As we discussed in class, I think this argument, that the end of history has arrived simply because humanity is out of new ideas, is incredibly difficult to falsify. We have all agreed that liberal democracy is the second best solution- but in comparison to what (at least in today’s industrialized societies)? People today have not thought of a better answer, but that doesn’t mean one does not exist. According to Ash and Walzer, however, the end of history is “now” just because we are converging on a common goal of true, just, open “Western” democracy. At this very moment, though, someone might be imagining a society that may exist in the near future but that none of us have considered a viable possibility up to this point.

The end of history discussion specifically brings to mind, again as we discussed, the huge uptick in dystopian literature, especially for young adult readers. Of course, none of us want to live in a society like that displayed in “The Giver”, “Hunger Games”, or “1984”. But, as science and technology continue to accelerate at a blistering pace, I don’t doubt that these societies could be a possibility very soon. Then, I do not doubt that someone will lead a revolution against technologically-driven tyranny, and the society that could emerge from such a conflict may look nothing like anything we have seen before or imagined. Thus, I don’t find any of the arguments that we are all converging on a “copy of a copy of a copy” very compelling- I am confident there are no limits to human imagination and our capacity to innovate as a species.

Legacies of violence are important for a country in terms of collective memory. While it is incredibly difficult to consider creating a state in which oppressors continue to rule alongside the once-oppressed, it is often necessary, as we have seen. It is important for everyone, from the government through the citizenry, however, to retain the memory of what once was. As we discussed in class, it seems as though it would be too de-stabilizing to immediately prosecute and imprison torturers and dictators, especially in the case of a pacted transition. Unfortunately, this means that people must accept tactics that may seem inadequate to get to a stable, free future. In the film No, it is clear that peoples’ everyday lives were shaped and drastically distorted by living under dictatorship, as when the elderly No-group member was utterly offended by commercials displaying the message of happiness, over those memorializing the dead and abused. However, the movement is ultimately successful because of their happiness, somewhat irreverent though they may be, tactics. What is most important is that all Chileans maintain the memory of what had happened in their country, so that when the time is right, justice can be served. Memory can be retained on both an individual and a societal level, but is of the utmost importance for long term peace and democracy. The Brasil: No Mais project knew this: the past must be preserved in as many ways as possible, so that when the state is fully prepared, the correct actions can be taken toward justice.

Professor Daniel Lerner, in The Grocer and the Chief, assumes what many Americans also assume, which is that modernity is the pursuit of a material improvement from traditional or subsistence lifestyles. Lerner’s assumptions are obvious in his characterization of the Chief as a self-sufficient and martial man, and his preoccupation with the Grocer as a caricature of “modern” culture and forward-thinking. The Chief values individual valor and his own position of power within his village, which Lerner conflates with holding on to tradition. The Grocer’s awareness of cinema and coffeehouses, on the other hand, seems to Lerner to signify a desire for a life marked by modern technology.  One of Lerner’s key assumptions is that these men are unwilling to change and that while collective society may force alterations in daily life and the economy, individuals remain the same, conveniently representing distinct ideals of personhood.

Lerner concludes his piece stating that the Grocer has won out in an imaginary contest between tradition and material modernization.  However, he neglects the important fact that the Chief has notably modernized himself.  As Balgat is incorporated into Ankara, the Chief incorporates himself and his family into the changed society.  Yes, the Muhtar keeps a small grove of trees, but he allows his sons, whom he once saw as heirs he must make ready for war, to open moderately successful westernized businesses.  The Chief, over four years, gives up his farmland and his most integral values of makes a successful man.  In this way, I believe that Lerner makes the same mistake as Tosun did in judging based on appearances.  Lerner does not consider the effects of modernization on the individuals who adapt to their current situation and the interplay between individuals and material change within a modernizing society.

As the daughter of a public school teacher and as a graduate of a relatively test-score-focused public school system, I found Gatto’s arguments very compelling.  I felt bored in my public school classes which followed set curricula and did not allow for individual curiosity.  Upon reflection, however, I feel that Gatto is leaving out a key factor in his arguments, namely income inequality and local funding of public schools.  Mass production is an inherently cost-effective method of schooling, as Gatto implies with his reference to schools with 2000-4000 students.  School budgets are often the first to be affected by financial constraints, because very few people are willing to recognize that as the price of everything else goes up, good education will also cost more.  Many public schools have to increase class sizes to make up for rising costs in other areas, like special education mandates and health care costs.  In large classes, the teacher’s most important role may become management of 35+ students rather than inspiring children to love learning.  In wealthy enclaves, some of these problems are ameliorated by parents who not only know the value of good education but also can afford to support innovative and high quality schools.  These towns tend to pass higher school budgets that allow for smaller class sizes, new technology, enrichment programs and specialized courses.

Overall I believe that Gatto’s essay has had an important impact on how we see American public education and many teachers want to improve their students’ independence and engagement with subject matter.  Until we give them the resources to do so, only wealthy districts will have the flexibility to meet the needs of individual students and create well-educated adults.