Today's discussion surrounded an introduction to the unit on religion. Once again, its important to highlight the theme of the unit: "The way people construct reality." As we saw with the reading today, religion is a powerful force in creating for people a sense of themselves, so much so that it can cause people to act quite irrationally.
Bobby Griffith struggled so much balancing his Christian faith with the fact that he was gay that he ended up taking his own life. His religious beliefs had created within him a reality that simply didn't mesh with who he was, and Bobby simply couldn't handle it. Much in the same way, his mother's reality told her that prayer was the only way in which she could, in her mind, "cure" her son's "sickness." While those of us on the outside can see the flaw in her logic, especially as it relates to his first suicide attempt, it is clear that her religion created in her that sense of what was real. Prayer was going to solve the problem. When it didn't, her entire life was shattered. Think back to the reading from last night and the analogy with the pencil. What would happen if you dropped that pencil and instead of hitting the table, it just sat suspended in the air? Your reaction would probably be similar to Mrs. Griffith's when she realized that her prayer did not "save" her son.
And that scenario creates the theme for this unit. Religion has played an incredible role in the history of the world. Even though the very basic beliefs of each religion have changed and evolved over time, religion has continually guided people's sense of reality and given them justification for doing whatever they felt fit into that concept of reality. When people act on that reality, it changes the course of history. But, as a guiding force, religion shapes millions of lives and as such, has played an essential role in human history.
So, based on today's discussion, what are your thoughts about religion? About the story of Bobby Griffith? About the role of religion in history? Feel free to comment...
*NOTE: The movie "Prayers for Bobby," based upon the article you read in class today, will be showing tonight on the Lifetime channel at 8 p.m.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Fascism and Leadership
The most recent class discussion revolved around Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism." Before getting into details on it, though, it is important to remember the historical context in which Mussolini is speaking. It will make what he writes a lot more understandable.
Most important of all is that Mussolini is writing during a major worldwide Depression. The economy is down, people have lost jobs and are struggling to put food on the table. Naturally, they are going to be more open to a guy who can promise to get them out of the situation in which they live. When things are going badly for people, they are much more open to new ideas, even though not all new ideas are good ideas.
So Mussolini promises to return Italy to "the days of Rome." This is an important part of Fascism: the use of Nationalism to inspire people. Essentially, he is saying "we were were the most powerful nation on earth once (for 1000 years), we can do it again." This is also going to be appealing to people.
Finally, he continually refers to Fascism as "spiritual." In doing so, he's putting his governmental ideas on par with a religion. This is important because he wants people to think of Fascism as more than a government-it should be a way of life. This is taking Machiavelli's ideas even further than even Machiavelli wanted. Remember-Machiavelli said that a government should never give anything to the people, because they will become dependent upon the Prince. Mussolini goes further and says "not only should the government not give anything to the people, the people should give everything to the government." He wants total control and total support (hence totalitarianism).
Overall, Mussolini does represent some important aspects of leadership that fit into our overall unit theme. He represents one of the two major characteristics of leadership. Those two are:
1. The ability to motivate people to follow you (Mussolini was great at doing this).
2. The foresight to take them in the right direction (Mussolini-not so much here).
These two characteristics of leadership should stay with you as you think about all the pieces we read this unit. To what extent did each of the people we read embody both or either of these two characteristics? Furthermore, how does Mussolini compare to the other leaders/philosophers we have studied this unit?
Most important of all is that Mussolini is writing during a major worldwide Depression. The economy is down, people have lost jobs and are struggling to put food on the table. Naturally, they are going to be more open to a guy who can promise to get them out of the situation in which they live. When things are going badly for people, they are much more open to new ideas, even though not all new ideas are good ideas.
So Mussolini promises to return Italy to "the days of Rome." This is an important part of Fascism: the use of Nationalism to inspire people. Essentially, he is saying "we were were the most powerful nation on earth once (for 1000 years), we can do it again." This is also going to be appealing to people.
Finally, he continually refers to Fascism as "spiritual." In doing so, he's putting his governmental ideas on par with a religion. This is important because he wants people to think of Fascism as more than a government-it should be a way of life. This is taking Machiavelli's ideas even further than even Machiavelli wanted. Remember-Machiavelli said that a government should never give anything to the people, because they will become dependent upon the Prince. Mussolini goes further and says "not only should the government not give anything to the people, the people should give everything to the government." He wants total control and total support (hence totalitarianism).
Overall, Mussolini does represent some important aspects of leadership that fit into our overall unit theme. He represents one of the two major characteristics of leadership. Those two are:
1. The ability to motivate people to follow you (Mussolini was great at doing this).
2. The foresight to take them in the right direction (Mussolini-not so much here).
These two characteristics of leadership should stay with you as you think about all the pieces we read this unit. To what extent did each of the people we read embody both or either of these two characteristics? Furthermore, how does Mussolini compare to the other leaders/philosophers we have studied this unit?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Communism, Democracy, and Equality
Today's discussion revolved around the initiation of communism. What was important to understand from today's discussion was the environment into which communism was introduced: the factory system was a completely unchecked enterprise-the only thing that could control how much workers were paid was the number of unemployed workers out on the street. If there were a bunch of people unemployed, then the factory owner simply could hire the one willing to take the least amount per day for his services. Because factory work at that time required few specific skills, there was no reason for a factory owner to pay someone more than necessary. Necessary, in this case, was very little.
Of course, this lead to a situation in which the rich got A LOT richer and the more got A LOT poorer. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels saw this as a problem and, unlike Toqueville (who felt that Democracy was inherently a good thing), felt that true equality could only be reached in a system in which the government collects all private property and wealth and redistributes equally among the population. Communism was born.
As you read for today, the Communist Manifesto laid out ten ways in which the government would acquire wealth in order to create what the communists believed would be a more equal society. This was in great contrast to the American system at the time in which the role of the government was simply to provide defense and basic infrastructure (roads and things like that).
So the question that remains is: what is the role of government in the lives of the people? Should government be more like the communists wanted, in which the government intervenes in order to create a sense of equality (whatever they feel that "equality" means) or is government better when it is more like the "laissez-faire" style that was going on in the United States, in which government left all economic elements alone and chose not to intervene regardless of the situation?
What do you think?
Of course, this lead to a situation in which the rich got A LOT richer and the more got A LOT poorer. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels saw this as a problem and, unlike Toqueville (who felt that Democracy was inherently a good thing), felt that true equality could only be reached in a system in which the government collects all private property and wealth and redistributes equally among the population. Communism was born.
As you read for today, the Communist Manifesto laid out ten ways in which the government would acquire wealth in order to create what the communists believed would be a more equal society. This was in great contrast to the American system at the time in which the role of the government was simply to provide defense and basic infrastructure (roads and things like that).
So the question that remains is: what is the role of government in the lives of the people? Should government be more like the communists wanted, in which the government intervenes in order to create a sense of equality (whatever they feel that "equality" means) or is government better when it is more like the "laissez-faire" style that was going on in the United States, in which government left all economic elements alone and chose not to intervene regardless of the situation?
What do you think?
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Legitimacy and Leadership
The key point from this last week in relation to the history we’ve been studying has to do with the concept of legitimacy. Legitimacy in governing is key to how a government runs effectively; the less legitimate citizens feel their government is, the less abilities that government has in ruling. A leader can never rule effectively if he is considered illegitimate.
For much of world history, especially before 1700, legitimacy was determined by the mention of a higher power. If a leader could convince the people that the higher power was in his corner, he was considered legitimate. James I in England took that a step further: he felt that he (as king) was really no different than God. No one could question his power, as he had the connection to God. In a way, he argued that kings had the hotline to God and as such, their decisions were always correct. Of course, today we in this country could never imagine a president who would claim that God speaks to him, right?
The Divine Right of Kings in Europe took the concept of legitimacy pretty far. Inevitably, there was a reaction by the people. When someone claims to have spoken to God, it isn’t long before others start to wonder why God hasn’t spoken to them. This begins the questioning of government in general. In England, that took the form of John Locke’s Of Civil Government. This threw the whole concept of legitimacy on its ear. According to Locke, God was no longer an acceptable way for rulers to claim legitimacy. Locke argued that legitimacy only came from the consent of the people. At least for Europe, this was the beginning of the movement towards democracy. If one admits that government only comes from the consent of the people, it won’t be long before they realize that “consent” usually must come in the form of a vote.
This represents a fundamental change in the conversation regarding the history of government and leadership. To lead, a person now has to consider the collective power of the people to put him/her into the role of leader and thus their collective power to remove him/her. Leadership from this point forward becomes much more complicated for those in power, but much more fair for those under that power.
For much of world history, especially before 1700, legitimacy was determined by the mention of a higher power. If a leader could convince the people that the higher power was in his corner, he was considered legitimate. James I in England took that a step further: he felt that he (as king) was really no different than God. No one could question his power, as he had the connection to God. In a way, he argued that kings had the hotline to God and as such, their decisions were always correct. Of course, today we in this country could never imagine a president who would claim that God speaks to him, right?
The Divine Right of Kings in Europe took the concept of legitimacy pretty far. Inevitably, there was a reaction by the people. When someone claims to have spoken to God, it isn’t long before others start to wonder why God hasn’t spoken to them. This begins the questioning of government in general. In England, that took the form of John Locke’s Of Civil Government. This threw the whole concept of legitimacy on its ear. According to Locke, God was no longer an acceptable way for rulers to claim legitimacy. Locke argued that legitimacy only came from the consent of the people. At least for Europe, this was the beginning of the movement towards democracy. If one admits that government only comes from the consent of the people, it won’t be long before they realize that “consent” usually must come in the form of a vote.
This represents a fundamental change in the conversation regarding the history of government and leadership. To lead, a person now has to consider the collective power of the people to put him/her into the role of leader and thus their collective power to remove him/her. Leadership from this point forward becomes much more complicated for those in power, but much more fair for those under that power.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Machiavelli and the Prince
There is plenty to chew on when reading through Machiavelli's "The Prince." Most important to remember, however, is just how much Machiavelli is concerned with efficiency and power rather than any kind of ideas regarding "good government." Everything Machiavelli writes about has to do with HOW to run a government, not whether that government will produce anything morally correct.
Machiavelli was born into a world, especially in Europe, that was dominated by kings and queens who ruled without any consideration for the livelihoods of the people. The middle ages weren't exactly kind to the average person, so in some ways, Machiavelli was very much a product of the era in which he lived. Keep that in mind when judging his ideas, as nasty as those ideas really are.
Consider, as well, how this fits into the overall theme of this unit. Whereas Aristotle, Socrates and Confucius are utterly consumed with the idea of "good government," Machiavelli is the opposite. In a way, they complement one another quite well. This is not to say that these historical philosophers would ever agree with one another, however. I'm sure Confucius would not in any way support Machiavelli's ideas. But the question that really arises here, and the one I'd like you to think about, is to what extent does Machiavelli really compliment the other philosophers studied this unit? Can a ruler attempt to reach a "perfect" and virtuous government without using some ideas Machiavelli supports in order to get to a position of power?
We've seen over the last week in the news that our very own governor has used quite a bit of Machiavellian tactics to get to where he got. What do you think Machiavelli would have to say about governor Blagojedsfsdfhsufhsdfsoi?
Machiavelli was born into a world, especially in Europe, that was dominated by kings and queens who ruled without any consideration for the livelihoods of the people. The middle ages weren't exactly kind to the average person, so in some ways, Machiavelli was very much a product of the era in which he lived. Keep that in mind when judging his ideas, as nasty as those ideas really are.
Consider, as well, how this fits into the overall theme of this unit. Whereas Aristotle, Socrates and Confucius are utterly consumed with the idea of "good government," Machiavelli is the opposite. In a way, they complement one another quite well. This is not to say that these historical philosophers would ever agree with one another, however. I'm sure Confucius would not in any way support Machiavelli's ideas. But the question that really arises here, and the one I'd like you to think about, is to what extent does Machiavelli really compliment the other philosophers studied this unit? Can a ruler attempt to reach a "perfect" and virtuous government without using some ideas Machiavelli supports in order to get to a position of power?
We've seen over the last week in the news that our very own governor has used quite a bit of Machiavellian tactics to get to where he got. What do you think Machiavelli would have to say about governor Blagojedsfsdfhsufhsdfsoi?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Mansas
Today's discussion on the Mansas (Sundiata and Musa) raises a number of issues regarding how leadership has been implemented. Clearly, both Sundiata and Musa had very strong feelings about the manner in which a society should operate. Sundiata, in creating the Mali society, was attempting to instill a just and righteous civilization that would grow and thrive. Musa, on the other hand, inherited a society that already was thriving and made it even more successful.
The keys to Musa's success relied upon trade. Trade has helped push forward history through the interactions between societies that developed, and in the Mali example, the fact that Musa was able to use the commodities present in the society (Salt and Gold) to his advantage allowed him to make Mali a central power not only in Africa, but throughout the world. Trade (and the resulting interactions between civilizations) also encouraged cultural and social development across North Africa and into Southern Europe. Musa was able to capitalize on his advantages and the downturn in both Europe and the Middle East to further develop worldwide relations and increase his own civilization's standing in the world system.
So the question that arise from today involves trade. Specifically: can you think of other time periods in which trade/interactions have been the main motivating factor for historical development throughout the world?
The keys to Musa's success relied upon trade. Trade has helped push forward history through the interactions between societies that developed, and in the Mali example, the fact that Musa was able to use the commodities present in the society (Salt and Gold) to his advantage allowed him to make Mali a central power not only in Africa, but throughout the world. Trade (and the resulting interactions between civilizations) also encouraged cultural and social development across North Africa and into Southern Europe. Musa was able to capitalize on his advantages and the downturn in both Europe and the Middle East to further develop worldwide relations and increase his own civilization's standing in the world system.
So the question that arise from today involves trade. Specifically: can you think of other time periods in which trade/interactions have been the main motivating factor for historical development throughout the world?
Monday, December 8, 2008
Human Nature, Confcianism and Legalism
So, based on today's discussion, its clear that the Confucians and Legalists had very different ideas about Human Nature. The Legalists were generally very pessimistic, thus leading them to conclude that for a state to succeed, rules and order needed to be maintained. If people were free to choose whether or not to follow a leader, they would never do so, so in order for the society to thrive, rewards and punishments were necessary.
The Confucians, having a generally optimistic view of society, concluded that people would naturally do good if they were shown an example of goodness on behalf of the leader. Essentially, the Confucians advocated for a moderated form of anarchy, but not the negative idea of anarchy we associate with the word today, but a very positive view of anarchy in which people are so good that they don't even need laws.
So, in your opinion, which of these two is closer to getting it right on human nature? Consider things like Hurricane Katrina-when people were stripped of all laws, what happened? Then again, billions of dollars are given to charitable organizations each year, much of which is done anonymously. There are examples of both positive and negative views of human nature all around us. So what are we-good or bad?
The Confucians, having a generally optimistic view of society, concluded that people would naturally do good if they were shown an example of goodness on behalf of the leader. Essentially, the Confucians advocated for a moderated form of anarchy, but not the negative idea of anarchy we associate with the word today, but a very positive view of anarchy in which people are so good that they don't even need laws.
So, in your opinion, which of these two is closer to getting it right on human nature? Consider things like Hurricane Katrina-when people were stripped of all laws, what happened? Then again, billions of dollars are given to charitable organizations each year, much of which is done anonymously. There are examples of both positive and negative views of human nature all around us. So what are we-good or bad?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)