Author Archives: David Pearcy

The Subjectivity of Ash and Walzer

Posted on by
22

I find Walzer and Ash’s arguments particularly interesting. Walzer’s concepts of “truth” and “justice” and Ash’s proposal that democracy is a new, innate normal both seem squishy. But despite this, I find both arguments convincing. And it seems that their squishy-ness is exactly what enables them to be so effective. Walzer comes to a conclusion that our concepts of truth and justice stem from our larger experiences and teachings, our morals are just an “abstraction […] that only alludes to the complexity of the original.” Ash’s argument is similar: that somehow we are drawn to democracy through our deep morals. Obviously, these statements are both hard to verify or falsify. But I think these two arguments verbalize a truth that people feel across the world in a variety of settings. They have a way of making me (and, I presume, many Westerners) better understand why I feel passionate about the protection of democracy, truth, and justice. But I also recognize my biases. I live in a Western democracy that values truth and justice, and it is entirely possible that someone living in, say, an Eastern dictatorship would scratch their head at my values. So even though I find these arguments interesting, I am also aware that I cannot read them without bringing my personal experiences and moral beliefs to the table.

Problems with Morality

Posted on by
26

In order to sustain the newly formed democracy, I think that the practical should be the primary consideration. This is certainly not to excuse the atrocities of torture, particularly state-sponsored torture that is used against its people. But the problem lies in the subjectivity of morality. In a newly-restored democracy that suffered in the process, there will inevitably be people that chant “Neither amnesia nor vengeance—justice!” However, there will also be sympathizers who may claim that the violence used was necessary to reinstate democracy. And as frustrating as it may be, these people now have a say in how the government works. Not allowing the proponents of torture to speak for themselves and persecuting them without trial or representation would undermine the entirety of the restored system.

This question also seems to assume that democracy is a cure-all for society, which I think is a mistake. Government actions based on pure morals are not characteristic of democracies but of autocracies. Morality varies by person, so by nature, democracies cannot accommodate everything that people think is “right.” The basis of democratic society is compromise which can often be painful, as we can see here. I think the best way to move forward is to govern practically with the hope of achieving a moral good. The opposite seems like a slippery slope back out of democracy.

 

 

Similarities Everywhere

Posted on by
22

Based on the film’s premise, I expected to see no similarities between the democracy of the United States and the democracy of a Chinese third-grade classroom. The U.S.’s government has theoretically had years to mature and perfect itself, and the third-graders had just learned what a democracy a few days before the election. But I was quickly surprised to find commonalities everywhere. Both had all the key foundations of what a democracy needs to prosper: available political information, multiple candidates, and the ability to vote freely. But the similarities went beyond these basic foundations.

The candidates attempted to sabotage their opponents’ campaigns and even had their own forms of campaign advisors – their parents. In the end, the parents’ availability to resources decided the election. Just like in American elections, access to funds is crucial to running a successful campaign. Xiaofei had only a single mother who even acknowledged early in the film that she could not help her daughter as much as the other candidates. So she was immediately at a disadvantage. Cheng Cheng and Luo Lei both had two parents, but Luo Lei’s parents had access to resources that allowed him beat Cheng Cheng and win the election. Just like in the U.S., elections are all about funds and popularity. So based on the premise that the United States is a democracy, yes. The film portrays a working democracy. Both had the same fundamental flaws, suggesting an innate problem with democracy itself.

Positive Changes to Balgat

Posted on by
27

I think it is clear that Lerner assumes progress is a universal path. He saw the new infrastructure and access to Ankara as undoubtedly positive, and he was encouraged to find that the Chief supported these changes. But I think that looking at progress like this is problematic. Lerner glossed over the destructive capabilities of modernization, only briefly mentioning the farmers’ frustration and the change of Balgat’s culture. The Chief spoke to this, explaining that the younger generation is significantly less invested in the town’s success. But even though I generally disagree with Lerner’s assumption of progress, I think that the changes that occurred in Balgat were ultimately beneficial.

By including Balgat as part of Greater Ankarra, the small town was given access to a chunk of Ankara’s resources. This gave the citizens access to the inner city by bus, drastically changing the job market. Farming and shepherding were no longer profitable for much for of Balgat, but I do not think that this should be portrayed as negative. Farming is intense, life-shortening work. Access to better paying factory jobs was a clear improvement for the community, giving the people more resources and more leisure time. And even though this was a transformation of Balgat culture, the majority of its people did not seem to mind it. Even the Chief, the “last Muhtar of Balgat,” was happy to see a change that benefitted his people.

“Broken Heart” as a Blanket Term

Posted on by
27

I found Gessen’s article extremely compelling, and I think it teaches us that the sciences cannot tell us the entire story. Statistics and data can state that there is a mortality problem in Russia and that people are dying sooner than in similar post-Communist countries (e.g. Hungary, Ukraine, and Czech Republic). But it is much more difficult to explain why this is happening. Gessen proves this point, explaining that the usual suspects of smoking, alcoholism, and health care are bigger problems in countries with higher life expectancies. Instead we have to look at the cultural and historical factors that contributed to the fluctuation of birth and death rates. And I think Gessen explores these potential problems effectively.

In many ways, Russia’s history is perfect for exploring this type of problem. Its political history is rich with change and turmoil, leading to a multitude of factors that could cause a low birth and high death rate. These historical changes are all explained well, and the cultural repercussions seem especially convincing. But I think Gessen missed a key potential problem in her work. Is it not possible that the combination of all the factors she listed led and currently leads to the “Russian mortality crisis?” Perhaps substance abuse, a volatile political climate, and a sharp economic divide all contribute equally to the problem. Similar post-Soviet countries may not have this same cornucopia of issues, dodging them of a “mortality crisis.” This would explain why Russia is such an exception. Ultimately, I think that the conclusion that Russians are dying of a “broken heart” is merely a blanket term for the many issues that plague the country.

The Power of the Villagers

Posted on by
25

In Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, I believe that the power was soundly in the hands of the villagers. This power came from three sources, each different and each affecting the way Orwell treated the elephant situation. The villagers’ first source of power was their size. The large number of onlookers directly pressured the wary Orwell to shoot the elephant. We see this dynamic in Crick’s basic definition of power: the ability of A to get B to do something that B does not want to do. Orwell felt dwarfed in comparison to the crowd and did not want to go against the desires of the “two thousand people” watching him (3). The second source of power came from ethnicity. The crowd members were all Burmese, while Orwell was British. This amplified the insecurity that he explained feeling earlier in the essay. The third source of the villagers’ power came from British imperialism. Orwell explains that the Burmese had a strong disdain toward imperialism and often expressed this anger toward the British that lived in Burma. Even though Orwell was ashamed of this British rule, he was still British and, therefore, a symbol of imperialism. The large presence of cross villagers made Orwell feel guilty and more susceptible to influence. Ultimately, the villagers made Orwell feel small, different, and guilty. It would have been unrealistic to expect Orwell to go against the wishes of the crowd in the presence of all this pressure and frustration.

What is the Function of Modern Education?

Posted on by
29

Gatto makes it clear that there are problems with the current K-12 school system in the United States. He claims that they foster conformity and obedience, and he suggests that modern schools do not benefit today’s society. I agree that schools tend to breed a certain type of student, but I think it is rash to claim that society’s problems lie in schooling. Instead, I think the problem lies with Americans’ concept of success. We associate wealth with success, and our educational system ges on future jobs, not future growth and happiness. Consequently, the children that cannot succeed in our meritocratic school system are labeled as lazy and deserving of their failure. The nature of a meritocracy in modern American schooling hurts both its students and society as a whole.

Students should be rewarded for working hard. However, our school system is based on the false premise that all students are given the same opportunities. Some schools have lower funding than others, leading to drastically different experiences. But when done well, schooling can change lives for the better. Schools can introduce students to different viewpoints, new subjects, and job opportunities. These are vital to success in the modern, dynamic world. I think that Williams is a great model a of a school that encourages independent thinking and personal development, but it would be difficult for a public K-12 school to copy a college with a $2.5 billion endowment.