in Balgat” (34). Although the positive or negative outcome of such modernization can be debated (“the ancient village…had passed”), Lerner demonstrates the shift in modernization is due to a change in local to global communication and an interest in the larger world.

The Search for Truth

Posted on by
3

The most fascinating part of Gessen’s “The Dying Russians” was the lack of a substantial answer. In any kind of science– hard science, political science, or otherwise– truth is always the goal. In the article, Gessen looks for truth from both inductive and deductive scientists to find out why the mortality rate in Russia is so high. Michelle Parsons is described as an anthropologist looking at the cultural influences that would influence this phenomena. She uses deductive reasoning–finding evidence to falsify a hypothesis–to find the truth, and yet all she finds is a specific answer. Her evidence, found in the form of in-depth interviews with “average Muscovites,” does support a theory that the cultural shock of the collapse of the USSR, similar to the cultural shock after WWII is impacting the health and mental well-being of Russians today. Her method fails, however, as her scope is limited to the 1990’s and excludes many of the smaller, gradual changes of the previous decade, and her interviewees are also limited to survivors of two major mortality crises: following WWII and following the collapse of the USSR.  Nicholas Eberstadt, in comparison, uses an inductive system of reasoning, “systematically goes down the list of the usual suspects,” and crossing off those that would not explain the phenomena. Although the danger with inductive reasoning is the cherry-picking of data, Eberstadt fails to come up with any definitive answer, and Gessen is forced to conclude that there is no definitive truth regarding her question. Perhaps, ironically, the only truth of the entire article and the entire mortality situation, is that the truth has not been found yet. It makes me wonder whether truth has to involve a distinct answer–can truth be an unknown? If so, can we ever be content with an unknown truth?

The British Facade of Power

Posted on by
3

In “Shooting an Elephant,” author and narrator George Orwell exposes the facade of control that the British have over the Burmese people. In the traditional colonial system a minority of outsiders–in this case, the British–have domination over a large minority of natives–the Burmese–due to their military strength. Orwell, however, describes a power situation, where he, a British colonial and police officer, is insulted, tripped on the soccer field, and jeered at by the so called “oppressed” Burmese. Orwell is confused and humiliated due to not only the actions of the Burmese, but also because it is intrinsically understood in theory that the British have the power in the society. Orwell, and his fellow ex-pats, therefore, must maintain a facade of power, even though they, in fact, as individuals, are powerless against Burmese majority. The shooting of the elephant demonstrates this complicated dynamic and facade of power. Orwell both does not want to and “ought not” to kill the elephant, and yet he does, because of the pressure of the crowd and the necessity to maintain his own mask of power. He declares that he could “feel…two thousand wills pressing [him] forward, irresistibly,” and further describes himself as an “absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.” In this way, Orwell himself becomes the oppressed, overpowered individual at the mercy of a larger authority. He writes in the end that he only shot the elephant “solely to avoid looking like a fool,” further attesting to the irrationality of the current power dynamics, and the need for a more rational system of authority to be implemented.

Response to Atzin Villarreal Sosa

Posted on by
Reply

I agree with Atzin that Gatto fails to conclude his argument with a reasonable solution. Gatto’s suggestions of critical thinking, leadership, and serious study, are all wonderful goals, but they are ideals, as demonstrated by the fact that, ironically, they are the same goals that the current education system, the same system he criticizes, has in place. This irony is compounded by Gatto’s lack of a concrete solution. He mentions parents as the teachers and role models, but if the details are considered, his solution fails as it doesn’t take into account students from nontraditional families (such as single-parent families or foster children), students from socio-economic classes where parents don’t have the resources to educate their children, and students who need the social routines and order of school. To my great-grandparents who worked on family farms in rural Pennsylvania, school was a gift, a reprieve from home life and work. While mandatory schooling has changed the curiosity of school, many students look forward to the day, whether it is due to a hard home life or a simple love of learning. Gatto also forgets that school is not just traditional schooling. At risk of sounding cliché, school is about discovering yourself and who you want to be, whether that’s through academics, sports, the arts, or social life. The qualities he prioritizes can’t just be developed in any academic sense, whether that is traditional public school, home schooling, or parents as role models. Leadership, drive, inquisitiveness, and maturity are skills learned by action, and the education system provides an environment for those skills to develop, even if it does not actively show that through repetitious and boring academic work. In this way, the current education system may need to be re-evaluated and changed, but its positive aspects and similar ideals should be considered before the system is completely demolished.

Education Standardization: Conformity or Equality

Posted on by

In his 2003 Harper’s Magazine article, former teacher and author John Taylor Gatto asserts that public schooling in the United States is meant to be boring, repetitious, and often meaningless to, as he quotes from H.L Mencken, “‘breed and train a standardized citizenry’” (qtd. in Gatto 35). Gatto further describes this phenomena as the “conformity function” that has the “intention…to make all children as alike as possible” (36). I believe that this neutral assertion is correct. As Gatto indicates, coming out of primary and secondary schooling American children are expected to have a certain level of education in core subjects of Math, History, Science, and English–in this sense, every citizen is standardized on some level through the education system. Gatto, however, takes this concept of standardization and views it through a decidedly negative lense. Standardization of education, he writes, creates an “ignorant mass of mankind,” (36) that is unable to think “critically and independently” (38). And yet, standardization of public education was hailed as a hallmark of American progressiveness when it was first became mandatory in Massachusetts in 1852. Public education is also a symbol of unity and equality (although that can be contended) across the country. For example, the vast majority of American high schoolers have taken Algebra I, no matter where they are from or their socio-economic status (quality of the course, however, may not be equal). It is an amazing thing to think when you are struggling through a concept that every other teenager is or will go through the same experience. This is the equality of standardization: it can be a beautiful thing that allows students to have some understanding of each other. All in all, a simple switch from a negative to a positive viewpoint changes the fearful concept of conformity to one of equality.