We Are the World (and the End of History): An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

“Yet the truly remarkable thing is not the differences about the programme, but the degree of instant consensus.  In 1968, even in 1977, it was almost unthinkable that there would be so much common ground.  This is a Czech phenomenon.  But it is not just a Czech phenomenon, for in different ways it is repeated all over East Central Europe.  Take a more or less representative sample of politically aware persons.  Stir under pressure for two days.  And what do you get?  The same fundamental Western, European model:  parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, market economy…It is the idea of ‘normality’ that seems to be sweeping triumphantly across the world.”  Timothy Garton Ash, The Magic Lantern

“We march vicariously with people in trouble whoever they are; and we have our own parade…If we did not have our own parade, we could not march vicariously in Prague.  We would have no understanding at all of “truth” or “justice.”  Michael Walzer, Moral Minimalism

Assess Michael Walzer’s account of the universal-made-particular in light of our discussion and readings on the “end of the History” thesis.  Whose account (if any) do you find to be the most compelling and why?

Remembering or Forgetting?

“‘Nations are a plebiscite every day, and they are constructed on the basis of great rememberings and great forgettings.’  If the French were still thinking about the Night of St. Bartholomew, they’d be slaughtering each other to this day.

This is a political, and not a moral, decision.  It has to be resolved politically because it’s a political conflict.  Uruguay didn’t fall apart by chance, and it’s not going to be reconstructed by chance, either.”  A Miracle, A Universe, pg. 191

“How can you have a period, end of paragraph, end of story, without any preceding paragraph, let alone any preceding story?  Here in Uruguay, we’ve had no commission of inquiry, no officially sanctioned truthtelling.  We’ve had no trials, no verdicts.  All we have now is this period, hovering there in the middle of a blank page.  It’s unreal.”  pg. 175

“Neither amnesia nor vengeance—justice!”  pg. 192

What is to be done with legacies of violence, and above all, the institutions and sponsors of violence, who remain ensconced in the state structures of fledgling and newly-restored democracies?  What is the balance between preserving the democratic gains that exist now, in the present, with the demand for justice by those who were the victims of the horrors of the past?  What prevails, the moral or the practical?

Patricio Aylwin, right, with Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Santiago, Chile, in 1993.

More on Aylwin here:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/world/americas/patricio-aylwin-president-who-guided-chile-to-democracy-diesat-97.html

Please Vote for Me!

https://williams.kanopy.com/video/please-vote-me

The 2007 documentary Please Vote for Me presents a study of contrasts, a classroom experience unlike what many of us experienced growing up in the United States, yet also painfully familiar to anyone who’s been a kid in school (for example, the scene where all of the kids are crying like babies…ok, maybe that’s just me…).

The film offers up representations of discipline and authoritarian order, including shots of students in neat rows doing calisthenics and singing patriotic songs, scenes that conjure up remembrances of the old, Maoist China. Yet inside the classroom, the students embark on a new experiment in democracy, one that they and their parents take to unequivocally, enthusiastically.

Luo Lei, class monitor with two years of experience already under his belt, represents the incumbency. His ultimate victory over his challengers—the Machiavellian (and Cartman-esque) Cheng Cheng and Xiaofei—presents us with a contradiction. Over and over again we see the children groaning and bellyaching about Luo Lei’s strict and authoritarian behavior as class monitor, and yet, Lei nonetheless prevails over his challengers —doing so in decisive fashion.

Consider the film in light of our discussions and readings on democracy.  Is this democracy in action?

Daniel Lerner’s “The Grocer and the Chief”

Critically assess Daniel Lerner’s account of development and modernity in “The Grocer and the Chief.”  Lerner’s confident description of Balgat’s progress reveals more about the researcher than it does about the village under study.  What are Lerner’s assumptions about progress and change, and how might those assumptions distort his analysis?  You might take into consideration the possibility that the true protagonist of the story is not the maligned Grocer but the Chief and his sons…

The Dying Russians

Masha Gessen’s “The Dying Russians” is an example of the potential for truth and explanation that inheres in the encounter between “good journalism” and social science. It is also an fine illustration of how the pursuit of a puzzle—in this case “Why are Russians dying at such high rates, and so young, since 1991?”—can give way to a new and unexpected (if not more harrowing) question, “Why have Russians been dying at such high rates for decades?” The conclusion that the piece reaches is almost lyrical, and possibly not even science. Russians are, it would seem, dying of broken hearts.

Assess the piece from the perspective of this week’s discussion of the nature of science and methodology. How are cultural, institutional, or historical instruments of explanation brought to bear on the analysis, and are they effectively used? Is there a “truth” that lies beyond the grasp of social science, or even medical science. If so should we stop striving for the unreachable? You might want to keep in the back of your mind Ian Shapiro’s entreaty that we adhere to “problem-oriented research” rather than “method-driven” political science. (“…if one’s only tool is a hammer, everything in sight starts to look like a nail.”

Photo:  “Dynamo” factory workers listening about the death of Joseph Stalin, 1953 by Dmitry Baltermants

Power

“The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me pursued, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh. That would never do.”

Who has power in Orwell’s classic account, and why?

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/~tbelt/Pols360-S08-Reading-ShootingAnElephant.pdf

Schooled or Educated?

“George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln? Someone taught them, to be sure, but they were not products of a school system, and not one of them was ever ‘graduated’ from a secondary school…

…We have been taught (that is, schooled) in this country to think of “success” as synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, ‘schooling,’ but historically that isn’t true in either an intellectual or a fi- nancial sense.”

John Taylor Gatto paints a rather grim picture of the prospects and possibilities denied by schooling (as opposed to the benefits of receiving an education). Although not all of us attended the sort of public schools described by Gatto in the piece, we have all, in some sense, been schooled or accepted schooling, necessarily, in order to arrive at a place like Williams. At the same time, the evidence suggests a second, more nuanced possibility, namely that while most of participate in schooling in order to have “better lives,” our participation comes at a cost, both financial and political. We rein in our freedom in the perhaps dim hope of becoming “successful,” however defined.

Take this assignment as a provocation.  What is your assessment of a meritocracy premised on the ceaseless pursuit of ranking and distinction?  Does a context like Williams—or even our class!—reinforce the claims being made in the piece?

Please keep your answers short (no more than 250 words, if you can!).  Post your reply using the “New Post” feature (but title it using your own creativity).  Make sure to tag it as “First Blog.”  Remember to post a reply-to-a-reply by Monday.  Simply scroll through the entries and reply to whichever one catches your eye!

The Revolution Turns 39

Iran celebrates the thirty-ninth anniversary of the overthrow of the Shah this month, ten days of celebration and remembrance to affirm that the revolution in Iran is a living revolution, the past a forever prelude to the present.

My thoughts on the annual celebrations follow, written in February 2010, less than a year after the suppression of the 2009 Green Movement. A little weathered, but I suspect that the many uses of the Revolution described below still hold true.

The View from Tehran

Iran turns 31 on Thursday, give or take a few thousand years. As part of the official commemorations for the anniversary of the 1979 Revolution, or what is known in Iran as the “ten days of dawn” (daheye fajr), state television broadcasts archival footage from that period, including scenes and images unimaginable the rest of the year: There are men with Western ties and women without Islamic hijabs. Secular housewives march in the streets with Hezbollah university students. Jimmy Carter toasts the Iranian monarch in Tehran, and Ayatollah Khomeini meets with American journalists in France. Every year, the hapless Shah is brought back to life, resurrected by state media only to be chased out of Iran once again, while on another channel Khomeini descends from the sky and into our living rooms on the wings of an Air France passenger plane, returning to Iran after many years of exile. The footage reminds us that revolutions can produce strange combinations, and that our collective memory of those days will forever come in passé hues and sepia tones (will there ever again in history be revolutionaries decked out in wide-collar three-piece suits and feathered hair?).

We watch this history replayed every year on television, but the Revolution is not about history. It is a thirty-one-year old story cut out of sequence, edited back into the programming, made current. One thing that must be understood about Iran, about living here, is that the Revolution is never officially discussed as a finished event. Here, revolution is transitive, a work still in progress. Last year a reporter asked a young man-on-the-street regarding his opinion about the Revolution on the occasion of its 30th anniversary. The man replied that he wished to be around in 90 years to see the Revolution at 120. One hundred twenty. Such talk is surely dissonant to ears conditioned to think of revolutions as conclusions. It is perfectly normal here. Here, revolution is transitive.

There is purpose to this. There are those who argue that by permanently mobilizing the population the regime uses the Revolution as an instrument of rule. This may be true but I think that there is another way to look at the annual celebrations. Like the mourning rites of Ashura, the Revolution is treated as a sequence of events in history that must be retold and most importantly, re-enacted. Revelation comes but once, be it on the plains of Karbala thirteen centuries ago or in the streets of Tehran during the winter cold of 1979, but redemption requires that the faithful regularly reprise the moment of grace.

So every year we spool the story back to 1979 and over ten days the state leads society in public ritual. Public because salvation canʼt be achieved sitting alone in the confessional or in front of the television. Itʼs why turnout is important for this regime, be it at the ballot box or in an anniversary march. Having the masses show up somehow proves that the Islamic Republic is blessed. It all culminates with the great gathering on February 11, the 22nd of Bahman by the Iranian calendar. In Tehran the crowds converge on Freedom Square, the site of massive rallies during the 1979 Revolution and where most recently millions gathered last June to demand that their vote be recognized.

The state organizes the march but it cannot control the meanings that people attach to this day. After so many years, the 22nd of Bahman has become as much a national day of gathering as it is a political rally. Television shows the angry speeches denouncing the West, but out in the crowd the atmosphere is often festive. You are just as likely to run into bundled families out for a stroll as you are to find militant basijis marching in formation along the route. The streets are filled with vendors selling food and all along the route are the ubiquitous balloon sellers, men slowly floating through the crowd wrapped in globes of all shapes and colors. It is not uncommon to see people dressed as Mickey Mouse or Winnie the Pooh, pausing to give hugs and take photos with the many children out in the crowd.

Just days ago former president Mohammad Khatami likened the Revolution to a train in motion. Defending the Green Movement against accusations of treason and supporting the right of the opposition to gather peacefully this coming Thursday (already there is word that security forces are preparing for some three million of the “Greens” will attend) Khatami stated that “Those who groundlessly accuse protesters of subversion are voluntarily or involuntarily derailing the Revolution from its correct track, and they call into question the principles of the Revolution.”

We should pay close attention to Khatami’s words. Like the 22nd of Bahman, the meaning of the 1979 Revolution belongs to no one person or group. 1979 is not a break in history, nor for that matter is 2009 its correction, but are rather constituent parts of a struggle for democracy that reaches back over 100 years. It is a mistake to think that the protestors that will show up tomorrow do so because they all reject the Revolution. Instead, many of these protestors will march because they too seek redemption. For them as it is for the authorities, the Revolution is not yet over but remains a work very much in progress.

“Condi the liar.”