Author Archives: Harry Kamian

False Sense of Democracy

Posted on by
3

“Please Vote for Me” is not representative of a democracy. The election for class monitor is not democratic. Simply because one has the opportunity to vote in a system does not render the system democratic. The teacher selected three candidates for the position; the students, therefore, are essentially forced to choose from predetermined “representatives” of their class. By this logic, however, almost no modern nation is truly a democracy. While behavior of candidates is similar to candidates who run for president or other offices in the United States (insults at debates as the primary form of earning support), children running for a class monitor position cannot be compared to adults campaigning for the highest office in the country. The teacher cannot allow students to vote for whomever they please; in order to guarantee that a somewhat responsible class monitor is chosen, she has to restrict the candidates to three that she knows will be decent at the very least. The students are therefore not voting for a representative. They are voting for a law enforcer who will simply do what the teacher tells them to do. The teacher is the true authoritarian figure in this scenario, not Luo Lei. Students are obligated to choose someone who will cause them grief in one way or another; electing the correct individual does not equate to selecting a representative who will best support their ideas on how the class should be run. I think that Machiavelli would conclude the teacher has done an excellent job of strengthening her control over the class. There’s nothing better than a false sense of democracy to lull a group of eight-year-olds into complacency.

Imperiled Democracy

Posted on by
3

I will start off this blog by reminding everyone that the people of the United States of America willingly elected Donald J. Trump to the highest office in the land. In the eyes of most, this would indicate that democracy has failed us here in the United States. Either democracy has failed the people, or the people have failed the idealistic system of government that is democracy. The outcome of each, however, is equally terrifying, and is embodied by the man serving as president.

Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk believe that “the future of democracy is uncertain”. In the United States, people are becoming more and more disenchanted with the idea of democracy, with almost one out of every six individuals believing that an alternative form of government would better serve the nation. While this belief is absolutely absurd, Foa and Mounk raise an entirely valid point. Democracies are not as consolidated as they were in a different era. Furthermore, there is absolutely no historical precedent to indicate what occurs to established democracies when most of a nation’s constituents experience no improvement in the quality of living for an extended period of time. Fareed Zakaria mentions Aristotle’s opinion that “direct democracy (rule by the many) is every bit as unstable as rule by one or a few”. I completely agree with Aristotle, and believe that this is the primary reason that democracy is imperiled in the 21st century. In theory, it would be wonderful if we could entrust the future of a nation to the entirety of its citizens, but this is simply unreasonable (illustrated once again by the individual currently representing the United States). Once this is established, however, there emerges another problem. How can we allow only a portion of the population to shape the government without discriminating or electing members who represent the views of only an elite few? Therein lies the peril of democracy.

Power of Perception

Posted on by
3

Lerner’s “The Grocer and the Chief: A Parable” is an extremely interesting piece, for it offers insight into not only the power dynamic of the Balgat, but also into the interviews’ perceptions of the people of the village. The initial interviewer, Tosun B., sought to ask questions of the poorest man in the village, the shepherd. It is heavily implied that whilst trying to set up this interview, the chief of the village made him incredibly nervous. Following his interview with a grocer, Tosun, with all his marvelous insightfulness, declares the grocer was nervous around him, and proud to have been selected for the interview. This sets up an interesting power dynamic in the village: why is the outsider feared by the grocer, yet fears the chief? I believe the answer lies in the desires of the three individuals. The grocer is nervous around Tosun because the interviewer represents the live he wishes to live but cannot experience for himself. The grocer simply wants to impress upon Tosun that he is different than the villagers in Balgat. Tosun, however, fears the chief, because he is in his village, interviewing his people. The dynamic between these unique people supports the notion that power is entirely dependent upon the perception of the individual; one only holds power when others decide that he or she should have said power.

On a separate note, I would like to comment on the subtle arrogance of Tosun which could discount everything I mentioned above. Tosun’s assumption that the grocer was nervous around him and proud to be interviewed implies the former implies he is above the latter. If Tosun’s comments are accurate, however, the notion that power is dependent upon perception is further supported.

Undiscovered Knowledge

Posted on by
1

Most people are unable to fathom that as a species we are not always capable of determining the cause of a phenomenon in science; they therefore assume that every social problem has an explanation that they already understand. This form of arrogance is absurd. Humans discover more and more about how the brain affects social behavior every year, rendering any assumption that an answer must lie within our current range of knowledge ridiculous. As described in Masha Gessen’s “The Dying Russians”, Eberstadt understands that with current information it might be impossible to officially determine the cause of the high mortality rate in Russia. While Eberstadt is more interested in the general phenomenon of depopulation, he employs an extremely structured method to try and determine the cause of high mortality and “systematically goes down the list of the usual suspects” (Gressen). He does, however, conclude that he cannot offer an explanation for the deaths. Eberstadt uses historical instruments of explanation such as previous trends in Russian history (population decline in 1917-1923) to analyze the cause of high mortality in Russia.

In political science, most theories are formed based on the past. While it is significantly easier to form a correct theory with hindsight and illustrate correlation, it is extremely difficult to prove causation. Whereas Eberstadt took a historical approach of sorts, Parsons explores “the cultural context of the Russian mortality crisis”, and uses cultural instruments of explanation to attempt to understand the phenomenon”. As Gressen points out, the obvious flaw in Parsons investigation is that the interviews were carried out over a decade after the phenomenon, and were conducted with survivors. While it may be easy to determine a correlation between the sense of worthlessness that Russians feel and high mortality rates, causation is extremely difficult to prove after the fact. One could argue that the answer for the large number of deaths in Russia is a simpler form of a “truth” that lies beyond science. I consider that “truth” to simply represent the knowledge we do not yet have, and striving for the unreachable is what allows that knowledge to be acquired.

“Shooting an Elephant” – Shift of Power

Posted on by
9

There is only one group with referenced in George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” that has complete power, and that is the English Empire. This group, however, does not include Orwell himself, for his power is entirely dependent on the Burmese’s’ perspective of his position. When Orwell walks through the street, people taunt and attempt to provoke a reaction from him, mocking the fact that he is a white man in their country. As a body of people, they have the strength to offer resistance in the most meager form they can manage. But as individuals, not a single person has the strength to organize a legitimate resistance. The British empire, therefore, has power over the Burmese, as they are affecting the Burmese contrary to their interests (Gaventa). The Burmese and Orwell both have some degree of power over the other, due to traditional and legal authority, respectively. The British empire holds power over Orwell, as he states he does not enjoy his position of authority and secretly agrees with the Burmese; the empire affects Orwell contrary to his personal interests.

Once the elephant comes into play, however, the dynamic of power completely shifts. As Orwell stands in the field, staring at the elephant, with 2000 Burmese watching and assuming he will shoot the creature, he decides it would be immoral to do so. He feels strongly that the elephant should live, yet those around him believe otherwise. Orwell puzzles through the consequences of not shooting the elephant, and concludes that he must kill the animal for the sake of the English empire, and so he himself does not look like a fool. In this moment, the Burmese people have power over both the English Empire and Orwell. Orwell is pushed to contradict his personal perspective, and the English become dependent upon the will of one man to shoot an elephant.

Response to “Education Standardization: Conformity or Equality”

Posted on by

I agree with Alexandra’s comments on the public education system and its impact on equality. One often forgets to look outside of their bubble; I always assumed that Algebra was a standard course that everyone would take around the United States regardless of the structure of a school system. Standardization allows those who would never have had the opportunity to learn certain subject matter study in a generally supportive environment. The reality is that if left to explore their own methods of schooling, many parents and their children would not be able to or have the desire to properly study algebra. At the same time, however, standardization limits the ability of the individual to exceed and excel in the educational system. For those able to learn at a faster rate than the norm, equality in the public education system is a hinderance to academic growth. While I agree that switching to a positive viewpoint helps one view conformity as equality, it is merely a viewpoint. One’s perspective doesn’t alter reality; the education system in the United States has massive flaws. Overall, I agree that equality in public schools is not a bad thing, but if the system were altered to allow the individual to excel while still holding others to a standard, forced education would be much better.

Why Structure is Necessary

Posted on by

I would love to write that Gatto’s perception of the public education system is the result of a small sample size and therefore inaccurate, but that would be wrong. To address the stated reasons for implementing mass schooling in the United States, the public education system does not produce good people, good citizens, or allow each person to be his or her best. Students are thrown into a situation where there is always a clear power structure, and are essentially obligated to create a place for themselves. If by “to make good citizens”, however, one means “force children to conform so they are easier to control”, then the public education system is, in fact, successful. Finally, children are either held back or pushed along at the classroom pace, which will almost always mean that one is not able to become his or her best.

While I agree with Grotto that the public education system does not achieve its stated goals whatsoever, I do believe that society needs a system like forced schooling to continue functioning. It is not a bad thing that we associate grades with knowledge gained, and the prestige of one’s school with success. Civilization requires structure; if everyone were simply educated on their own, there would be no common ground, and no basis for control. Williams is as different from Grotto’s description as an institution can be in real life; we are here by choice, and the college is structured to allow the individual to create their own learning path. But, while we did choose to be here, we are also at Williams for everything that comes with the degree.