Author Archives: Madeline Kaplan

Power Dynamics

Posted on by
2

This article is interesting because it provides a twist to the normalized power dynamic. The article points out that those we think have the power in the society are not always the ones that actually have the power over in which direction society will head. It raises the question of who has the power in society? Is it the people who seem to currently have the control or the people who control what the society will look like in the future? This article answers the question by stating that those who actually control society are the ones who point shape the society of the future. Those are the people who will be most successful. In this case, the grocer was treated as an outcast, but as society modernized, the grocer became the example by which most people in society lived by. In this way, the article also brought up the point of the progression of society and how society is continually shifting to make room for new ideas and the most modern ways of living.

Another issue this article raised for me is the role that outsiders have in commentating and passing judgements on a society. The first and second visitors to Balgat had contrasting views on many things, including the chief. However is it their place to pass judgements on these people?

Political Science as a Science

Posted on by
Reply

The article “The Dying Russians” presents the studies done surrounding the increasing death rates and depopulation of Russia over the past few decades. One study was done by Michelle Parsons, an anthropologist. It largely focuses on the cultural influences that could have led to this “problem.” Much of her research and conclusion, while based on cultural observances, fails to be based on facts that focus on the gradual and smaller changes that occurred in Russia that led to its depopulation. This leads to her study being less accurate because instead of focusing on the many little things that have led to this problem in Russia, she only focuses on general trends. As we have learned, the answers are usually found in the smaller details rather than the larger overviews. Parsons’s methods and conclusions are then contrasted with Nicholas Eberstadt’s methods and conclusions. Through this contrast, it is easy to see why a focused study is important. By looking at many little facts, researchers are able to gain a more accurate picture of what was happening during the time period they were studying and why it was happening. His study was extensive, analyzing not only what the causes could be, but also what the causes could not be. While not a perfect study, this study is much more reliable and believable. It behaves more like the common scientific studies we know. We will never be able to know for sure what the definite reasons for Russia’s depopulation are; however, in a way, that is the beauty of political science. Some say that there should be no distinction made between sciences (i.e. social sciences, natural sciences). However, I think that this article shows exactly why those distinctions are necessary. The different sciences are inherently different. That statement does not mean that one is necessarily better or more accurate than another, but just that they are different and should not be treated as entities that are one in the same.

A Complex Power Dynamic

Posted on by
2

In Orwell’s account no one has complete power. I would say that the power is mostly divided between the Burmese and the British Raj, while Orwell himself has little power. The Burmese have power over Orwell through (as Scott explained) the little acts of resistance that they perform on a daily basis. However, at the same, to them, Orwell represents the power that the British Raj posses that necessitate these acts of resistance. In this way, the question of who has power is complicated, just as it is in almost every society. No one ever has complete power because of the way that people can resist. Additionally, since power is such a fragile concept, those who “have power” are constantly in fear of losing it. In this way, they do not in fact have complete power. This creates for an interesting dynamic because the Burmese dislike Orwell for the repression that he represents; Orwell dislikes the Burmese for the way they treat him, as well as the British Raj for forcing him to do this job. In this way, out of all three entities, the British Raj has the most power. By playing Orwell and the Burmese off each other, the British Raj maintains its power. If the Burmese and Orwell were to come together, it would be much more difficult for the Raj to maintain order and keep power. However, since Orwell and the Burmese are unable to come together, the Raj remains the most powerful entity in the region.

Response to “Gatto’s Lack of a Resonable Alternative to a Complex Problem”

Posted on by

I agree that Gatto supplies a lack of solutions to the problems he presents and, as Syd pointed out, fails to address the larger issues behind the public school system in our country. However, I think that another mistake that Gatto made was failing to realize that the problems he described — of “modern, industrial, compulsory schooling” (page 36) — can be applied to all schools in America, whether private or public, or something else. This is because the larger issue here is that school in general does not encourage creativity due to the focus that many schools place on earning the highest grade. Often in school, students find themselves actually trying to repress their creativity in order to achieve the highest mark. Multiple choice tests provide the perfect example; often two of the answers are quite similar and students find themselves trying to put themselves in the mindset of their teacher because that is what the answer will be, since they are, after all, the ones who chose the answer. This in itself is a problem. While sometimes there is only one correct answer, say for a math problem or science law, often there can be multiple ways of thinking about a situation and the fact that modern schooling often discourages thinking outside of the box is a point that I believe Gatto is correct about.

While one way to start creating a better public school system is definitely to help underfunded public schools and to provide public schools with more resources overall, the problem of discouragement of creativity in schools in general would still be present.

School vs. Creativity

Posted on by

This article reminded me of a TIME article I saw a couple months ago called “Wondering What Happened to Your Class Valedictorian? Not Much, Research Shows.” This article, while different than Gatto’s makes one similar point: those who do well in school are not usually the ones who end up being super successful, especially if success is measured in the amount of money that a person makes. School teaches students to think within a box with the motivation of a good grade. Creativity is not usually rewarded and while diversity of thought is encouraged, it is not at all mandatory or pushed as important. In this way, those that do well in school are often those who know how to work within a box, game a system, and get a good grade. In the real world, these skills are not necessary. Creativity is necessary because employers do not want people who could do exactly what the person sitting next to them can. Instead, employers want people who will push new ideas that could help their company advance in a forward-moving, competitive society. Even if a person is not working for a company, creativity and the ability to think differently and diversely thought is key. Steve Jobs, for example, dropped out of college after six months, yet went on to become one of the modern technological geniuses.

Overall, I believe that there are certain ways to make school productive and there are reasons why a school environment is beneficial, however classes need to be structured in a productive way and perhaps, to start, not around how to earn the highest grade.