blog question 13

Although I believed that this question would be easy- it doesn't require me to examine a work of literature or attempt to draw information from society- I personally think it is the hardest one yet. Of course, like many of my classmates, Joe and Julie for example, I aspire to travel and to immerse myself in foreign languages; I think you would be hard-pressed to find AU student who didn't have this goal.

However, I think that foreign travel is simply one of the greatest components of my ideal community. Even though I have not been a particularly devout Christian; I am probably what both atheists and fundamentalists would call an "accommodator," or what I like to call "progressive." What this means to me is that I find the social gospel as compelling and important as the spiritual component. I therefore want, most of all, to join the community of community builders and human developers who work overseas. I don't believe that it is my duty to bring the message of Jesus to foreign heathens. I do believe that people in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East are hungry, poor and hurting- and I have a calling to try and make a difference. I don't know if I will immediately set off on this goal, because I'm going to have a chunk of debt to pay off after college. I just know that I don't want to fall into a trap of easy living.

Thanksgiving Reflection

Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays because it is one of the few times my entire extended family is able to come together in one place at one time. I consider the welter of conversation and laughter that accompanies our Thanksgivings one of the greatest blessings in my life. That is why I feel like this reflection allows a powerful opportunity to reflect on our recent blog discussion- where does an event like Thanksgiving fit into the Heinlein Theory of survival?

If humans are no different than the lowest forms of life in that we are fundamentally motivated by survival, then where do all the elements that most define humanity fit in? Why do we have the ability to appreciate food, music and other forms of beauty; why is it that humans most cherish memories that deal the most with our own pleasure, rather than those which teach us lessons? Thanksgiving Day and all the satisfaction accompanies it is incongruous with Heinlein philosophy.

The Struggle

Once again, Heinlein uses Dubois to espouse his militaristic philosophy. In this instance he attempts to ground this militarism in "a scientifically theory of morality"- that all morality boils down to the instinct to survive. Never mind that the majority of humans would reject that morality is a fallacious definition set to biological impulses- and that religious, spiritual and philosophical thought starkly contrast this statement, even if we follow Heinlein's logic he ends up incorrect.

If Heinlein is correct and humans have evolved to accept a certain code called "morality" and that our morals then constitute another construct called "society," humans should instead become more peaceful and cooperative. Hundreds of thousands of years ago, when the the negligible human population was struggling to survive, only the most cohesive groups would have survived, and they would have survived by adopting practices that encourage cohesion.

Some biologists predict that evolution should result in the eradication of charitable and self-sacrificing individuals. Why is this not the case? Because people realized that the best way to survive is through cooperation instead of force. Even if survival is all there is- I expect that a future society would have evolved even further towards this understanding- ridding the world of violent, self-destructive societies.

Reflection 13

While he makes valid, interesting points about the true meaning of citizenship and the value of democracy, Heinlein shows an alarming disconnect from real problems problems in the U.S., class, race and crime. I do not know whether Heinlein meant for Dubois to serve as an avatar for his own political leanings. However, Dubois' explanation of the need for firm discipline to control "juvenile delinquents" in reality relays a significant ignorance about American society.

In Heinlein's book, the collapse of Western democracy arrived after violent crime was so prolific citizens literally couldn't leave their homes, and only because the kids weren't subject to enough discipline. "Well golly gee, why didn't those kids' parents take more time to teach 'em discipline? Now that we have corporal punishment and public floggings to look forward to, none of us kids act like that." That's right bland, utterly one-dimensional character, beatings are required by law in Heinlein's utopia. That is why this book strays from reality into fantasy.

Especially living in DC, we have to realize that, socially and economically, we do not live on "a level playing field." When you have to work two or more jobs to support your family, you do not have the same time or energy as do middle-class workers. When you go to poor schools in the inner-city, the culture among educators is unfortunately that some types of kids are unteachable and are better abandoned to their fate. Not so in the thousands of suburban schools, public and private. Young men do not commit crimes because they are thinking about the consequences; they do not intend to get caught at all. They commit crimes out of immediate necessity, the "instinct to survive," Heinlein's basis for all morality. Kids don't join gangs because they find violence fun, they do it because a gang offers the only semblance to a real family they can find. The cycle of violence in urban America won't chance if we instill corporal punishment as a means of rehabilitation. All that will result in is a generation of black, Latino and rural poor resenting even more a government which punishes them for being poor.

Blog Question

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. breed that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

He's right.

One cannot argue that when faced with a problem, the most effective to to get what you want is through force; every nation, civilization and society (and countless individuals) has resorted to violence to achieve its goals. History is a tapestry of violence, of its utilization to build empires and protect sovereignty.

This of course is true only if one examines history as nearsightedly as possible. Acts of violence settle immediate issues; by looking at the ramifications of violence, we see that a violent past will continue to play out into the future. Heinlein offers the example of Napoleon and Wellington to prove his point.

By crushing Napoleon at Waterloo, Duke Wellington preserved British dominance and protected the European continent. However, France's defeat in the Napoleonic Wars led to the Franco-Prussian War, Germany sought vengeance for France's brutal campaign and occupancy during the time of Napoleon, and the taking of Alsace Lorraine. Enmity between the two nations would help fuel WWI, the outcome of then led to WWII, when Britain found its dominance again threatened by a new European superpower that has already conquered the rest of the continent. The cycle of violence only ended after WWII, when the U.S. and its allies decided to rebuild instead of destroy.

Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, and internal conflicts in nations like Mexico, Colombia, Nigeria, these are all proof that violent action by the government
and dissenting individuals only begets more violence. To believe that violence is the most effective way to settle conflict is to adopt the irresponsible and totally morally reprehensible belief that none of our actions have consequences.

Reflection

As a number of my classmates have already reported, Ambassador Quaintain was probably our most interesting speaker yet; his unique experience was fascinating and even inspiring to listen to. Yet as a a growing number of my classmates also pointed out, the ambassador's story shared fundamental similarities with speakers like Ms. Humphreys; the course that Ambassador Quaintain ended up on was not what he elected, nor even suspected. The most common theme throughout the various presentations has been how our speakers' lives were shaped mostly by forces outside their control; this utterly contrasts one of the most common pieces of advice we routinely receive: learn now what you want to do and push yourself as far as you can go in that field.

As Joe describes it, specialization is a part of adaptation and survival; species that don't find a niche die out, companies that cannot specialize their service collapse. It seems natural that for individual careers to be successful, we too must place our chips in one area of specialization.

In past blogs, I have argued in favor of a very different mode of education, a comprehensive "cultural literacy" seems to be the most effective education system for elementary and high school students. However, college in of itself isn't a continuation of the education one received in high school; a college education inherently forces a student to select the area of greatest interest to them and pursue that area above all else.

A college education centers around the pursuit of a career, or graduate school. That is its specialization. Judging from the speakers, however, it was not specifically the college education itself which prepared them for real life; it was more the traits such as hard work and independence, which they would have garnered from college despite any one major. The ambassador answered in class that he believed the Foreign Service has changed, that it would be near impossible for someone to replicate his story and have such a comprehensive career. Perhaps careers have shifted over the years, but I do not think that life itself has become any more predictable. So while I know what area I want to study, I think that I will continue to branch out, a little, and ruminate over these questions as luxuriously as only a college freshman can.

Reflection 10

Laws only exist to protect the rights and needs of the people. Therefore, when a law deviates from these rights, people have no obligation to follow it. That is why Antigone was right to disobey her uncle and bury her brother; proper treatment of a dead relative seems to be a human right a government has no right to infringe upon. That is why we as Americans were wildly supportive of the Iranian unrest following its dubious elections, even though popular support has wavered with waning media coverage- the Iranian people resisted an autocratic ruler because his laws violated their natural rights.

At the same time, arguments exist for the rule of law when safety of the majority overrules a right of the minority. Baruch Goldstein, a follower of Meir Kahane and a former member of the armed forces, in 1994 massacred a number of Muslims in a mosque. After he was killed by mosque attendants, extreme right Jewish factions made a shrine around his grave. The Israeli government later demolished the shrine after ruling that monuments cannot be made for terrorists in the state of Israel, fearing that the shrine would attract support for extremist forces, or attract violence from Palestinians angry over the pilgrimages to the shrine. Did the Israeli mandate violate the expression rights of those who built and visited the shrine? Yes, certainly. Was the action justifies? I think that is harder to argue; it was done in name of national security, a justification which always needs to be given a skeptical glance. There are many parrelles between Antigone and this real-life event, a terrorist is celebrated after his death, and the state, citing security and stability as their motivation, deny his friends and family the right to perform his burial as they see fit.

The greatest difference between the two scenarios is of course the different government structures- Isreal is a liberal democracy while Thebes was ruled by an autocrat whose word, and prejudices, were law. Therefore, I have to think that the state of Israel better represented to will of the people, who willed for stability at the cost of an extremist faction.

Question 10

I agree that a society's management of wealth and poverty does reflect on its overall health and stability. This probably stems from my belief that, particularly in our nation, we have a degrading system of social determinism that restrains those born into poverty. Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, our country is not nealy post-racial; racism quietly penetrates the economic life of Americans in almost every area: healthcare, housing, employment. Shortly after the housing market crash, reports of areas with high concentrations of foreclosures were taken; in cities like Memphis with a high black population, investigators found that maps of foreclosed houses fall perfectly along the bounderies of black neighborhoods. Banks targeted black Americans with the riskiets loans, hoping to make quick profits. Not everyone agrees with this opinion, but it shapes my belief that the existance of poverty in our country identify deeper societal ills.

Education specialists like E.D. Hirsch, who promote a system of "cultural literacy," have come under fire from traditional liberals who like progressive, individualistic methods of teaching i.e., teaching children "how to learn" is more important than grounding them in history, culture and language. Hirsch, however, maintains that a stable education system based on basic culteral literacy for each grade level in the U.S. “Cultural literacy constitutes the only sure avenue of opportunity for disadvantaged children,” said Hirsch in this article (http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_hirsch.html). The United State's education system is especially failing those from impoverished households, and a reformed education system will allow estranged populations minorities and the rural poor to better rise out of poverty, and better coalesce our nations' cultural identity as to better combat racism. My home state, Massachusetts, adopted Hirsch's model and its educational standards immediately surged; Massachusetts now leads the nation in NAEP test scores, whereas before its scores were stagnant, particularly in reading and writing.

Therefore, we can link an issure like poverty, and the distribution of wealth in our society, to social foundations like education. A failuire in our education is a severe societal ill. Our country has always been good at throwing money at problems instead of investigating their roots. Both liberal welfare systems and conservative methods of tax breaks have their problems in reducing the U.S.'s poverty, Even though I consider myself progressive, and don't usually believe that old dead white men know what is best for our modern nation, I too think that an education system better grounded in the democratic ideals proposed by Jefferson and other Founding Fathers is better for combating poverty.

Reflection

Our class seemed generally to doubt AU's motivation for its 35 million dollar donation to WAMU. There must to be an ulterior motive, American has to be getting something out of the deal. I am sure that our school's leadership knows what it is doing; AU most certainly will benefit in some way. However, I do not believe that self-interest needs to be the force shaping AU's policy, not anyone's. Instead of maintaing that charity and civic duty are viable only because the participant may get something out of it, why not instead consider that doing acts of good inherently benefits all parties involved. Our society does not need to be "zero-sum" if people abandon the mentality that other people's gains are their losses- the rich do not need to get richer only at the cost of the poor getting poorer.

People, and entities like American University, need not lead a Ted Oster lifestyle, where the only good is what immediately benefits you. That will only lead to a reduction is what political scientist Robert Putnam calls "social capital," the important, mutually beneficial relationships forged among community members. Civic engagement does not need to decline as it has. It just takes effort, something that Americans are too eager to avoid. I hope that my school is making an effort to benefit its community and create greater social capital. I would be proud to know that the university I atend is standing as a role model for other institutions and members of all their communities.

Blog Post 9

"Modern individualism seems to be producing a way of life that is neither individually nor socially viable, yet a return to traditional forms would be to return to intolerable discrimination and oppression" (Bellah et. al., p. 144).

I believe I understand what Bellah is saying here, that the rise of individualistic thought leads people to abandon traditional values; yet strict adherence to those traditional values squashes individual freedoms, our quintessential American dilemna. Bellah describes this better in the marraige portion of the book than he does in the paragraphs leading to this statement. Take for example, the arguments for a traditional Christian marraige- that seeing your love for someone as an obligation higher than your own personal wants leads to a more secure and fulfulling relationship. I think this has merit, it means you are willing to make sacrifices to make a relationship work. However, I don't want to think that there is an obligation, for example, for the wife to remain at home her whole life.

This conflicts with the lifestyle espoused by Ted Oster in the Values section. Oster believes that he "needs to try everything once" and that there is no good or bad except for what makes you feel good. While this may lead to an open and accepting lifestyle, it also makes your viewpoint extremely black and white- there is no moral gray area that many people want. If something makes you happier, it is autmoatically better, and something that requires to much labor or sacrifice instantly is bad. Oster cannot answer, for example, what would happen to his happy marraige if he met someone who was immediately more pleasing than his wife.

I think that we have are still in the argument section of the book. While Bellah raises interesting questions about American identity here, we still have not seen his idea of solutions to these problems, yet.

Reflection 9

I have to admit, before President Kerwin came to speak to us, I was pretty ignorant about AU's history. I was actually schocked when I learned that AU's narrative is not the nacreous one I had assumed since first visiting AU as a senior in high school. While I understand why the university may want its lurid recent past recondite, I personally do not think that is what is right for the school.

Far from making me wary or ashamed to be a part of the community, knowing this about AU's past actually makes me proud. I am proud to see that my school has been able to come so far in what must have been a relatively short period time. I actually feel a stronger connection to AU's community; the growth, and the projected growth, of our school should be something we can rally around, not something we skirt over.

Blog Question 8

American University is definitely a type of community, especially if we think back on what defines communities. AU's students are all united by a basic common purpose- to further their education here; we have many other ties as well: we cheer the same sports teams, American University is united under a single leadership which has new and exciting(?) plans for its development. You can tell American University is a community just be listening to conversations around campus.

Person A: I am from the upper part of campus
Person B: I am from the lower part
Person C: I like living in central AU
A and B: There is no central AU, you idiot
Person not from AU: goddamn it, this conversation is stupid

Of course, AU contains many communities within itself: it has its different schools, and we all live in different dorms, and our floor certainly has its own community apart from the rest of the residence hall. However, I do believe optimistically that AU's community is shaped by the people within it. I like to think that we all ended up here because that is where we were meant to end up, and that our strong motivations and beliefs or whatever else brought one to the university shapes the community as a whole, for the better.

More like Dumbdog Obviousaire, am I right?

This week, I drew a blank on what to reflect on- so I decided to write about the movie Slumdog Millionaire, which I saw for the first time yesturday night. I also read an article from the Boston Globe which maintains a firm connection with the movie, "Let us now praise...the cliche." The article is a defense of the cliche, prose's socially awkward relative. Cliche's, the author James Parker argues, are a solid method of communication because they convey meaning clearly, concisely and without undue effort. Parker's writing reminded me of earlier criticism of Slumdog that I had heard well before I had ever watched the movie.

Because I am from New England my friends are all elitists, and elitists love nothing more than criticizing things that more stupider people like. I had heard that, "although the movie was good, the characters are too stereotypical/cliched." Parker and I, I assume, would respond with the same answer: Exactly! Suck on it! (He probably would actually say that in real life, most likely)

The reason that the Slumdog Millionaire story is so powerful is because the characters are painted so clearly and vividly, the young man fighting for his true love, the true love kidnapped by evil, and the evil brother who finds redemption; an obvious, emotionally powerful picture is worth well more than a thousand ambigous, intellectually stimulating words.

May Hansen's Example

I think that Mary Hansen gave a great presentation last week. Although "doing what you love" has definitely been a theme with many of our speakers, Hansen had a unique way of describing the processes that came with making her life choices. She explained how she could only make her big life decisions, like the adoption of two foster children, after scrutinizing her own beliefs, values and wants. I think that she gave an example for our class as to how we maybe can approach the most difficult decisions in our lives- that who we are and how we feel currently has to be involved the process of decising what we want to be.

Question 7

I feel that the narrator's lack of identity, his special case of invisibility, is almost definitely caused by his status on the racial hierarchy. It seems like the idea of determinism plays a large role in the narrators life- no matter what he does he cannot escape his role as a subservient black man in a white society- even though he himself is obviously equal to all the white men presented in the novel. The narrator cannot forge an identity for himself because of the oppressive, exploitative relationship between white and black americans at the time.

The Vet brings this fact to the narrator on the bus ride north. He ascribes white men the qualities of cruel, unknoweable deities in that they are the "force that pulls you strings." The narrator still doesn't realize that he is trapped in his invisibility when he talks to Emerson's son, and realizes that Bledsoe has betrayed him. Even though the narrator always acted in propriety and tried to do the right thing, all in the hopes of bettering himself- he is trapped by forces beyond his control. Bledsoe only exists as an extension of white racism; he regards the narrator as a tool and discards him when the tool does not function in the way he expected.

Reflection 6

I was excited when I learned that we were to watch Children of Men for our latest Wednesday lab; it's one of my favorite movies of all time. Yet although I had always loved the themes of the movie, a bleak, futuristic re-imagining of the nativity, I had never thought about it in the light of the role of identity.

I suppose that any movie about faith and redemption would need to involve exploring a character's identity; tracking the progression of his development from the beginning to the end of the movie. But I think that the movie also has to do greatly with the themes of memory, albeit in a different light then how we have been discussing it. There is no more hope in the world once there are no future generations- there is no point in fighting and dying for others when no one will ever remember it. We get a strong visual as to what would happen if humanity had no more future and no more hope.

reflection #something

The strongest memory I have from last Wednesday is finding a small poem left behind on a small memorial for Vietnam. The poem was simple and brief, but it was heartbreaking anyway. In it, someone described their brother's return from Vietnam, and his subsequent crippling depression and suicide.

Up until recently, ptsd and other afflictions that plague soldiers after war have been taboo subjects in our country. Like the war itself, they were best forgotten and ignored, until at least as many returning soldiers committed suicide as died in the war itself. If the memorials recognize sacrifice, are their some things that our country is willing to sacrifice by keeping these losses hidden?

How far can it take you?

I think that the background question to this week’s Explorations question is what does one seek to get out of an autobiography? Is reading an autobiography as escapist as other types of literature? I don’t think it is; I think that instead autobiographies force the reader to reflect upon their own lives. An autobiographical piece doesn’t exactly work as a mirror, but kind of an “opposite mirror;” it forces the reader to reflect on their triumphs in the face of the author’s defeats and acknowledge their weaknesses in face of the author’s greatest strengths. The most powerful biographical works I have ever read dealt with redemption, and evolution from

Ishmael Beah wrote A Long Way Gone to describe his descent into service as a child soldier during the civil war in Sierra Leone. A story like that raises powerful questions for the reader, even one such as myself, sheltered completely from violence and almost all conflict. When I read the book I feel secure knowing that I could never commit violence like that, yet at the same time the book condemns me; I realize things like, when I get really angry and say that I hate something, how callous that really is in light of reading about someone who was indoctrinated to hate as an instinct.

The other great autobiography I have read is E. R. Braithwaite’s, To Sir, With Love. Braithwaite is a poor black teacher in a London slum. The author describes his evolution into a man confident enough to stand for himself against white antagonists, and a reader will also see an evolution in his pupils, who gain the understanding as they age that since they came to respect Braithwaite, respect should override race in every case. This book poses to me questions as to whether or not I could overcome harsh conditions with dignity, even though as I read I can assume righteous indignation against the petty racism so prevalent throughout the book.

So I think that yes, an autobiography does need this sort of drama to carry the same importance. Every person deserves to be remembered, but when you read an autobiography of a person who comes too close to mirroring yourself, you will miss out on the experience of self-reflection that a powerful biographical work can deliver.

Good Lord, how much bs can I fit into one reflection, anyway...

On Beauty

For the beautiful objects designed by artists souls and realized by skilled hands come from that beauty which is higher than souls; after that beauty my soul sighs day and night.

-St. Augustine, Confessions

The good things which you love are all from God, but they are good and sweet only as long as they are used to do his will. They will rightly turn bitter if God is spurned and the things that come from him are wrongly loved.

- St. Augustine, Confessions

All these things have you said of beauty,
Yet in truth you spoke not of her but of needs unsatisfied,
And beauty is not a need but an ecstasy.
It is not a mouth thirsting nor an empty hand stretched forth,
But rather a heart enflamed and a soul enchanted.

-Khalil Gibran, The Prophet

First, I apologize for the large amount of quotes; I am not merely using them to take up space in the assignment, I think they all tie together in the reflection.
This reflection was inspired both by the trip to the cathedral and ruminations over our current reading. When I visit a place like the National Cathedral, I am struck by its intense beauty- and I feel that the beauty has to reflect something higher than ourselves. I think that the abilities to create and appreciate beauty are too great to take for granted. Music, visual arts and architecture reflect prodigious talent and work and, according to my personal beliefs and the first quote of Augustine’s, a higher power.
So what does beauty mean in the light of religious thought, especially in the often harsh glare of thinkers such as Augustine? On the one hand, Augustine states that the beauty of crafts intrinsically reflects God’s beauty (this was simple to figure out, since things ascribing every good quality as intrinsically reflecting God is a big theme of Augustine’s’). This idea, that all things beautiful give praise to God is common in almost all religions; it can be found immediately in Islam in the Arabic word El-Musawwir, which means Shaper of Beauty, and is one of the 99 names of God (this word is important because God has numerous names that deal with him as a Creator, but one specifically as a creator of beauty).
Yet, earlier in the book Augustine warns his reader not to delight in beauty for the sake of the object, enjoy beauty only as a reflection of God; after all, beauty is a gift from him and is not to be spurned. What Augustine proposes is not easy for us accomplish. We are to delight in beauty, but do not enjoy the object itself? This paradox will supply us with an endless amount of temptation and guilt, and Augustine admits it does for himself.
I think that Gibran’s poetry supplies a proper balance. Although Gibran’s work usually flies over my head, I think I understand what he is trying to say in this poem. Leading up to the quote I borrowed, Gibran describes a scene where numerous people give their definitions of beauty. For tired people it is comfort, for restless people adventure. Gibran’s main character, however, reprimands those speakers for these words. You must identify beauty as a celebration; acknowledge that the way something beautiful makes you feel separates it from mundane wants and needs.
I think that beauty therefore has a place in faith. A constant exposure to lavishness will undoubtedly detract from the joy you should feel when you encounter something you believe to be beautiful, but a puritanical outlook will lead to a joyless life, one devoid of the celebration that should properly be there if one was truly to lead a rich spiritual life.

For this reflection, I decided to reflect upon what I think was my favorite portrait in the gallery. That would be one of Martin Luther King Jr. that I spotted on the first floor.

Although it might seem that way, I am not a cop-out for choosing a picture of MLK. Even for all his virtues and triumphs, I am not going to use this reflection to extoll them. I instead will explain why exactly this portrait such a more powerful effect on me than any other.

The reason that I liked this portrait the most was becuase, instead of all the rest that I saw, it was natural. The picture was a snapshot, taken by a photographer for a newspaper at a conferance. For that reason, I think that this photograph, much more so than any presidential photograph, captures the identity of the subject. While every president chose whether to look regal, stern, composed or friendly, MLK was depicted in a natural state. I love the fact that, in a picture taken in split-second, he could look contemplative and forceful.

Maybe the Reverend Dr. knew that he was being photographed, and was sure to affect this pose for the entire conference. Maybe the photograph still only captures a front. I do not believe it does, and I think that this is one of the few portraits in the gallery that show an individual as he truly was in real life.