Author Archives: Teo Pollini

Team Xiaofei

Posted on by
1

One of the most powerful scenes in the documentary is when Cheng Cheng walks around the classroom after his performance in the talent show, shaking his supposed supporter’s hands and repeating “This is good karma!” Immediately after, he leads the students in expressive slogans and chants highlighting Luo Lei’s authoritarian regime and his tyrannical methods. Especially in contrast to one of the last scenes, when the votes are being tallied to an unequivocal Lei victory and a practically and emotionally defeated Cheng mutters “If Luo Lei wins, he’ll torment you to death,” these two scenes demonstrate the difficulties for an opposition movement coming into a democratic process. Initially, in the excitement of a viable possibility for change, Cheng Cheng is able to mobilize voters and fire up the ‘crowds’ to an extent that the incumbent is seconds away from stepping out of the election process. However, Lei has the resources (an overly enthusiastic father) to slowly, as the campaigning process drags on, win back favor through material gifts that overshadow the prior 2 years of tyranny. He is able to capitalize on some character flaws in the opposition, separating and taking the enthusiasm out of the opposition movement. At this point, voters will support who they know, who they both fear and love – Luo Lei. Can this be considered democracy? Probably not. It is yet another example of democratic hope undermined by the erosion of necessary democratic processes and an equal playing field that is so often seen in the transition on the spectrum from authoritarianism to democracy.

democracy

Posted on by
2

In the readings, Zakaria makes the important distinction between democracy and liberal processes, and how the gap between the two is becoming more defined. For him, this is the main indicator that democracy is indeed imperiled, as the strong historic checks and the less formal institutional – both non-governmental and non-political – buffers against “tyrannical majoritarianism” are clearly deteriorating over time. Interestingly, Zakaria points out that these checks do not only serve as protection against tyrannical majoritarianism, but also against democratic majoritarianism. This is where the distinction between the democratic process, which can be defined as the traditionally legitimate voting system (that Rans fought so hard to establish in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), and liberalism, is imperative. While the democratic process may still be in place, the system it has perpetuated has continuously eroded the liberal forces that kept politics from slipping into dangerous demagoguery and populist, tyrannical rule. From our class discussion, the way in which the American political system is based on a winner-take-all outcome may be one of the driving reasons for the adoption of illiberal outlooks. Beyond this, Foa and Mounk also highlight growing income inequality as another major force, as the voice of the many is losing out to the voice of those with the majority of resources.

Chief & Grocer

Posted on by
Reply

The parable of the Grocer and the Chief clearly relates to the relativity and perception of power. Lerner considers the reasons that the chief makes the interviewer nervous while the interviewer makes the grocer ‘observably’ nervous. This question demonstrates that power is not absolute or a finite and transactional source of control – rather, it is the perception of relative position within a given physical and hierarchical context that constitutes real power. The chief pragmatically stands in the way of the interviewer’s goals from a legitimate position, and thus the interviewer is influenced by the opposing relative power. On the other hand, the grocer may be intimidated by the interviewer’s education, occupation, and his sense of authority. He therefore perceives to be beneath him, even though there is little to suggest that the interviewer can actually exert any sort of power – coercive, institutional, legal, etc. – over him. Ultimately, the dynamics of power are legitimized by the (constructed) belief in them by participating actors.

I also think this piece raises some interesting questions and parallels to past discussions: The idea of modernity, and what it means to be modern in a social context, the difference between a thick and thin description in social science – and the validity thereof.

the Russians

Posted on by
1

Gessen’s investigation into the high mortality rates in Russia represents a symbolic struggle for truth which may be beyond the grasp of social or physical sciences. Gessen clearly uses ‘empirically’ valid approaches to solve this underlying question, to find the greater answer to the stories of individual events she had been writing about for years. First is Parson’s extensive set of interviews that aim to get past the public mask and to the private one, which, as she points out, is inherently flawed as the subjects are naturally the survivors, not the victims. Beyond this, even if Parson was hypothetically able to interview victims, a person outside this private mask will never know if the subjects account actually represents the private mask or is simply a false layer of the public one. Second is Eberstadt’s in depth approach of a range of demographics. This clearly points to another issue; again, these are simply observations and numbers, upon which an analytical framework based in hindsight is used to find causation. But the “why?” in social science cannot be based on general statistics, as the field is innately made up of individuals with personal private masks and (perhaps) differing motivations for action. Thus, any cultural, institutional or historic methodology to understand the grand truth, by definition, approaches it asymptotically, serving only as the most current and closest estimation of what is actually occurring.

Shoot

Posted on by
1

One of the most interesting arguments from Orwell’s account is “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” This closely parallels many of the reading we have considered, especially the “As if” piece, as it highlights the duality of power in any system of subordination. On one hand, the Burmese have little political or salient influence, but on the other, Orwell and the other European officers are equally limited by the mask of authority they wear. Both the authority and the victims of this authority also seem to be in disbelief regarding the reality of the power system, yet they act in accordance with it with their public mask. The private one simply cannot believe that any of these actions are justified.

Regarding the shooting of the elephant, Orwell has the ultimate power – he can always decide to shoot the elephant or not. However, because he must play that role, the Burmese, with their contribution to the power system, are equally powerful in making him act in accordance to it. Orwell thus has no choice but to shoot the elephant.

Response to “Against School” by John Taylor Gatto

Posted on by
1

When considering my scholastic career, I think I can count myself quite lucky in that I have always found a few teachers that were incredibly invested in my learning, in my academic development, and in my growth as a young kid. This personal experience has only made me more aware of the widespread tragedy of uninspired teaching and a greater system that suppresses creativity and personal thinking. However, I am not convinced that the vague solution Gatto proposes, to “Let them [educated men and women] manage themselves” is as complete as he hopes. Central to his argument is the theory that the current education system is a conforming and silencing force, exercised on one group by another. I just do not believe that a lack of a system altogether, with all the freedom and independence it promises, will effectively steer society away from this issue. Some structure is necessary; some stresses, pressures, and difficulties can be forming when exercised in the correct way. The crucial factor in this case, however, is a two-sided commitment (from teachers and students) to the challenges and responsibilities of education. Put simply, this ‘correct way’ needs to be one based in the promotion of that which makes every student unique, but equally capable of bringing out these valuable qualities.