Author Archives: Christopher Fleischer

Democracy’s Prospects

Posted on by
2

American democracy is imperiled because of party polarization. No longer are people voting for a “popular passion” because the two political parties have become so polarized—the system is red or blue. Zakaria elaborates on the historical significance of political parties being able to channel interests into policy. Currently, the middle is so eroded that a stalemate has taken form. The democratic process loses efficacy in this state of polarization. Another peril is the rigidity of one’s association with a political party. Zakaria notes Tocqueville’s observation of America being held together by civic bonds or “intermediary associations”—concepts that are lost in today’s hyper-individualized atmosphere. Tocqueville notes the significance of groups and clubs in America that are catalysts of political change, formation, and even reflection. Zakaria contrasts this beneficial system with that of today, calling us all “entrepreneurs.” The middleman is out, and we pull all our identity from our respective political party, a party which is now unreachable and unchangeable to the average citizen. As we have alluded to in class, we do our work in the coffee shop to be alone together. We are seeing less association at the grassroots level to any popular passion. The system is ineffective to the ordinary citizen. As Foa and Mounk’s article points out, there is in fact a disillusionment with democracy. It is becoming less popular, less trusted. The system isn’t working for the ordinary citizen; it’s only working at the top level for the rich and powerful. The article cites a study that found that the most influential people in determining policy of the past 30 years have been economic elites and narrow interest groups. These promoters of illiberal democracy destroy the means to getting to liberal democracy. The middle is falling out both literally and symbolically. How can the ordinary citizen affect change? I think it is both a structural and cultural problem. Democracy’s survival must stem from an ideological change in the people; the system needs to find power from the bottom up rather than trust the power from the top down.

The Grocer and the Chief

Posted on by
2

Lerner’s story highlights the massive amount of change that occurred in Balgat in just four years. Not only did infrastructure change — like the village becoming a part of Ankarra, clean water, electricity — but the mindset of the people changed as well. All of this change occurred on the election of the Demokrat party. The new leaders turned the small farmer village into an up-and-coming town. Tosun’s account of Balgat in 1950 highlights the struggle between tradition and change. The Chief represents tradition while the Grocer represents change. Ringer mentions that to “define modernity is also to define tradition.” In this piece, we see the manifestation of that. Jobs and fashion trends changed in Balgat, but what remained give us a sense of Turkish tradition and culture — like how the Chief offered Lerner “the corners.” Sometimes we unknowingly resist change (or modernity). After finishing the piece, Tosun even comes across as a resister of change. He mocks the Grocer’s necktie and dislikes how he tries to be closer with him than the other villagers. Between the lines, Tosun is resisting a change of tradition. A dilemma of modernization lays in our ignorance of progress when it is occurring. We naturally resist change. At the end, Lerner quotes one of the villagers admitting to misjudging the Grocer, saying, in fact, that the Grocer was “a prophet.”

Dying Russians

Posted on by
3

The conclusion to Gessen’s article leaves me unsatisfied. To me, the idea that hopelessness is the cause for so much death, seems incomplete and untestable. The unavoidable flaw to the study lays in the fact that the subjects are all dead. Nonetheless, the piece highlights the importance of both qualitative and quantitative research to dig deep into the problem in Russia. Cultural research, institutional research, and historical context all play a critical role in untangling the anthropological question at hand—yet the final conclusion still feels shaky. The article reveals that in social science there is no ultimate truth; we can only approach truth and come short. There will always be alternative arguments, and we need multiple view points to help piece together a whole. So yes, there is a “truth” that lies beyond the grasp of social science. We should absolutely not stop striving for it.

Power Askew

Posted on by
1

George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is an interesting account grounded in power dynamics. British imperialism—“the white man with his gun”—fulfills the precepts of traditional authority. Britain ruled over the Burmese people through advanced weapons technology. Yet, on this micro account of imperial rule in a rural village, doesn’t it seem like Orwell holds the least amount of power? The Burmese people assume the European official, being the official, to solve the problem, and Orwell must submit to their assumptions of his power. His legitimacy would be under question if he doesn’t play the role that “the norm” has given him. Oddly, Orwell becomes powerless by the will of the Burmese people: if Orwell doesn’t shoot, if he doesn’t withhold his imperial visage, he will lose all his authority, all his power (then they’d probably kill him). The will of the majority reigns supreme in this story—despite their ignorance of it. Orwell sums it up in this line: “The futility of the white man’s dominion in the East … seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of this yellow faces behind”

For School

Posted on by
5

A method of ranking and distinction is an essential piece of a meritocracy. In order for individuals to rise, to matriculate, to gain merit, there have to be people who don’t. That sounds grim, but Gatto’s essay is a bit idealized. He implies that if society rid mass schooling, and each child was homeschooled or self-educated (“managed themselves”), children would acquire leadership skills and critical insight—but nay. I think kids, especially nowadays, would sit at home and watch TV all day, and that would truly be “not growing up.” Ben Franklin, George Washington and crew—they are convenient outliers to Gatto’s argument: they are exceptional individuals who were (conveniently) not educated in a mass-schooling system.

This is not to say that the mass schooling system is messed up, because it sounds pretty messed up. There needs to be an emphasis on critical thinking in education—students do need to learn how to manage themselves, to think for themselves and problem solve. I think Williams does this exceptionally well. Williams promotes creative problem solving and demotes mundane task-oriented work (I think). This problem is indeed easier to solve in a small liberal arts college—a public school with 4,000 students is much different. It sounds like teaching methods need to change, but I don’t think required education needs to cease.