I really enjoyed our class discussion today, especially when we got onto the broad topic of whether it is individuals in government or the institution of government itself that perpetuates lies and corruption. I tended side with those in the class who were more optimistic about human nature, and who thought that perhaps through means of unconventional participation such as protest, large numbers of Americans could influence government policy. I am taking a history class right now about the civil rights movement, and this was certainly an example of the power of a largely grass roots movement for social and political change that was successful. However, I thought Ashley made a very insightful point in class today when she said that having the resources to be politically knowledgable and politically active is a luxury. We know that people with very low incomes are less likely to vote than other members of society, probably both because of low political efficacy and because it would be difficult for a poor single mother with a full-time job, for example, to even find the time or the means to get to the polls. In my history class, we have even talked about how class differences within the black community had a quite large, though seldom mentioned, role in the civil rights movement. Surely if it is difficult for the single, working mother to even get to the polls, it would be nearly impossible for her to find the time to participate in protest. So my question is this: Would mass attempts to change governmental policies through unconventional means lead to the lowest classes of our society being even more under-represented in our participatory democracy than they are today? If so, would the possible good we could accomplish by such means outweigh the sacrifice of the voices of these people in our governmental system?
A final and related issue is that of the application of social class to the philosophy of anarchy. This is the first political science class I have taken at Morris and I must confess that my knowledge of anarchist thought is very limited. Perhaps some of you could help me out here. I was intrigued today when Dave (I think it was Dave) explained that in a society without a government people would behave morally. Government regulations, they argue, perpetuate immoral activity rather than preventing it. Would an anarchist also argue that, without government, there would be no social classes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks, Meaghan. I certainly don't want to downplay the importance and efficacy of political engagement- in fact, I plan to make my living as an organizer. I do think, though, that relying on individual citizens to know the issues and do something, dammit, when things aren't right seems about as risky as relying on elected officials to be honest and trustworthy and do everything right all the time. I don't think that a complete revolution of our political system is in order, but at the same time, I'm definitely not satisfied with the status quo. I think a balance between the two may be beneficial- harnessing grassroots power to demand that the government be more flexible and responsive to its constituents seems like a cheery solution to me.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the discussion about activism and anarchy landed pretty far from where we began. No matter how perfect our democracy may be, someone could always say or do something they should not have. I think that in the State of the Union instance the real problem was not that no one could determine the root of the problem (Tenet), but that the issue was handled rather horribly. Although the debate we had was interesting, I doubt that any preventative measures could have stopped those 16 words, or something equivalent, from happening.