Author Archives: Sara Shamenek

Questionable Parenting

Posted on by
3

In my opinion, the most disturbing part of the entire documentary is the involvement of the candidates’ parents. More specifically, it was Cheng Cheng’s mother and Luo Lei’s father who shocked me. Both of these parents instructed their children to fight dirty by using insults and negative campaign strategies. I particularly found it interesting that the parents were so blatant and open about the questionable methods they were instructing their sons to use. As disturbing as this was, it does not seem all that different from smear campaigns that are run in the US prior to elections. Many of the TV and internet ads for candidates recently seem to harp on the flaws of the opponent rather than highlight assets or positive changes the candidate who is running the ad wants to make. As far as this classroom election being democratic, I’m torn. I think it is important to note that the documentary does not explain how these 3 children were originally chosen to be candidates. In Luo Lei’s case, he can be seen as the incumbent, as he has previously been the class monitor, but there is no mention of how the other two were selected. If it was the case that the rest of the class had no say in who these candidates would be and it was just arbitrarily chosen by the teacher, then that seems undemocratic to me. On the other hand, there was no coercion as the children actually cast their ballots, so they were free to pick their top choice in that sense. It seems apparent, though, that the children did not fully understand “democracy” or the free voting process, and I wonder if the mob mentality played a role, as Luo Lei captured a landslide victory. The minds of the children seemed to be easily changed and their loyalty jumped from candidate to candidate, so it could be the case that they voted for the popular or familiar choice rather than the candidate they actually most strongly agreed with due to their young age and impressionable nature.

Tyranny of the Majority

Posted on by
1

I found it quite interesting that both the Illing and the Foa/Mounk articles noted the erosion of informal aspects of democratic checks as a potential trigger of the collapse of American democracy. These informal societal and cultural attributes appear to be needed now more than ever as some of the institutional checks have been done away with, most notably now having direct election of senators (Illing) and less strict campaign funding regulations (Foa). The two articles, however, seem to be at odds with each other over the biggest threat to American democracy. The Illing articles addresses President Trump’s populism, coupled with a lack of formal and informal systematic checks, as a danger. Conversely, the Foa articles points out the extreme influence of a small segment of the population, rich elites and specialized interest groups, on elections and policies. Both cases appear to be bad for American democracy, but the tyranny of the majority that the Founding Fathers were so insistent upon eradicating seems to be the bigger threat at the moment. As seen in the case of Putin’s Russia, populism can be very dangerous when the appropriate systematic checks are not in place. I believe the saving grace of American democracy will be something not even the Founding Fathers enacted, the presidential term limit via the 22nd Amendment. While the cultural aspects that have kept a liberal democracy in place might be eroding, many of the systematic checks are still in place. Even with a tyranny of the majority it would be quite a feat to dismantle the democratic system within 8 years, or two presidential terms. Culturally America seems to be at a crossroads as to which governing system should be utilized, but the institution is robust enough to weather a temporarily unsettled public.

Cunning Politics

Posted on by
2

I found this account extremely interesting and eye-opening. This type of rapid modernization is something I am familiar with from 19th century America, so to learn that this occurred so quickly in 1950s Turkey was something I never considered. This series of interviews again exemplifies the hidden personal thoughts noted in the Scott reading. In many instances, the villagers avoided questions completely or responded with non-answers or just plain laughter in the shepherd’s case (page 21). The lack of answers and obvious uneasiness about the questions expose a flawed aspect of social science research. We can only learn so much when the subjects are not completely free to express their inner desires. That being said, we do observe clever political tactics used by the Chief, such as moderating outside influence, by way of the radio, to keep his position as village leader (page 27). His intelligence does not stop there because he quickly realized that his village was modernizing, so he allowed his sons to follow the path of the Grocer, who the Chief initially thought of as a foe (page 42). This is reminiscent of Machiavelli in a way, by the Chief putting aside his own personal beliefs and morals in an attempt to have himself and his “heirs” remain in power. The Machiavelli theme is also apparent when many villagers were initially too nervous to respond to the interview questions because they feared what the Chief would think of them if they spoke out. From the Chief’s perspective it is clear he chose the route of being feared rather than loved in that instance.

Transparency in Russia

Posted on by
Reply

It is obvious that out of the two researchers compared by Masha Gessen in “The Dying Russians” Eberstadt uses a more “scientific” approach to understand the high mortality rates. It is noted that Eberstadt “systematically goes down the list of usual suspects” and “is interested in the larger phenomenon of depopulation, including falling birth rates as well as rising death rates.” This is juxtaposed with Parsons who conducted “a series of long unstructured interviews with Muscovites” more than 10 years after the population decline of the early 1990s. The initial obstacle faced by Parsons is mentioned in the reading by Scott, citizens mask their private thoughts and it takes a tremendous amount of effort and time to break down the barriers and reveal the truth. It is impossible to say if the information Parsons received in those interviews were the true feelings and rationals of the subjects interviewed. The larger cultural obstacle facing Parsons, Eberstadt, and Gessen is the Russian culture of deceiving outsiders. Neglasnot, the distrust of foreigners, was the way of thinking in Russia from the time of the tsars through Gorbachev’s rule, when he implemented his Glasnost policy in 1986. Despite Russia becoming seemingly transparent in thee late 1980s, this progress was destroyed by the immense corruption and government secrecy under presidents Yeltsin and Putin. Without being an integral part of this system, there is no way that an anthropologist or journalist will be able to hunt down the facts and find the true source of the high mortality rate. Organized crime is the backbone of Russian elites, and there have been many documented cases of journalists being targeted and killed in Russia, so the cultural aspects of Russian society prevent even the most “scientific” approaches from succeeding. This case serves to show the inherent difficulties associated with social science, namely cultural barriers and unpredicatable human behavior.

Power Divided

Posted on by
1

In “Shooting the Elephant” by George Orwell, the power appears to be unequally divided between the British Empire, and the Burmese citizens. Orwell himself, a British officer, wields almost no power. In vastly different ways, Orwell is subservient to both the British officials, who are known to be his superiors, and also the Burmese citizens, who he is supposed to have power over. The British Empire has direct power over the Burmese citizens, as Orwell states, “I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British”. The British clearly have power over the Burmese, but the fact that this statement by Orwell was modified to be “theoretically and secretly” expresses the power that the British had over him as well. This relates back to Scott’s argument that the oppressed are conscious of their oppression and secretly condemn it. In addition, the Burmese have power over Orwell through their expectations of how he, and the rest of the British officials, should act.  Orwell admits that he “did not want to shoot the elephant” and he only ended up shooting it “to avoid looking like a fool.”  Orwell was bound by what the Burmese thought an officer should do, so he had to comply despite it not being what he wanted, which is a form of power being exerted. The little power Orwell has does not come from his status as a British officer, rather it stems from the fact that he is human. Ultimately, the elephant died and the gun was in Orwell’s hands, displaying the power humans exert over all other animals in the world.

Response to Christian Maloney

Posted on by
4

I definitely agree with the first part of your post. The current school system does provide stability to the nation, while also creating a culture of conformity among the student population. I even agree that the students are taught what to think rather than how to think critically or creatively. I do not believe, however, that students who are brought up through the traditional K-12 public education “will never be able to truly think for themselves nor escape the metaphorical confines of the classroom.” Many intelligent and determined students graduate from public high schools, due to economic constraints or other factors that do not allow a private education, and they end up attending the nation’s top colleges, such as Williams. While the public school system has its obvious flaws, I find it unfair to assume that just because certain students went through public school they will never truly think for themselves. The public school system as a whole might not focus on or promote critical thinking, but generalizing that no student will ever be able to think critically because of their public education is a huge assumption. Graduating from a private high school compared to a public high school might give students an advantage in critical thinking skills, but that does not mean public school graduates will never think freely or critically.

Similarity as a Detriment to Society

Posted on by

Our current public school system is not ideal, and it fails in more than one category. Gatto describes the “integrating function” of the public school system, on page 36, which is intended to have children conform to a set standard and be as similar as possible. I have personally seen this in effect as my younger brother, a high school sophomore at the time, called me to complain that on his math exam he got the correct answer for a question but did not receive credit because he did not use the exact method the teacher expected of him. On one hand, the public school system has offered an education to millions of children who otherwise would be unable to afford schooling if privatized education was the only alternative. A country-wide public school system is an incredible undertaking and does need to have certain standards to ensure quality across the board. However, I struggle to see why this must be done in such a way that takes creativity out of the question. Not everyone learns or thinks in the same way, so if figuring out a different method can help a student understand better or work more efficiently, it should be rewarded instead of penalized. Ultimately, problems require creative solutions, otherwise they would not be problems to begin with, and stripping the population of the ability to think critically basically cements their place as “sitting ducks” who are at the mercy of those in power (page 37).