I find Michael Walzer’s argument rather incomplete, mainly due to its inability to be falsified due to its ambiguous and unspecific nature. Walzer’s theory does not include the notion of time, therefore preventing it from being proven or disproven given that it is dependent on events and interactions that are ever-changing. In Walzer’s argument advocating for ‘moral minimalism,’ he discusses how “unless we can identify a neutral starting point from which many different and possibly legitimate moral cultures might develop, we can’t construct a proceduralist minimum.” I find Walzer’s claim that humanity’s progression is much dependent on a universal set of minimalist ideologies and cultures to be not only ridiculous, as that is next to impossible, but contradictory, as ‘ethnic,’ cultural, and ideological divides are much of what is hindering peace and progression today. Due to how incomplete Walzer’s argument seems to me, as he can be proven neither right nor wrong, I find it to be largely irrelevant as a whole.

While I find it easier to stand alongside Fukuyama’s point in the “End of History” after reading it, I don’t believe it due to the empirical data that we have witnessed since its publication in the early 1990s. While the article may be harder to falsify, as there is always a chance that countries will progress towards the ‘end of history,’ it is fairly easy to see, due to what is unfolding before us, that there is a great chance that that may never happen.

While violence is never an ideal solution, it is often a necessary evil in transitioning to a democracy. It is because of this that violence is seen as practical, not moral. Even using case studies discussed in class it becomes clear that practicality is often safer than morality, as new, emerging democracies are extremely delicate. Thus, many new democracies are faced with the challenge of balancing between morality and practicality, as seen with Chile in its emergence out of its authoritarian regime. Pinochet is a perfect example: was it immoral for him to receive his lifetime bid to the Senate? Was it immoral to not seek retribution and punishment against those who committed vast atrocities against numerous Chileans? Maybe, but the fact is pursuing those decisions were seen as impractical given Chile’s political climate at the time. In any new democracy, the continuation of that democracy is what is most imperative.

This is not to say that practicality and morality are mutually exclusive; in fact, I think that what often separates the two is the spectrum of time. While morality cannot be prioritized in the short term, as it jeopardizes the continuation and success of democracy not only in Chile, but in any given state, in the long-term morality is suited to prevail. Morality aligns itself with the quote, “Neither amnesia nor vengeance – justice!” and as seen throughout history, justice is often served over extended periods of time, as holds on democracy stabilize and expand. While not ideal, it is the only means by which the continuation of democracy is prioritized, preventing violence and injustice from emerging once again.

In the documentary “Please Vote for Me,” we observe how even with participation from “citizens,” democracy is still extremely susceptible to failure. The elections in this classroom have no real consequences, resulting in the kids engaging in acts of bribery, ridicule, and other hostile behavior, seen almost constantly throughout the film. Xioafei, for example, is the target of horrible insults before she even is allowed to perform her flute solo, serving as a clear example of how democracy can easily decline into a battle to undermine and discredit one’s opponent.

While most watching this would instantly recognized how flawed their class election is, what is shown in “Please Vote for Me” is eerily similar to American democracy. Candidates for a plethora of elected positions constantly resort to attempting to politically ruin their opponent by foul play and other dishonest means, resulting in a system that is brutal and ugly. This nearly defeats the purpose of democracy as an entirety, as candidates’ methods in seeking election invalidate the sophisticated and elegant system that democracy is designed to enable. At the end, the students vote for Luo Lei, the obvious worst choice for class monitor as he is authoritarian and often resorts to physical violence against his fellow students, further emphasizing how even with participation in a democratic election, oftentimes bribes and falsehoods result in an unfit candidate rising to power.

In Lerner’s “The Grocer and the Chief,” it is clear through his description of Balgat’s transcendence into modernity that he adheres to a common perception of progress, as he writes about the both the literal and societal improvements that have come to Balgat over the past four years. Tangible improvements like a main road, electricity, and a new water pipe (51) compliment the villagers’ increasing awareness and involvement in a greater society, as Lerner writes, “the villagers were getting out of their holes at last” (51). In addition to the technological improvements from which the villagers of Balgat have benefitted, changes in beliefs had also become present. With the modernization, the Chief recalls how Democrats came and got elected to power: “times have been good with us here. We are all Democrat party in Balgat now” (52). This is a clear indication of Balgat’s progression into the modern world, as many of the villagers have departed from the sheltered views that they once lived by. As the Chief recalls on his time as Muhtar, he has his reservations and concerns but ultimately says, “I am the last Muhtar of Balgat, and I am happy that I have seen Balgat end its history in this way that we are going” (55). This shows the Chief’s increased awareness, as he recognizes that his role in Balgat’s journey in to social modernity is one of decreased authority. Overall, the town’s modernized atmosphere has brought remarkable and multidimensional change to what was once an isolated village, and in doing so has connected both it and its villagers to Greater Ankara and the world. Even though Balgat has become more aligned with both what Lerner would classify as progress and the lifestyle of the western world, the new opportunities and resources that have been given to the villagers of Balgat have given much more benefit than cause for concern.

After reading Masha Gessen’s “The Dying Russians,” I almost immediately was skeptical of her ultimate claim that a lack of a “greater hope” is what is ultimately behind low Russian birth rates and high Russian death rates. In fact, I find certain parts of Gessen’s argument slightly contradictory, as she addresses events that would understandably lead to or are associated with a lack of hope, per se, such as “economic shock” and alcoholism, but then quickly determines that these things have little to no relationship to Russia’s ever-increasing mortality rates. While I am by no means saying that Russia’s admiration of vodka or the collapse of the Soviet Union are solely responsible for their mortality problem, in my mind these things tie in very closely to a lack of “greater hope,” as Gessen even quotes Parsons in saying that “drinking is, for what it’s worth, an instrument of adapting to the harsh reality and sense of worthlessness that would otherwise make one want to curl up and die.” While this may very well be true – alcoholism is an unhealthy coping mechanism for people across the globe – I find it extremely hard to believe that it is completely innocent when investigating what is truly culpable for Russia’s extraordinary mortality rate. With regards to the economic shock, Gessen fails to even acknowledge the extremely consequential effects that it has on Russian life and on individual Russians themselves. In addition to things like increased poverty and unemployment, economic shocks can lead to a lack of public education and access to necessary everyday items, directly correlating with a decrease in not only physical well-being but outlook on life as well. For Gessen to almost completely reject economic shock as at least partially leading to Russia’s increased mortality rate is baffling, as her ultimate conclusion is framed in a way that has almost no quantitative data to back it up.

Furthermore, I was surprised by the complete failure to mention anything related to political corruption and politically motivated killings. While obviously not the sole culprit in Russia’s mortality problem, I find it hard to believe that in a country plagued by corruption (especially compared to the other European countries that Gessen uses as controls in her article) political killings have played absolutely no part in at least contributing to the lack of hope that, according to Gessen, sits inside of so many Russian people.

In George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant,” he elaborates on the complicated and often blurred power dynamics between Imperial Britain and present-day Myanmar (Burma at the time), describing how he is unlucky enough to be in the worst position of all: a white police officer in Moulmein, a Burmese town. While Orwell due to his ethnicity and official position possesses an objective power over the Burmese at the surface, it is clear as he tells his story of shooting the elephant that this is not the case.

To me it is clear that after Orwell goes against his will and shoots the elephant to “avoid looking (like) a fool,” he officially acknowledges that despite his official government position, he has less power than both the British, who he hates, and the Burmese people over whom he rules. In his decision to shoot the elephant he succumbs to British law as he says that “legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog,” and the will of the Burmese people simultaneously, as he fights an internal battle in deciding whether to act on what he personally believes or what will grant the most approval from the Burmese crowd that is watching him. All in all, Orwell is stuck between a rock and a hard place as he is constantly burdened with serving Imperial Britain and striving for the approval of the Burmese, both of whom he has mutual disdain for. As a result, the official power that is granted to Orwell by Britain proves to be inferior to the unofficial power that the Burmese hold over him in seeking their approval when shooting the elephant, showing that true power does not always lie visible to the naked eye.

While I agree with many of Gatto’s points, I believe that parts of this article are far-fetched. He starts out by addressing how both students and teachers alike operate within institutions where “boredom and childishness were the natural state of affairs,” and I agree that this is a widespread problem that plagues our nation’s school system today. I personally have had teachers that have been fired over departing from standard curriculums and instead imposing more intellectual discussions, class debates, and life lessons, and I have grown up in a metro area where many of the schools are struggling to find students and teachers alike that express a passion for education.

However, I view these widespread problems as flaws within our education system that we need to work to change, and not valid reason to throw schooling out the window. While Gatto’s argument that formal schooling is unnecessary to achieve success is certainly valid, most of the people whom he references – Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, and Margaret Mead are examples – he fails to account for the vast changes our society has undergone since they were alive. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century and the twenty-first century, our country has undergone rapid digitalization, and with that a skill biased technological change that greatly increased the demand for skilled workers and decreased the demand for unskilled workers. While our education system is far from perfect, it is still the best way to ensure success and stability for millions of Americans.

Lastly, many of the “purposes” of modern schooling that Gatto draws upon from Principles of Secondary Education are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Most notably, the “selective function” that Gatto elaborates on, and while it is disturbing I completely reject the idea that a purpose of modern schooling is to “help things along by consciously attempting to improve breeding stock.” While I fully acknowledge the fact that students who do well in school are more likely to attend more selective colleges and universities, claiming that schools serve as a way of enforcing natural selection is nearly comical and, as can be seen throughout our country, is not even remotely true. While I agree with Gatto entirely that our school system is flawed, I believe that there are ways to combat the problem at hand and create a more inclusive, intellectual education system, rather than plainly advocating against the need for school as a whole.