Author Archives: Sydney Jones

“Democracy” isn’t the problem…

Posted on by
2

Over the past ten years democracy’s legitimacy has been questioned in America countless times. The country is more divided as ever, and many things that were once considered “status quo” are being overthrown. It seems that the United States is reaching a crescendo of mayhem, and it’s only about time until the rules and norms of democracy “as we know it” snap. As a country, we are in political uproar and confusion. The past two presidents, President Obama and President Trump have enlightened many of us to the deeply rooted problems in our governing system. President Obama’s terms have uncovered how easy it is to gridlock, while so far President Trump threatens our liberal democratic culture, forcing us be disillusioned with democracy.

However, it is not democracy that is endangered. What is troubling most of us, is a shift from liberal democracy to illiberal democracy. As highlighted in article, “Fareed Zakaria made a scary prediction about democracy in 1997- and it’s coming true” by Sean Illing, democracy and liberalism are not synonymous with each other. Many confuse liberalism with democracy.

Liberal democracy isn’t broken, but maybe we are. The most current shift in culture pushes towards a self-interested society. Civic societies (referenced in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America) are losing their hold on American culture. Many of us are more concerned with ourselves than the person next to us. These attitudes are not compatible with liberal democracy. As pointed out by Zakaria, “The whole point of liberal democracy is to create a system that reflects and addresses popular passions…” It is important for all of us to engage with politics and create civil associations to reflect popular passions. One of the reasons why President Trump is so problematic is because he doesn’t adhere to popular passions. His election to President is another example of how the population’s preferences do not represent the outcome.  

For liberal democracy to thrive we need to confront this shift to illiberal democracy and act accordingly, this may mean changing the current political system that we have in place. Maybe it’s time to consider other forms of government as options.

Lerner’s Views on Modernity

Posted on by
Reply

Lerner uses the “grocer” and the “chief” to create a platform that differentiates between traditional and modern paradigms. The chief is most concerned with inherited/familial heritage as a source of confirmation of his authority. His daily life is ruled solely by what takes place within the walls of the local village, very rarely extending beyond to the external world. Lerner would regard the chief as a traditionalist due to his lack of interest in the outside world.  Contrary, the grocer is Lerner’s symbol of modernity. The “modern man” (the grocer in this case) attempted to dedicate most aspects of his life to the external world, most often described as wearing more modern clothing, profiting on “modern items”, and an internal longing to be somewhere other than where he resides that is more foreign/municipal to him.

 There are many issues with Lerner’s model, one being his view suffers from “orientalism”, a term that refers to a phenomenon when institutions of power subconsciously dominate other cultures and countries historically by using ideas or language that subverts the culture that it is dominating while simultaneously asserting its own dominance an establishing its own superiority. Lerner is not a reliable narrator or source of authority because he assumes the West as being “modern”. His preconceived ideas of modernity are most likely extremely different than those who are not of the West. Furthermore, because he considers himself as coming from a “modern-world”, how he perceives Balgat is lacking contemporary counterparts. The epitome of modernity for Balgat is to imitate the West by increasing economic sectors and democracy.

Beauty and Out-of-Body Experiences

Posted on by
Reply

When dealing with science, often there will be “truths” that lie beyond reach due to the many intangible factors that come across when determining a cause. In social sciences intangible factors include beauty, moral judgements, anomalies in human nature, and so on. There are even often peculiarities in medical science that have yet to be answered such as: the questions of why we dream, or why some have out-of-body experiences (OBE’s). There are some things that science has yet to answer and arguable can not, however, this should not be a reason to “stop striving for the unreachable”. Further, because of those who are answering these questions are most often human (flawed in nature) they come with their own biases and experiences that may subconsciously stray empirical information away from the truth. By attempting to answer these questions systematically, although we may not ever end up having a feasible answer, we can narrow down our search.

In the methodology of using “science” to answer the unexplainable/the more difficult to explain, it is easy to fall into the trap of “method-driven” ways of reaching a conclusion. The article, “The Dying Russians” authored by Masha Green is an example of such investigation. Green proposes the idea that “hope” is the reason for Russia’s high immorality rate in comparison the other developed countries. It can be criticized that a variable such as “hope” can be challenging if not impossible to answer because; how does one measure hope? Green finds this variable that may explain her theory and then draws conclusions and selective facts to fit her theory that “hope” is the culprit. It would have been more convincing had Green went into more detail as to how this variable of “hope” was measured/determined rather than making a broad, objective statement.

Power is Fluid

Posted on by
3

To Orwell, power is not fixed. It is extremely abstract and able to manifest itself in many ways across different situations. At a first glance, it would probably be assumed that the Europeans had more power in comparison to the Burmese, considering it was the Burmese who were being dominated. However, as Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant” unravels, one can see that the Burmese have a significant amount of power as well in different unassuming ways.

When Orwell brought his gun to the elephant scene, he assumed power. Whoever assumes power, consciously or in this case, subconsciously, is met with those who expect a use of that power. This expected use of power is a form of power in itself, for it is forcing the other side to exercise its authority. “Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crown—seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality, I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and from by the will of those yellow faces behind (Orwell, 3). By assuming this authoritative role, Orwell simultaneously limits his own freedom, and subjects himself to the command of the Burmese.

Response to “Similarity as a Detriment to Society” by Sara S.

Posted on by
Reply

I completely agree with what you wrote, specifically to what your brother complained to you about with his math exam. I have a little brother who just started high school, and he is always complaining about how he’s “bored” or says something along the lines of, “why do I need to solve this problem the way teachers tell me”. I criticize that Gatto completely missed the point that you brought up in your response, when you refer to the good that public schools have done as well as their practicality, despite their many shortcomings. Gatto offers no real practical alternative to public school. I would have liked to see him give more thought into how we can improve the public school system because like you, I do not see why public school and creativity cannot exist together.

Gatto, Schooling, and Socialism

Posted on by
3

My having had little exposure to American public schools made it difficult to fully connect with John Taylor Gatto’s argument that “mandatory schooling’s purpose is to turn kids into servants (38).” However, quite naturally, I compared his views on the American institution of public education with the public education one receives in Norway. In turn, I found that I agreed with Gatto’s statement in respect to conformity and how “schools are to establish fixed habits of reactions to authority (36)”. This mindset isn’t exclusive to America—public schools in Norway seek to homogenize performance. In recent years, public education in Norway has been cutting programs and activities for gifted and creative students, forcing these students to pursue such interests outside of school on their own accord. Essentially, public schools in Norway have made a conscious effort to level the playing field for all students, attempting to standardize students and limit students that crave more. The result of “mediocre intellects (36)” isn’t as historically (or culturally) engrained as Gatto believes, but instead is a natural response to a lack of resources and funding. I, therefore, disagree with Gatto’s attempt to solve the crux of the issue by simply allowing a select few to avoid the “tricks and traps (38)” of the system. The system is supposed to identify the needs of the masses whilst providing an environment for every individual to thrive—how is it to progress if only a select few have the resources to advance?

-Christian Horn

Gatto’s Lack of a Resonable Alternative to a Complex Problem

Posted on by

John Taylor Gatto questions the value of the American public schooling system.  Gatto poses the question, “Do we really need school”? My response would be, “What is the alternative”? I agree that there are severe issues with the current American public school system, However, I am not sold on the idea that public schools  teaches children to be mediocre, mindless participants of society, and therefore stunt their growth. I would criticize Gatto in his one dimensional thinking here, for public schools have provided numerous opportunities to millions of children across America.

It can be argued that even Gatto himself isn’t completely against the current school system, just how it is currently enforced. “Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid,” (Gatto, 38). He provides no other solution to the problem other than working within the current school system. Gatto also does not give thought to the socio-economic status of the mass population of America who would not be able to pay for private school or private at-home instruction. Public schools are the best way to provide a standard education to the masses. 

Many public schools in America are underfunded and overcrowded, making it impossible to provide a creative and innovative environment so often available at private institutions. Our country shouldn’t try to easily avoid the traps of the school system as Gatto suggests, but properly fund the public school system as a whole, raising the requirements for teachers, offering teachers more incentives to attract the brightest, expanding Choice programs, and encouraging students to think critically rather than only looking for that one answer. Much like the question of what to do about America’s Public schools, usually there isn’t just one solution to complex issues.