Author Archives: Mariana Garcia

Say “Please Vote for Me” and we probably will

Posted on by
Reply

“Please Vote for Me” illustrates the many facets of democracy we have discussed in class, including the negative ones. The documentary demonstrates that in a system in which “the people” have power, any outcome is possible–even the one that we least expect. During the film, you can observe and hear the complaints the students have over Luo Lei’s position. Despite this, he is the one that ultimately wins. Furthermore, it’s clear to us by the film that the young students are under extreme pressure as they prepare themselves for events and speeches that can help them acquire more votes for the class monitor position. The students obviously work hard and care quite a lot about the work they’re doing. However, they also occasionally break down or show hesitation about their own qualifications. The need for votes becomes an experience of itself, separate from becoming a candidate that will best help the class. Promises are made and competition becomes the ultimate theme for the film.

“Please Vote for Me,” I think, demonstrates the consequences democracy brings. To me, the film shows how voting is sometimes not so much about the people having a voice but also about how individuals can create an image of themselves in order to acquire popularity and recognition. This goes back to the idea of democracy being the second best option. It’s really not the best; it’s clear that while students had the best intentions, elections become a competition over who can appeal to the masses the best. This can also lead to unexpected and extreme consequences.

Democracy and Liberalism

Posted on by
Reply

Sean Illing and Fareed Zakaria bring up some interesting points on the state of democracy in the United States, most of which center on the idea that democracy and liberalism are two separate concepts that have different impacts on the political structure of a country. By defining democracy as “a process for choosing leaders” and liberalism as “norms and practices that shapes political life,” more specifically those that prioritize individual right, the authors better outline how corruption and restrictions can occur even in a democracy. Given this model, democracy does not appear to be in peril–at least not in the United States. What does seem to be in danger–which Illing and Zakaria correctly identify–is how constitutional our leaders remain. I do not think our votes/voices are in danger of being silenced; unfortunately, though, I do see the structure of American politics taking a shape that values polarized decisions over agreement and concession. In practice, politicians on both sides prioritize action over regulation. Which, if you’re a proponent for the person in power, you’re happy to see happening because it means that something is happening. A politician is taking a stand. But for anyone who disagrees with you, it is just a violation of law and practice. This means that when someone else is in power, someone completely opposite from the prior incumbent, a political structure is already set in place that makes their ruling easier and further unregulated. If democracy is in danger, it is in danger because we keep leaving doors open for political corruption and chaos. Our Constitution and laws are fallible, as they are in every country. But when we start dismissing them, we start dismissing them all.

The Grocer, the Chief, and the Interviewer

Posted on by
1

One of the things that stood out to me the most in Daniel Lerner’s article was the reaction the Chief had when discussing the modernization (although he doesn’t use this word). During Tosun’s interviews, the Chief clearly symbolized the traditional values whereas the Grocer represented modernizing values that would manifest themselves in the village after Tosun’s interviews and before Lerner visited. However, when Lerner questions the Chief about the economic and social transformation in the village, his “voice did not change, nor did his eyes cloud over” (Lerner 55) as he described how his sons had become shopkeepers although it is implicit that he regrets this. I think this pushes against with what Ringer describes: “Modernity is necessarily experienced as antagonistic to tradition. The process of modernization thus creates a situation of ‘crisis'” (Ringer 5). The Chief clearly holds traditional values in higher esteem than the ones that have manifested in Balgat. However, he does not think that “the new ways” were “bringing evil with them” (Ringer 5). Modernity thus does not seem to be causing a crisis of values although it is still portrayed in opposite terms with traditional values.

Russia’s Problem Cannot Be Answered So Quickly

Posted on by
1

Masha Gessen provides a relatively lengthy discussion in order to analyze Russia’s mortality phenomenon. She does so through various forms of explanation: cultural, institutional, and historical. By discussing Michelle Parsons’ theory on Russia’s death rates, Gessen calls upon Russia’s history. However, the historical context is insufficient to answer the question. Nonetheless, Gessen utilizes this instrument of explanation in conjunction with Russia’s cultural context to get to her conclusion. Interestingly, despite Eberstadt’s attempt to systematically search for an answer to Russia’s epidemic, Gessen’s conclusion is far from scientific. Russians dying from “a broken heart” cannot be proven. But there’s a slight draw to it. We are creatures who search for answers, even when answers cannot be fully achieved. As a writer, I think Gessen is victim to this flaw. It’s hard to write about a topic that doesn’t seem to have a clear outline to it. No one has been able to find the reason as to why Russians are dying so quickly and so young. But she keeps encountering it and it lies heavily on her emotions. Her scope is extremely limited. There is no way for her to come to a conclusion in a matter of one article piece. More research has to be done–moreover, more diverse research should be taken into account. There is no way to acquire the truth with work that is so limited. I think it’s possible for social scientists to find truth in their work, but it must be work that is fully researched, explained, and analyzed.

The Tanglement of Power

Posted on by
Reply

In George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant,” there are several layers or categories of power. For one, Orwell describes the British Empire as evil and tyrannical. Imperialism, to him, is the greatest malevolent force. However, this is all theoretical. In real life, in Orwell’s lived experience, the Burmese are the real nefarious forces. Orwell’s mind is split between these two forces: the theoretical evil and the experienced one. But there are several other units at play that also appear in the story Lisa Wedeen shares. The Burmese people, discontent with the British people’s presence, exert influence on the European officers by yelling at them, insulting them, and even physically effecting them (through tripping during games, for example). All of these acts serve as a type of transgression. However, I think that even with such overt expressions of discontent the Burmese people still partly play into the system that the British government has set in place (although I do believe the Burmese transgress more often than they submit for even Orwell admits the power they have over him). When Orwell is moving towards the scene in which the elephant was last seen, “Various Burmans stopped [him] on the way and told [him] about the elephant’s doing” (para. 3). It’s clear that there is somewhat of an expectation that Orwell (and other European officers) will resolve the issue. The Burmese, not having any weapons, are relatively powerless. They then look to the ones in “power”–those who they resent–as important entities during certain situations. By doing so, they recognize their influence and thus play into the system they (the British) have created. They’ve developed their power over Europeans yet at times (although they hold the power to decide what times) step slightly into the sphere they wish to undermine.

Gatto’s Conformity and Institutionalized Critiques

Posted on by
2

By analogizing it to “warehouses” and “social machines,” Gatto effectively diminishes schooling as a method for conformity and institutionalized practices. Honestly speaking, I can’t say I entirely disagree with Gatto’s assessment. As part of a select privileged few who are able to attend a prestigious college such as Williams, we may look back at our education and say that it was worthwhile, necessary, and beneficial. Even with Gatto’s criticisms in mind, I would say that now. But I would also that our education comes with a price: it comes with the price of only knowing how to act after we are familiar with the pre-established rules. Say, for example, that our Intro to Comparative Politics was taught as a lecture course. No raising of hands to express opinions, no anecdotes shared, no discussion. Simply facts and readings. What would the knowledge we gathered at the end of the semester look like then? I think it would look entirely different than what it will in a few months. When we aren’t allowed to engage with the material we learn, we process information differently. Even now I catch myself in the trap of using the word “allow.” But when everyone is so worried about acquiring a good grade, it certainly does feel like there is a system—within you; outside of you; somewhere—that holds power over you. In a world where schooling and meritocracy are of upmost importance, society teaches us to govern ourselves in a specific way.