Printable View
I'll be using this thread to for general homework advice and to help me organize my notes. If you can help out with a particular question or assignment, that'd be greatly appreciated. You're also free to discuss any of the material in this thread, offer criticism or suggestions, etc.
My assignment is to write a 150 word summary of the following article:
The green text is what I have so far, and the red text is what I think I might be missing or needs changing:Quote:
The Meanings of the Selfie
By JAMES FRANCO
Published: December 26, 2013
Selfies are something new to me, but as I have become increasingly addicted to Instagram, I have been accused of posting too many of them. I was called out on the “Today” show, and have even been called the selfie king.Maybe this is so, but only because I’ve learned that the selfie is one of the most popular ways to post — and garner the most likes from followers. The likes spin out of control for selfies of me and my two handsome brothers, especially Dave, the other actor, whose image pulls in its own legion of teenage fans.
I can see which posts don’t get attention or make me lose followers: those with photos of art projects; videos telling the haters to go away (in not so many words); and photos with poems. (Warning: Post your own, and you’ll see how fast people become poetry specialists and offer critiques like “I hate you, you should die.”) But a well-stocked collection of selfies seems to get attention. And attention seems to be the name of the game when it comes to social networking. In this age of too much information at a click of a button, the power to attract viewers amid the sea of things to read and watch is power indeed. It’s what the movie studios want for their products, it’s what professional writers want for their work, it’s what newspapers want — hell, it’s what everyone wants: attention. Attention is power. And if you are someone people are interested in, then the selfie provides something very powerful, from the most privileged perspective possible.
We speak of the celebrity selfie, which is its own special thing. It has value regardless of the photo’s quality, because it is ostensibly an intimate shot of someone whom the public is curious about. It is the prize shot that the paparazzi would kill for, because they would make good money; it is the shot that the magazines and blogs want, because it will get the readers close to the subject. And the celebrity selfie is not only a private portrait of a star, but one also usually composed and taken by said star — a double whammy. Look at Justin Bieber’s Instagram account (the reigning king of Instagram?), and you will find mostly selfies. Look at other accounts with millions of followers — like that of Taylor Swift or Ashley Benson (of the TV show “Pretty Little Liars”) — and you’ll find backstage selfies, selfies with friends, selfies with pets. These stars know the power of their image, and how it is enhanced when garnished with privileged material — anything that says, “Here is a bit of my private life.”
I’ve found that Instagram works much like the movie business: You’re safe if you trade “one for them” with “one for yourself,” meaning for every photo of a book, painting or poem, I try to post a selfie with a puppy, a topless selfie or a selfie with Seth Rogen, because these are all things that are generally liked. Now, while the celebrity selfie is most powerful as a pseudo-personal moment, the noncelebrity selfie is a chance for subjects to glam it up, to show off a special side of themselves — dressing up for a special occasion, or not dressing, which is a kind of preening that says, “There is something important about me that clothes hide, and I don’t want to hide.”
Of course, the self-portrait is an easy target for charges of self-involvement, but, in a visual culture, the selfie quickly and easily shows, not tells, how you’re feeling, where you are, what you’re doing. And, as our social lives become more electronic, we become more adept at interpreting social media. A texting conversation might fall short of communicating how you are feeling, but a selfie might make everything clear in an instant. Selfies are tools of communication more than marks of vanity (but yes, they can be a little vain). We all have different reasons for posting them, but, in the end, selfies are avatars: Mini-Me’s that we send out to give others a sense of who we are. I am actually turned off when I look at an account and don’t see any selfies, because I want to know whom I’m dealing with. In our age of social networking, the selfie is the new way to look someone right in the eye and say, “Hello, this is me.”
In "The Meanings of Selfies," James Franco contends that in this age of social networking, attention translates to power, and the best way to garner attention on social media is by posting selfies. He notes that these self-portraits make for the most popular posts - the ones that receive the most likes and gain the most followers. This strategy of self-promotion has been used successfully by celebrities to enhance their image, Franco insists, and points to Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift as prime examples. [insert transitional sentence] By offering a glimpse into the private lives of public figures, the celebrity selfie can have a particularly powerful effect - it allows the fans to share a pseudo-personal moment with their favorite stars. Additionally, he claims, they can also provide the non-celebrity with an opportunity to "glam it up" for their followers and "show off" to the world when they look their best. [insert transitional sentence] He sums up his argument by concluding that in a visual culture such as ours, selfies provide us with a powerful tool that can be used to present a certain image of ourselves to the world - ideally one that will draw the most attention and enhance our appeal to the greatest possible extent.
*opinions on the ideology here (in the format of a forum reply?)*Quote:
*chapter summaries of each ideology here*
Main points:Quote:
THE CASE FOR TORTURE
By Michael Levin
It is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age. Enlightened societies reject it outright, and regimes suspected of using it risk the wrath of the United States.
I believe this attitude is unwise. There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. Moreover, these situations are moving from the realm of imagination to fact.
Death: Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4 unless ... here follow the usual demands for money and release of his friends from jail. Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 a.m on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die. If the only way to save those lives is to subject the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain, what grounds can there be for not doing so? I suggest there are none. In any case, I ask you to face the question with an open mind.
Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric. Indeed, letting millions of innocents die in deference to one who flaunts his guilt is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to dirty one's hands. If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn't bring yourself to apply the electrodes?
Once you concede that torture is justified in extreme cases, you have admitted that the decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them. You must now face more realistic cases involving more modest numbers. Someone plants a bomb on a jumbo jet. I He alone can disarm it, and his demands cannot be met (or they can, we refuse to set a precedent by yielding to his threats). Surely we can, we must, do anything to the extortionist to save the passengers. How can we tell 300, or 100, or 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, "I'm sorry you'll have to die in agony, we just couldn't bring ourselves to . . . "
Here are the results of an informal poll about a third, hypothetical, case. Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself.
I am not advocating torture as punishment. Punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past. Rather, I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils. So understood, it is far less objectionable than many extant punishments. Opponents of the death penalty, for example, are forever insisting that executing a murderer will not bring back his victim (as if the purpose of capital punishment were supposed to be resurrection, not deterrence or retribution). But torture, in the cases described, is intended not to bring anyone back but to keep innocents from being dispatched. The most powerful argument against using torture as a punishment or to secure confessions is that such practices disregard the rights of the individual. Well, if the individual is all that important, and he is, it is correspondingly important to protect the rights of individuals threatened by terrorists. If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting the one who endangers them.
Better precedents for torture are assassination and pre-emptive attack. No Allied leader would have flinched at assassinating Hitler, had that been possible. (The Allies did assassinate Heydrich.) Americans would be angered to learn that Roosevelt could have had Hitler killed in 1943, thereby shortening the war and saving millions of lives, but refused on moral grounds. Similarly, if nation A learns that nation B is about to launch an unprovoked attack, A has a right to save itself by destroying B's military capability first. In the same way, if the police can by torture save those who would otherwise die at the hands of kidnappers or terrorists, they must.
Idealism:There is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' "rights." The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary.
Just as torture is justified only to save lives (not extort confessions or incantations), it is justifiably administered only to those known to hold innocent lives in their hands. Ah, but how call the authorities ever be sure they have the right malefactor? Isn't there a danger of error and abuse? won't "WE" turn into "THEM?" Questions like these are disingenuous in a world in which terrorists proclaim themselves and perform for television. The name of their game is public recognition. After all, you can't very well intimidate a government into releasing your freedom fighters unless you announce that it is your group that has seized its embassy. "Clear guilt" is difficult to define, but when 40 million people see a group of masked gunmen seize an airplane on the evening news, there is not much question about who the perpetrators are. There will be hard cases where the situation is murkier. Nonetheless, a line demarcating the legitimate use of torture can be drawn. Torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between "US" and "THEM" will remain clear.
There is little danger that the Western democracies will lose their way if they choose to inflict pain as one way of preserving order. Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger. Some day soon a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them. We had better start thinking about this.
- In "The Case for Torture," Michael Levin argues that there are situations where torture is not only acceptable, but necessary. To illustrate his point, he presents the reader with a hypothetical question - if a terrorist has planted an atomic bomb that could potentially claim the lives of millions, and the only way to find out where it has been hidden is through torture, then is there any reason not to follow through? He contends that there are none.
- It can be argued that torture is barbaric, but in his view, allowing millions to die is far more barbaric. When grappling with this moral dilemma, it's a simple matter of balancing innocent lives with the means needed to save them.
- Levin likens torture to assassinations and preemptive strikes against enemy nations. In essence, he advocates torture not as punishment, but rather as a means of preventing future harm. It is in this sense, he believes, that if the police can use torture to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians, they should not hesitate to do so.
- Anticipating the criticisms of those who would raise concerns about the rights of the individual, he draws a line between the innocent and a criminal. On the one hand, the victims have unwittingly found themselves at risk, and on the other, the terrorist knowingly accepted the risks when he committed his crime. In Levins' view, the terrorist forfeited any claims to human rights when he renounced civilized standards.
- In summation, he claims that our society will not undermine it's democratic ideals if it resorts to exacting torture as a means of securing the rule of law and good order.
-------
Paragraph form:
In "The Case for Torture," Michael Levin argues that there are situations where torture is not only acceptable, but necessary. To illustrate his point, he presents the reader with a hypothetical question - if a terrorist has planted an atomic bomb that could potentially claim the lives of millions, and the only way to find out where it has been hidden is through the use of torture, then is there any reason not to follow through? He contends that there are none. When grappling with this moral dilemma, it is a simple matter of balancing innocent lives with the means needed to save them. Pressing further, Levin likens torture to preemptive strikes against enemy nations. In essence, he advocates torture not as punishment, but rather as a means of preventing future harm. It is in this sense, he believes, that if the police can use torture to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians, they should not hesitate to do so. Anticipating the criticisms of those who would raise concerns about the rights of the individual, he draws a line between the innocent and the criminally guilty. On the one hand, the victims have unwittingly found themselves at risk, and on the other, the terrorist knowingly accepted the risks when he committed his crime. In Levins' view, the terrorist forfeited any claims to human rights when he renounced civilized standards. In summation, he claims that our society will not undermine it's democratic ideals if it resorts to exacting torture as a means of securing the rule of law and good order.
Liberalism and Human Nature:
- Human beings are fundamentally rational individuals
- Self interest is the primary motive for most people
- Competition is considered a natural part of the human condition, and is healthy as long as it's fair and stays within proper bounds
Liberalism and Freedom
- Agent: The individual.
- Obstacle: Laws, customs, conditions, that block individual choice
- Goal: To live as one sees fit, provided they don't interfere with or limit the freedom of others
- Individual liberty is promoted by guaranteeing equality of status and opportunity (not equality of condition)
Medieval Origins of Liberalism
- Origins can be traced back to a reaction against religious conformity and ascribed status. This reaction developed over centuries and took different forms in difference circumstances
- By the early 19th century, as the term "liberal" became more common in political circles, a distinct political viewpoint had taken shape
- Religious conformity: Liberals called for religious freedom and the separation of church and state
- Ascribed status: Liberals objected to the concept of fixed social standing that was determined at birth, and were in favor of a society based on achieved status instead
- Feudalism:
-
Involvement in the development of colonial policy:
- The topic of colonial policy was widely debated and the critics outnumbered the supporters. As more resources were invested into the plantations of eastern America, the critics grew more vocal. In response, many economic writers wrote their own treatises in defense of the English colonies, claiming that the the profits would ultimately make the investment worthwhile. John Locke's "Two Treatises" is one example.
- From 1668 to 1675 Locke was heavily involved with the colonial matters - he endorsed most of the letters between the Lord Proprietors and the Council in Carolina; drafted laws (eg. Temporary Laws of 1674); kept a record of the activities; wrote to senior officials in the colonies; and helped pen the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina.
- Locke's involvement occurred during a time when the English economy was severely weakened by a war with the Dutch, the Great Plague of 1665, and the Fire of London in 1666. Many treatises were written to solve the financial crisis - a minority claimed American colonization would save the economy, while the majority blamed colonial practices for contributing to the crisis.
Opposition to colonialism:
- Opponents of colonialism feared that the plantations were too costly, that it encouraged too many people to emigrate, and that the colonies may one day declare independence and become competitors. These fears came to a climax over Shaftesbury and Locke's main colonial project in Carolina, and as a result, King Charles II issued a proclamation stating that the primary purpose of the colonies was to serve England.
-
Historical and philosophical links between English liberalism and colonial enterprise:
Argument: Specialized training is crucial for first-responders so that they may be better equipped to stave off the often debilitating effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While some may argue that is up to the individual to see to it that they are adequately prepared for the risks of the job before applying, others maintain that it is the duty of an employer to ensure that a safety net is in place for employees who incur operational stress injuries. Given the enormous costs ... - financial and otherwise - it is imperative that sweeping reforms be introduced, and comprehensive province-wide strategies aimed at preventing and dealing with mental illness be developed.
Intro:
The Langley Times, in an article titled "Making Sure Help is on the Way," illustrates the struggles of first-responders coping with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - an often overlooked risk in their line of duty.
How the individual is affected:
- No safety net currently exists
- Left feeling Ostracized and alone in their struggle
- Difficult to talk about it and seek help
- Lack of coherent strategy/system leaves the sufferer in a poor position with regards to their recovery
- Their quality of life is significantly decreased
How the employer/organization is affected:
- Time off for employees + medical coverage for the coverage
- Morale suffers, work efficiency adversely affected
- Bad PR (Ron Francis, Ken Barker, etc.)
- RCMP group issues PTSD 'call to action' after Ron Francis's suicide - New Brunswick - CBC News
How the community at large is affected:
- PTSD does not just affect the individual, , it strains their relationships as well
- It can have a negative impact on a marriage, a family unit, etc. and this negative influence can bleed out into the community as a whole
Conclusion:
Argument: Specialized training is crucial for first-responders so that they may be better equipped to stave off the often debilitating effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While some may argue that is up to the individual to see to it that they are adequately prepared for the risks of the job before applying, others maintain that it is the duty of an employer to ensure that a safety net is in place for employees who incur operational stress injuries. Given the enormous costs associated with the illness - financial and otherwise - it is imperative that a comprehensive national strategy aimed at preventing and dealing with mental illness be be developed.
Intro:
The Langley Times, in an article titled "Making Sure Help is on the Way," illustrates the struggles of first-responders coping with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - an often overlooked risk in their line of duty.
These people are fully aware of what the job entails when they sign up, they understand the risks and commit themselves to serving their communities in spite of them. They already go through a thorough screening process that includes rigorous training and psychological testing before being accepted into the ranks of the RCMP. Beyond that, one would also expect the employer to have a system in place for those members who do eventually develop an operational stress injury because it certainly isn't uncommon, let alone something new.Quote:
Maybe the RCMP need to revise their hiring and screening procedures. People who are incapable of handling stressful situations should not be in law enforcement.
But as it stands, no safety net currently exists for first-responders. Instead, in it's place, is a culture of stigmatization that leaves those afflicted with PTSD alone in their struggle, ostracized from their peers. The fear of being labelled, of giving the impression that one is too weak or unfit for the job, deters many first-responders from discussing the issue with their co-workers or superiors. Those that do work up the courage to step forward risk being seen as someone trying to "game the system." For many within the force, PTSD is often viewed as a cop-out, simply a cash-grab for individuals looking to collect medical benefits. RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson expressed this sentiment in almost comic fashion in 2013 when he exclaimed:
"I want people to hear it from me that if you get hurt on the job, and that includes (Paulson whistles and twirls his finger by the side of his head) we’re going to look after you. But there’s an onus on you, though, to come back to work because that’s the objective. The objective is not get a regimental number and then cha-ching, cha-ching, we’re looking after you for the rest of your life into your grave. No, no."
The individual's fear of being labelled by coworkers, compounded with the organizations lack of a coherent strategy, leaves the sufferer in a poor position in terms of recovery.
- Difficult to talk about it and seek help
- Much of this stems from a lack of understanding, misreading the signs of post-traumatic stress
- Lack of coherent strategy/system leaves the sufferer in a poor position with regards to their recovery
- Their quality of life is significantly decreased
How the employer/organization is affected:
- Time off for employees + medical coverage for the coverage
- Morale suffers, work efficiency adversely affected
- Bad PR (Ron Francis, Ken Barker, etc.)
- RCMP group issues PTSD 'call to action' after Ron Francis's suicide - New Brunswick - CBC News
Conclusion:
- How the community at large is affected...
- PTSD does not just affect the individual, it strains their relationships as well
- It can have a negative impact on a marriage, a family unit, etc. and this negative influence can bleed out into the community as a whole
- Ensure that the RCMP has a streamlined process in place that would help the officer in question get the help they need in as efficient a manner as possible. This would require a work environment that supports rather than stigmatizes the afflicted, a proactive approach to ... on the part of the senior leadership, a regular psychological screening for current officers, officers would need to be better educated on the matter so that they're able to detect early signs of the illness in their coworkers, etc.
- The RCMP would save a lot of money, the individual him/herself would benefit greatly, and the community as a whole would be better off because of it.
-------
Rising number of PTSD cases among RCMP officers costing taxpayers millions - National | Globalnews.ca
RCMP criticized for lack of post-traumatic stress support - Nova Scotia - CBC News
With the RCMP currently struggling to develop a new mental health strategy, it is crucial for the organization to recognize the rise of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among it's first-responders as an issue of prime importance. In doing so, the force will be better positioned to minimize the damage inflicted by the injury to both employee and employer. While some contend that the RCMP simply needs a tougher screening process to weed out the stress-prone from their pool of prospective officers, others call for a streamlined process that will enable the officers in question to get the assistance they need as promptly as possible. Presently, a systemic issue of stigmatization prevents many officers from reaching out for such support. They fear being characterized as frail and fragile, or being derided for "taking the easy road" and cashing in on disability benefits. Forced to deal with the injury on their own, their condition worsens. This toxic work environment has aggravated the issue within the force and is currently costing the RCMP millions in taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, public faith in the force has been significantly weakened after several highly publicized incidents involving officers afflicted with PTSD. As ruinous as this issue has proven to be - for both the individual and their respective organization - it is imperative that immediate action be taken to devise a strategy that will effectively curtail any further damage.
Disagreements have arisen regarding the mental health strategy's direction. Some have argued that the RCMP may need to revise their hiring and screening procedures, suggesting that people who are unable to handle stressful situations are unsuited for law enforcement. Critics of such measures have countered that first-responders are fully briefed on the duties they are expected to perform, and are already subjected to a thorough screening process that includes rigorous training and psychological testing before they are accepted into the ranks of the RCMP. Beyond that, one would also expect the employer to have a system in place for those members who do eventually develop an operational stress injury because it certainly is not uncommon, let alone something new. But as it stands, no safety net currently exists for first-responders. Instead, in it's place, is a culture of stigmatization that leaves those afflicted with PTSD alone in their struggle, ostracised from their peers. The fear of being labelled, of giving the impression that one is too weak or unfit for the job, deters many first-responders from discussing the issue with their co-workers or superiors. Those that do work up the courage to step forward risk being marked as someone trying to "game the system." For many within the force, PTSD is often viewed as a cop-out, simply a cash-grab for individuals looking to collect a disability pension. RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson expressed this sentiment in almost comic fashion in 2013 when he exclaimed:
"I want people to hear it from me that if you get hurt on the job, and that includes (Paulson whistles and twirls his finger by the side of his head) we’re going to look after you. But there’s an onus on you, though, to come back to work because that’s the objective. The objective is not get a regimental number and then cha-ching, cha-ching, we’re looking after you for the rest of your life into your grave. No, no."
Despite his clownish antics, the commissioner touched on a very real issue - the injury can be burdensome to not only the individual, but the organization as well. Morale suffers and work efficiency is adversely affected when an employee takes time off on account of the injury. In addition, the long-term financial costs can be enormous. The RCMP admits it pays roughly $70 million annually to officers unable to work due to physical or mental disabilities, but it refuses to disclose specifically how much of that is due to PTSD. More troubling than the financial cost is the public's loss of faith in the force. After the death of Ron Francis, the New Brunswick Mountie who made national headlines for smoking medical marijuana while in uniform, the RCMP has been heavily criticized for not doing enough to support it's members. Francis had been diagnosed with PTSD and was prescribed with cannabis to help treat the symptoms. However, in 2013 he was filmed smoking on the job and was subsequently reprimanded and stripped of his uniform. After a highly publicized battle with the RCMP over the issue, he was found dead in October, 2014 - the 32nd officer to have committed suicide since 2006. With more and more officers stepping forward to raise mental health awareness, there has been an increase in public pressure that has left the RCMP scrambling for damage control.
Considering it's heavy toll, one would imagine that PTSD would be given top priority on the list of concerns for the RCMP. The public should demand that greater importance be placed on the condition and care of our front-line, our first-responders. The injury cripples the individual officer and the organization equally, greatly reducing their ability to perform their primary objective - to serve the community in as efficient a manner as possible. Until PTSD is recognized by the RCMP for what it truly is - a wound, not a sign of weakness - the issue will continue to fester and confidence in the force will further decline.
In "The Importance of Group Rights," Paul Marshall defends the validity of group rights, disputing the claim that they are a threat to individual rights. It is generally believed that groups are merely collections of individuals, and as such, group rights break down into individual rights. The best way to preserve the culture of a collective - be they French Canadian, Native, or otherwise - is to protect the rights of the individuals that make up that collective. Marshal contends that this view is too idealistic and ignores the realities of the world. In his perspective, Canada cannot be seen simply as a collection of individuals, it is an amalgam of many group-oriented collectives including various cultural, religious, and political groups and organizations. He asserts that these associations need to be "recognized and accommodated in concrete political arrangements." Pressing further, he claims that although tensions may arise between the disparate groups, the mere possibility of conflict is not reason enough to eliminate group identities from politics altogether. Rather, the state ought to determine how to deal with these group identity issues in as effective and efficient a manner as possible.
Although these types of rights are often viewed with suspicion - sometimes even as a form of prejudice or budding fascism - Marshall reminds the reader that there are global examples of governments acknowledging group rights out of mutual respect and a desire for intercultural harmony. To illustrate his point, he refers to one such case in which the government of Finland, in an effort to preserve the distinct culture of the Aaland Islands, prevented non-islanders from buying property there. This effectively protected a minority from being overwhelmed and absorbed into the homogeneity of the majority. Canadian examples also abound, such as the Constitutional Act allowing governments to intervene and provide aid to disadvantaged groups, language rights being awarded to speakers of English and French, Aboriginal rights, etc. In essence, Marshall argues that group rights are prevalent in most societies all across the political spectrum - they are not, as some would believe, exclusive to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.
While some critics, Pierre Trudeau for example, acknowledge the importance of group rights and the need to protect them, they maintain that individual rights must always be given precedence lest the rights of the collective create oppressive conditions for the individual. Marshal acknowledges that there may be cases where individual rights do in fact outweigh group rights, just as there may be cases where the opposite holds true. Depending on the circumstances, he argues, the interests of the individual and those of the group must be weighed on balance with the importance of the particular rights in question. As such, Marshal concludes, the validity of group rights must not be derided or dismissed, rather it should be recognized on par with the legitimacy of individual rights.
Should individual rights take precedence over collective rights? Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau believes so. He maintains that if Canada were to provide group rights to collectives, this could potentially create oppressive conditions for individuals. For this reason, he argues that it is imperative that individual rights be given priority over group rights. On the other hand, political theorist Paul Marshal states that this fear does not justify the eradication of group identities and suggests that collectives should be recognized and respected in the world of politics, not repudiated. To bolster his argument, he points to various examples where groups rights have been utilized for the public benefit. More so than a debate over rights, it is a clash of ideologies.
In "Values in a Just Society," Pierre Elliott Trudeau argues that individual rights must be given priority over group rights, otherwise "we are faced with a dictatorship, which arranges citizens in a hierarchy according to their beliefs...." Using the Constitution Act of 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the bedrock of his argument, he states that these documents positioned the individual above the state and all it's institutions - effectively recognizing that "all sovereignty resides in the people." They unified the citizens of Canada around a set of common values - most importantly, the idea of equality for all. In addition, these documents guaranteed the individual certain rights that they could not be deprived of by any collective - governmental, ethnic, religious, or otherwise. It stands to reason, Trudeau argues, that only an individual may possess rights. A group may collectively exercise the rights of it's members on their behalf, but it's does so strictly as a representative body, not an entity with intrinsic rights of it's own.
Trudeau concludes that the Charter aims to protect the individual from the tyranny of both the state and the majority. It does this due to the fact that Canada is a pluralist society comprised of a wide array of minorities including ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups; the tensions between these disparate collectives have largely been the the most significant obstacles on Canada's march toward national unity. Trudeau contends that if group rights were to be awarded to these collectives - particularly to ones associated with specific regions, such as the French Canadians in Quebec - it would prove to be problematic for those individuals who live in close proximity to a given collective but do not share it's defining characteristics. Thus, instead of providing these collectives with groups rights, Trudeau sees fit to award rights to the individuals that comprise them.
In response, in his essay "The Importance of Group Rights," Paul Marshall defends the validity of group rights, disputing the claim that they are a threat to individual rights. Some insist that groups are ultimately collections of individuals; thus, the best way to preserve the culture of a collective - be they French Canadian, Native, or otherwise - is to protect the rights of the individuals that make up that collective. Marshal contends that this view is too idealistic and ignores the realities of the world. In his perspective, Canada cannot be seen simply as a collection of individuals; it is an amalgam of many group-oriented collectives including various cultural, religious, and political bodies. He asserts that these associations need to be "recognized and accommodated in concrete political arrangements." Pressing further, he claims that although tensions may arise between the disparate groups, the mere possibility of conflict is not reason enough to eliminate group identities from politics altogether. Rather, the state ought to determine how to deal with these group identity issues in as effective and efficient a manner as possible.
Although these types of rights are often met with cynicism - sometimes even described as a form of prejudice themselves - Marshall reminds the reader that there are global examples of governments acknowledging group rights out of commitment to intercultural harmony. To illustrate his point, he refers to one such case in which the government of Finland, in an effort to preserve the distinct culture of the Aaland Islands, prevented non-islanders from buying property there. This effectively protected a minority from being overwhelmed and absorbed into the homogeneity of the majority. Canadian examples also abound, such as the Constitutional Act allowing governments to intervene and provide aid to disadvantaged groups, language rights being awarded to speakers of English and French, Aboriginal rights, etc. In essence, Marshall argues that group rights are prevalent in most societies all across the political spectrum - they are not, as some would believe, exclusive to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.
While some critics, Pierre Trudeau for example, acknowledge the importance of group rights and the need to protect them, they maintain that individual rights must always be given precedence lest the rights of the collective create oppressive conditions for the individual. Marshal acknowledges that there may be cases where individual rights do in fact outweigh group rights, just as there may be cases where the opposite holds true. Depending on the circumstances, he argues, the interests of the individual and those of the group must be weighed on balance with the importance of the particular rights in question. As such, Marshal concludes, the validity of group rights must not be derided or dismissed, rather it should be recognized on par with the legitimacy of individual rights.
These two opposing viewpoints illustrate the potential influence one's ideology can have on their understanding of the socio-political climate, and thus the sort of solutions they seek when confronted with an issue. Trudeau's unwavering emphasis on the individual and his disdain for collectivist views are explained by his identification with liberalism. According to his beliefs, the interests of the individual should be weighed more heavily than those of the state or any other collective. In contrast, Marshall's willingness to entertain the collectivist approach when faced with political unrest reveals that the liberal notion of human nature is not universally held. In this case, it is in direct conflict with the understanding of human nature as conceptualized by Marshall's respective ideological preference. In short, this debate highlights the fundamental differences in the various political ideologies of our day and the effects they can have on the formation of the policies that govern our lives.
You've missed the point, son...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter
He's essentially saying that an air of defeatism has begun to pervade the community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiaiake Alfred
The awareness of the precarious position of their community in relation to the position of others in our society brings about a sense of alienation and subjugation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiaiake Alfred
Unable to channel these frustrations into an effective programmatic challenge to the state or status-quo, this discontent is then turned inwards and results in self-destructive tendencies within the Indigenous community. This is evidenced by the abnormally high rates of suicide, crime, and substance abuse within the Aboriginal population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiaiake Alfred
Taiaiake's pointing out that it's deeper than poverty, it's a cultural issue. Culture serves as the backbone of any community, it provides a system of operations (traditions, customs, social norms and expectations, etc.) and a sense of belonging and orientation. Without a stable and robust culture, the community's overall ability to deal with the hardships that it's faced with is significantly weakened. Without a consistent set of social practices, a community loses it's sense of cohesion. Without a firm sense of identity, individuals can't orient themselves within their community in a coherent manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiaiake Alfred
In essence, Taiaiake identifies the loss of culture to be central to the collapse of the Indigenous community. [conclude, tie it together]Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiaiake Alfred
-------
No, you jackass, re-read his post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter
Eschewing conventional strategies of contention - legalistic, economic, violent, or otherwise - on the grounds that both the means and the ends would run counter to the desired goals of the Indigenous liberation movement, he suggests an alternative - one more in line with Onkwehonwe values and philosophies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiaiake Alfred
For these reasons, Taiaiake promotes an approach to anti-colonial struggle that places emphasis on the cultural or "spiritual" aspects/elements of resistance.
[cultural ("spiritual") approach - Wasase]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiaiake Alfred
That's what Taiaiake's addressing when when he speaks of Wasase - he's challenging that defeatist mentality. He's trying to get his people to lose that mentality so that they're in a position to empower themselves and thus address these issues on their own, rather than having to rely on the government. He's advocating for self-sufficiency, instead of state-dependance. And the only way to do that, is to change (or rather, restore) the culture of the Indigenous community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiaiake Alfred
In "Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom" Taiaiake Alfred argues that post-colonial status for the Aboriginal community will not be achieved by legal battles or economic development; it can only be achieved, he asserts, by a commitment to the advancement of Indigenous culture. It is the suppression of this culture, he affirms, that has led to the devastation of the Aboriginal population and so, setting aside conventional strategies, he proposes that the liberation movement opt for a spiritual resurgence as a means of reviving it. He claims that materialist-oriented strategies amount to little more than participation in, and the reinforcement of, the current order set out by the colonial power structure - thus running counter to the larger goals of the movement: independence and self-governance. Alfred concludes that the effects of cultural genocide can only be undone through a cultural rebirth. While legal action, land claims, economic empowerment, etc. may be instrumental to improving the material conditions of the community, the cultivation of a genuinely post-colonial society will require a new ethos.
Alfred observes that an air of defeatism has begun to pervade the Indigenous community - the awareness of the precarious position of their community in relation to the position of others in our society brings about a sense of alienation and subjugation. Unable to channel these frustrations into an effective programmatic challenge to the state or status-quo, this discontent is then turned inwards and results in self-destructive tendencies within the Indigenous community. This is evidenced, he explains, by the abnormally high rates of suicide, crime, and substance abuse within the Aboriginal population. Alfred contends that these social ills are too deeply rooted to be explained away by poverty; he states that they are the result of a cultural quandary. A culture serves as the backbone of a community; it provides a system of operations (traditions, customs, social norms and expectations, etc.) and a sense of belonging and orientation. Without a stable and robust culture, a community's overall ability to deal with the hardships that it is faced with is significantly weakened. Without a consistent set of social practices, a community loses its sense of cohesion. And without a firm sense of identity, individuals cannot orient themselves within their community in a coherent manner. In essence, Alfred identifies the loss of culture to be central to the collapse of the Indigenous community.
It is for this reason that Alfred encourages an approach to anti-colonial struggle that places emphasis on the cultural or spiritual elements of resistance. Eschewing conventional strategies of contention - legalistic, economic, armed, or otherwise - on the grounds that both the means and the ends would run counter to the desired goals of the Indigenous liberation movement, he suggests an alternative - one more in line with Onkwehonwe values and philosophies. Reconceptualizing the movement as a spiritual struggle, Alfred connects it to the ceremonial war ritual of Wasáse and sets out a path for the modern Onkwehonwe warrior. He asserts that the process will require individuals to transform themselves, not just the institutions of the state. In addition, Alfred suggests that individuals will need to reconfigure their ethical and political views so that they align with the goals of the collective. If the relationship between the Indigenous community and the Settlers is to be substantially altered in any meaningful way, he argues, the movement must rethink it's methods. Alfred further states that for the liberation struggle to be truly successful, the tactics used by the movement must be reflective of it's overall goals. This means that if the community aims to assert a degree of independence from the state, resurgence efforts cannot be confined to the very power structure that contributed to colonization in the first place. Alfred contends that they need to go beyond the utterance of past injustices, negotiations with governments, land claims, court challenges, participation in the current economic order, etc., and focus intently on reorganizing the community itself in such a manner that it is then in a position to maximize the gains made by the movement on its various fronts. In other words, conventional strategies don't go far enough; they result in limited success because they treat the symptoms but fail to address the cause. Alfred concludes that Indigenous culture must be revitalized and bolstered so as to better equip the community to deal with the challenges of decolonization on its own terms, rather than continuing to rely on the "goodwill" of the state.
This essay is Alfred's contribution to the "consciousness raising" efforts of the Indigenous liberation movement which is, in essence, an anti-colonial struggle that aims to rectify the injustices that have been inflicted upon the Native community as a result of the colonization efforts of European settlers. The Indigenous community has been systematically dismantled and assimilated into the the society of the settlers through an assortment of methods that has ultimately culminated in cultural genocide. Typically, Aboriginal groups searching for the correct means of reviving their community arrive at one of two conclusions - with one camp advocating for an approach emphasizing legal action and economic improvement, and the other insisting on tactics pertaining to the advancement of Indigenous culture. Alfred in particular has declared his preference for the latter, maintaining that the methods of the former will not significantly alter the dynamic between the Onkwehonwe and the settlers and, as such, will fail to guide the movement in a direction that leads to a truly post-colonial status for the Indigenous community.
It is crucial to recognize that the liberal concept of freedom is not universally held, and in relation to Indigenous groups, it is in direct conflict with their understanding of liberty. While liberals may argue that freedom can best be achieved by promoting individual liberty and guaranteeing equality of status for all, Indigenous groups maintain that their freedom as individuals is bound to the freedom of their community as a distinct collective. Given the fact that the liberal emphasis on individualism has become a mainstay in our society, it is imperative that we refrain from concluding that all communities view the world in general, and the concept of freedom in particular, in such atomistic terms.
In "Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal," Terrence Ball, Richard Dagger, William Christian, and Colin Campbell note that an ideology's conception of freedom results from its understanding of human nature. With this in mind, liberals promote individual liberty primarily on the basis of the belief that most people, through their ability to reason, are capable of making rational decisions for themselves. Pressing further, Ball et al. state that liberals consider self-interest to be the chief impulse behind an individual's actions. And as such, liberals contend, in an effort to further one's own interests, one individual will consequently find themselves in competition with another. In the liberal view, not only is such competition inevitable, it is "healthy." It stands to reason, Ball et al. continue, that if competition is considered a natural inclination, and one so essential to human interaction, then the interests of the individual outweigh those of the collective. It is to be noted, Ball et al. state, that liberals are apt to identify the collective as a potential threat to the liberty of the individual. This is because the interests of the collective may not reflect, or even run counter to, the sentiments of individuals who constitute a minority of the population. In plain, liberals insist that as "rational, self-interested, and competitive individuals," people are qualified to live their lives free from undue restrictions (Ball et al. 2010, 37-38).
Toward this end, Ball et al. add, liberals aim to remove all barriers - social, legal, economic, or otherwise - that ultimately restrict individual liberty so that the individual may be "free to live as [they] see fit," pursuing whichever goals in life that they choose - provided, of course, that they do not interfere with the freedom of others. It stands to reason, Ball et al. observe, that in order to maximize the liberty of each individual, no one person's freedom should be valued more than another's. By guaranteeing equality of status among all individuals, liberals hope to secure an equal opportunity to succeed for all members of society. Thus, equality of status and opportunity are key components of the liberal conception of freedom (Ball et al. 2010, 38-39).
It was this set of beliefs that served as the foundation for the Trudeau government's 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy. As Melvin H. Smith notes in "Our Home or Native Land?," the policy "proposed the most significant change in government-native relations in a hundred years" and was intended to bring about the complete integration and participation of the Aboriginal community into mainstream society (Smith 1995, 1). Recognizing the plight of the Aboriginal peoples, the Trudeau government determined that it was time to bring about a fundamental change in the dynamic between the Indigenous groups and the government; this, they proposed, could only be done by doing away with the special status, treaties, reserve land, etc. that had separated Natives from the rest of Canadian society for far too long. It was, in the government's view, these distinct differences that maintained the staggering social and economic gap between these two segments of the Canadian public. "Such a proposal," Smith affirms, "was entirely in keeping with the liberal democratic principals of equality which Mr. Trudeau espoused" (Smith 1995, 4).
While liberals considered the White Paper to be a definitive step towards the better integration of, and greater freedom for, Aboriginal peoples, the Indigenous groups themselves viewed it in a much different light. It was, in their perspective, assimilative in nature and a reflection of the state's ongoing paternalistic attitudes towards their communities. As Jacques Dorin, Michèle Kaltemback, and Sheryl Rahal put it,"the White paper denied their claims for cultural specificity and ignored the notion of Aboriginal right that was consecrated in the treaties" (Dorin, Kaltemback, and Rahal 2007, 43). It was for these reasons that Indigenous groups, to the surprise of the Canadian populace and the dismay of the Canadian government, reacted in staunch opposition to the proposed policy. Before long, the Indian Association of Alberta published a manifesto entitled Citizen's Plus - commonly referred to as the "Red Paper" - in which they outright rejected the White Paper. This document was soon endorsed nationwide and represented the collective sentiments of the Aboriginal population: "There is nothing more important than our treaties, our lands and the well-being of our future generations" (Indian Association of Alberta 1970). Faced with mounting pressure, the government subsequently withdrew the White Paper.
With both sides striving for the same goal - greater freedom for Indigenous groups - why did this proposal cleave such a large division between the two? Ball et al. offer an explanation: liberal theorists thought their ideas were universal, when in fact they merely "reflected the particular values and prejudices" of the "English-speaking societies out of which liberalism arose" (Ball et al. 2010, 216). In other words, with regards to the White Paper, liberals mistakenly assumed that Indigenous groups conceptualized freedom in the same manner as they did. By viewing freedom as a triadic relation between an agent, an obstacle, and a goal, we can more easily discern the differences between the two camps. First, liberals failed to realize that appeals of individual liberty would not resonate with the Aboriginal community due to its collectivist orientation. Second, whereas the liberal conception of freedom is an outgrowth of their understanding of human nature, the Indigenous conception of freedom is instead based on the rejection of the colonial power structure. And third, while liberals seek to create conditions that will allow each individual to decide for themselves whichever goals to pursue in life, Indigenous groups pursue one singular goal - to equip their communities with the means to opt out of the cycle of abuse that the aforementioned power structure has restricted them to. When examined thusly, it is made clear that these are not merely divergent interpretations of freedom; rather, they are situated in direct opposition to one another.
Unlike liberals, whose conception of freedom revolves around the individual, Indigenous groups focus on the liberation of Aboriginal peoples as a distinct collective. Given the cultural differences and great distances that separate them, no concrete definition as to what exactly constitutes an Indigenous group exists. However, Ball et al. identify several characteristics that are commonly shared by such groups: they inhabit the very same territories that once sustained their ancestors, but were later seized by European settlers; as a result of colonization efforts, these Aboriginal communities were left ostracized and displaced, their way of life subverted in favor of European culture; and the systematic eradication of their communities, the theft of their land, and their socio-political domination ultimately resulted in a loss of identity (Ball et al. 2010, 220). Recognizing their shared plight, Indigenous groups have organized and coordinated their efforts into a larger movement aimed at overcoming the oppressive conditions that their communities are faced with and restoring their distinct cultures.
While the liberal notion of freedom is based on a specific interpretation of human nature, the Indigenous conception of freedom is instead based on the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the colonial power structure. (Ball et al. 2010, 223) As a result of the colonization efforts of foreign invaders, the Indigenous community has been systematically dismantled and assimilated into the society of the settlers through an assortment of methods - legal, economic, militaristic, or otherwise - that has ultimately culminated in cultural genocide. This toxic concoction of oppressive governmental policy and cultural devastation has allowed a myriad of social ills to germinate and fester within the Aboriginal community - including, but not limited to, abnormally high rates of suicide, crime, and substance abuse. In "Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom," Taiaiake Alfred explains that a sense of alienation and subjugation, in conjunction with an inability to channel these frustrations into an effective programmatic challenge to the state or status-quo, drives members of Indigenous groups to adopt such self-destructive tendencies, as this discontent is thus turned inwards (Alfred 2005). It is for these reasons that, as a corrective measure, the Indigenous liberation movement engages in a struggle against the colonial power structure in all it's manifestations - oppressive laws, prejudiced attitudes, and the social, political, and economic submission that Aboriginal peoples have been forced into.
The indigenous liberation movement is an anti-colonial struggle that aims to rectify the injustices that have been inflicted upon the Aboriginal peoples as a result of the colonization efforts of European settlers. Indigenous groups now seek to improve their social, political, and economic conditions and to remedy and redress historical wrongs by restoring their unique identities and securing distinct rights as collectives. (Ball et al. 2010, 221) Typically, Aboriginal groups searching for the correct means of reviving their communities arrive at one of two conclusions - with one camp insisting on tactics pertaining to the advancement of Indigenous culture, and the other advocating for an approach that places emphasis on improving material conditions through legal battles and economic development. (Alfred 2005)
Alfred, a proponent of the former strategy, argues that the issues confronting Indigenous groups are rooted primarily in cultural collapse. (Alfred 2005) The logic behind this view is as follows: without a stable and robust culture, a community's overall ability to deal with the hardships that it is faced with is significantly weakened; without a consistent set of social practices, a community loses its sense of cohesion; and without a firm sense of identity, individuals cannot orient themselves within their community in a coherent manner. Given this premise, it stands to reason that Aboriginal peoples must focus their efforts on restructuring their communities in such a way as to both offset the social harms of colonization, and also put the members of these communities in a more stable position from which they can then enter further contention with the state.
While others concede that cultural restoration is a vital aspect of the Indigenous liberation movement, they maintain that more tangible results can be achieved through other means. With regards to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada in particular, they have sought and obtained a special legal status along with distinct rights (fishing, hunting, etc.) that are unique to their communities and thus distinguish them from the non-Indigenous population. Liberals, Ball et al. note, have vehemently opposed such measures on the grounds that not only do they run counter to the concept of equality for all, but they also consequently award special group rights to Aboriginal peoples (Ball et al. 2010, 223). Liberals contend that, in a just society, each individual should be treated in the exact same manner as every other individual - regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic background. It is only logical, liberals continue, that to hold Aboriginal peoples in a different regard and offer them preferential treatment under the law, is to discriminate against the rest of the citizenry. With their penchant for individualism, liberals reject such special treatment for any particular group. As they see it, such special group rights limit the liberty of all individuals who are not members of that particular collective. It is for this reason, liberals remind, that rights should only be granted to individuals, not collectives. They argue that by giving Aboriginal peoples a special legal status, the rights of all other communities within Canada are repressed and they are relegated to a lower position in society. Despite being an attempt to correct a past injustice, the argument goes, this approach essentially fosters a new one. But indigenous groups contend that these special rights are not merely a means of making amends for past injustices; rather, they are utilized as a means of resolving modern-day issues within the Aboriginal population that have arisen as a direct result of colonization efforts.
In summation, liberalism offers a vision of freedom rooted in individualism and equality, and identifies any policy or condition that violates these principals as an obstacle that is to be overcome. However, as Indigenous groups have illustrated, humanity cannot be reduced simply to a collection of individuals - we arrange ourselves in, and identify with, particular groups in which we share common characteristics and interests. However noble their intent, liberals have also erred in their comprehension of equality. They have misinterpreted it to mean something along the lines of sameness. We are not the same, we should recognize our differences and conduct ourselves in accordance with them. Equality is not to be confused with assimilation and homogeneity; it calls for the appreciation of common characteristics which encourage intercultural harmony, and respect for those qualities which distinguish us and foster a necessary nuance amongst our diverse communities. It is that very nuance, and the occasional clash of ideas that it sparks, that stimulates the development of new theories of understanding - thus creating conditions that allow for true social progress to be made. This was dramatically demonstrated during the national debate over the White Paper, in which Indigenous groups forced Canadians to reorient their views on long uncontested beliefs - foremost among them, the meaning of freedom.
Sources:
*
Ball, Terence, Richard Dagger, William Christian, and Colin Campbell. 2010. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. 2nd Canadian ed. Toronto: Pearson Canada.
* Smith, Melvin H. 1995. Our Home or Native Land?: What Government's Aboriginal Policy is Doing to Canada.Victoria: Crown Western.
*
Dorin, Jacques, Michèle Kaltemback and Sheryl Rahal. 2007. Canadian Civilization. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
*
Indian Association of Alberta. 1970. Citizens Plus. ("The Red Paper.") Edmonton: Indian Association of Alberta.
* Alfred, Taiaiake. 2005. Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
It is crucial to recognize the impotence of a strictly electoral-based strategy for triggering significant change in a nation state, and thus it is imperative that we refrain from concluding that the passing of the torch from Stephen Harper to Justin Trudeau will, in and of itself, mark a new era in Canadian politics. While its supporters argue that the current party in power can be expected to set Canada on a bold new path, critics maintain that simply swapping out government officials is not sufficient for transforming a society - these politicians must not only be enticed into adopting progressive positions, but also pressured into enacting complimentary legislation in a timely manner. While the ideological rigidity of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party hampered the efforts of progressives under the last administration, the Liberal Party, due to its preference for brokerage politics, is more responsive to majority sentiments and thus more readily manoeuvred into giving up political concessions to detractors of the status quo should they levy a sufficient challenge to the legitimacy of the party. With this in mind, progressives are tasked with engaging in greater political agitation under the current administration than under the last.
Throughout the election period, the Liberal Party campaigned on the concept of "real change." Under the leadership of Justin Trudeau, it assured Canadians that it would lead the nation in a new direction, one which promised a respite from the politics of fear and division which characterized the Conservative Party with Stephen Harper at its helm. By positioning itself as a party for those committed to positive progressive politics, and rallying much of the citizenry around its charismatic leader and his "ambitious" platform, the Liberal Party managed to secure a majority win on election day. Progressives should be content, one would assume, by this turn of events, for this party stands for those issues, takes those positions, that were oft neglected by the last administration. It was, after all, the unwillingness, on the part of the Conservative government, to entertain proposals that did not fall in line with its neo-conservative values, that served as the primary source of discontent for those who grew increasingly critical of the status quo. In light of this, Liberal supporters view the direction the party has taken as an indication of its progressive, forward-thinking nature and maintain that the party should be given a chance to follow through with its agenda undeterred if Canada is to be radically transformed for the better.
which were so characteristic of Stephen Harper's Conservative government. and suggest that the party be given the chance to implement its agenda
But unlike those with more bourgeois sensibilities, many others have not been swept away in the so-called "Red Tide" and remain skeptical of the party’s ability to bring “real change” to Canada. Although there is a consensus that the Liberal party will be more representative of the public will than the last administration, it would be naive - politically naive - to confuse a simple shuffling of MP's with a new era in Canadian politics. Critics would counter that the Liberal Party's willingness to take the aforementioned positions can be better attributed to its preference for what is referred to as “brokerage politics,” rather than any inherent affinity with enlightened ideals. According to political scientist Rand Dyck, a broker party can best be described as one which attempts to capitalize on the numerous cleavages in a society and aims to "aggregate [these diverse] interests" into a single platform. Pressing further, he states that these parties aim to maximize their appeal among as many groups as possible, and view themselves as the chief mediators between the conflicting interests of these collectives. Proponents of broker politics claim that, not only is this strategy effective in terms of amassing power, it is also instrumental in keeping a nation together. In short, Dyck concludes that such parties strive to "reconcile as many divergent interests as possible" in an attempt to "act as agents of national integration." It is in his opinion that the Liberal Party of Canada is a prime example of a brokerage party. It is important to note, however, that despite the apparent practicality of this approach to politics, the broker party system is not without its flaws. This readiness to conciliate, for example, comes at the expense of ideological depth and a consistency in principles. Accordingly, Dyck regards such parties as "opportunistic," claiming that they are prone to resorting to short-term pragmatism when faced with political dilemmas rather than striving for “innovative policy approaches” which lead to “genuinely distinctive programs” or “alternative solutions to national problems.” (textbook, p. 212-213) In other words, these parties are keenly attuned to the opinions of the majority, and are capable of offering compromises to the minority, but are risk-averse and thus slow in breaking new ground in the field of politics. It is precisely because of these reasons, critics contend, that the Liberal Party cannot reasonably be expected to take serious progressive steps during its term unless it is either pressured to or sees a reward - in the form of electoral support - for doing so.
The fear of political backlash from reactionaries discourages many major political parties in general, and those guided by broker politics in particular, from taking unconventional positions on public matters. As a result, voters are presented with campaign platforms that are lacking in diversity and distinction - platforms that may be palatable to moderates, but which fail to account for and represent the sentiments of the more polarized citizens. If progressives are to counteract the stifling effects that this shared timidity, on the part of our political leaders, has on citizens who hold avant-garde positions, they must develop a means of overshadowing the degree of influence that reactionaries currently exert on our political system. I propose that with the unification of progressives into a distinct collective, one with the capacity to generate enough political agitation to capture the attention and support of larger segments of the population, it is possible to incentivise alternative or forward-thinking positions amongst the elected office holders - thereby increasing their likelihood of supporting avant-garde proposals. In short, it would be advantageous for progressives to mobilize in a fashion that pressures elected officials into incorporating more nuanced perspectives into their platforms; either by making it "politically profitable" for them to support progressive measures, or by making it too costly to resist them.
On the question of how this is to be done, a great deal of disagreement can be expected from opposing camps - we must not hesitate to consider each of the various perspectives on the matter, no matter how unconventional. Conventional wisdom would suggest traditional electoral practices, strikes, or mass demonstrations. But protests have become commonplace, their efficacy is questionable. [examples of Canadian protests] If they are to be effective, such tactics must be employed in the context of a broader strategy - an overarching plan of coordinated actions which aim to define the relationship and dominate the power-dynamic between the opposing parties. The need for a more strategic system of operations designed to connect and reinforce the efforts of disparate agitators, on the part of progressives in their pursuit of political interests, cannot be overlooked. In the realm of politics, power flows from organization. The degree to which a given collective is able to affect the actions of the state - or more generally, its ability to sway public opinion - is positively correlated with its ability to maximize the utility of its resources while minimizing the costs, be they material or otherwise. In the midst of political conflicts, the side that is better able to organize itself and coordinate its activities in a more sophisticated manner is able to mount a more concentrated offensive against its opponent. This is a key point that progressives must keep in mind if they are to develop a political instrument capable of punitive action in response to unwelcome legislation.
It stands to reason then, that the progressive bloc should prioritize the establishment of a set of practices that will enhance its organizational capacity - thereby providing the means of positioning political parties between the horns of a dilemma: either A) backing progressive proposals in the hopes of securing support from a sizeable demographic, or B) resisting progressive measures and facing backlash as a result, ultimately pressuring them into making political concessions out of necessity. Marxist-Leninists may suggest that one potential catalyst for triggering rapid advancements on this front could be the emergence of a cadre of agitators devoted to this very task. They would contend that this course of action is supported by the theory put forth by Vladimir Lenin in his essay "Where to Begin?”, in which he recognizes the utmost importance of organization in political struggle, and thus urges dissidents to seize the initiative and organize themselves into an elite force that is able intensify the progressive struggle against the old order. Upon further examination of this work, we find that Lenin claims that the building of "an organisation of struggle and of political agitation among the masses" is vital during times of peace, for it would be too late to form such an organization during a time of political upheaval (citation). In other words, in Lenin’s view, it is absolutely necessary that an organization that is well-versed in the methods of political agitation be ready to engage in such activities at the most opportune of times - in anticipation for the next mass action. Continuing, Lenin adds that " the immediate task of our Party is… to call for the formation of a revolutionary organisation capable of uniting all forces and guiding the movement in actual practice and not in name alone, that is, an organisation ready at any time to support every protest and every outbreak and use it to build up and consolidate the fighting forces suitable for the decisive struggle.” In concluding his essay, Lenin seeks to avoid misinterpretation by clarifying that his emphasis on the importance of organization should not be misconstrued as a rejection of the plausibility of spontaneous uprisings. On the contrary, he reminds, the historical record would indicate that autocratic regimes are liable to fall under the weight of such unforeseen upheavals. But, Lenin argues, it would be unwise for a "political party" to coordinate its "activities on the anticipation of such outbursts and complications."
Proponents of this model argue that… - Taking note of recent appeals to the use of terror as a means of political agitation, without entirely ruling it out as a means of struggle, Lenin concludes that it would be unsustainable and thus an inappropriate tactic given the fragmented nature of disparate local revolutionary groups. As such, Lenin declares, such a method of protest distracts revolutionaries from the real task of the movement. Ultimately, it destablizes the movement more so than the power-structure. Referring to recent events, Lenin points out how the masses "pressed forward in struggle, while the revolutionaries lacked a staff of leaders and organizers." If this continues, he contends, the capacity of the masses to engage in meaningful agitation will be proportionally weakened as more revolutionaries disconnect from the mass struggle and go the way of terror instead- a path that will ultimately lead to further isolation from the whole of the movement. - Lenin contends that the most important step that can be taken in the formulative stages of the "desired organization" is the "founding of an All-Russian political newspaper." The publication would "develop, deepen, and extend that organization" by serving as a tool for disseminating the key ideas which will coordinate the propaganda and agitation of the movement at this key juncture when "interest in politics and socialism has been aroused among the broadest strata of the population." Lenin argues that it if the movement is unable to do even this, it would be naive to think that it can employ more "complex" means for "exerting influence." Given that the majority of Social-Democrats are primarily occupied with local work, their capacity to theorize solutions/aid in the organization of the larger movement is reduced, and the movements suffers from ideological and organization stagnation as a result. It is this complication that Lenin hopes to resolve by founding an All-Russian newspaper - an instrument for unifying otherwise disjointed local organizations in both theory and practice.
It was these same sentiments that Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale later echoed when they formed the Black Panther Party, an organization whose activities serve as evidence of the efficacy of such an approach. Despite its inception as a small local community group devised as a means of combating the malpractice and malfeasance of the corrupt local authorities, the ingenuity behind this organization captured the attention and pricked the imagination of the larger society - inspiring many Black dissidents to mirror these tactics and open various chapters throughout the nation. In spite of its relatively small size, its organization capacity enabled it to sustain a prolonged campaign against the practices of the state. [elaborate on impact, authors' conclusion that no "revolutionary" organization has managed to do what the BPP managed to do since]
[How easily the C-51 protests were overlooked and dismissed]Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie
eg. brief summary of news article about protests, quote from book pointing out how the bill was still passed
[Optional: These kinds of protests could just as easily have been ignored if even they had received larger support (eg. Occupy).]
[A leading organization could provide the structure that is needed to sustain a prolonged action/mobilization/campaign/protest.]Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie
test
Essay question: How would you define “privilege” as it relates to today’s struggle with the status quo?
In order to better understand the relationship between dominant and subordinate groups, it is necessary to “examine a key aspect of that relationship for the dominant group: privilege.”
In Chapter Five of “Is Everyone Really Equal,” social scientists Robin DiAngelo and Özlem Şensoy explain how members of a dominant group within society find themselves privy to certain entitlements, opportunities, advantages, and liberties - in short, privileges - not available to members of subordinate groups. They define privilege as “systematically conferred dominance and the institutional process by which the beliefs and values of the dominant group are [normalized] and [made] universal.” They explain that the privileged group is elevated to its dominant position not necessarily by virtue of a “numerical majority,” but through the accumulation and inheritance of “social and institutional power.”
DiAngelo and Şensoy begin their analysis by first distinguishing between the scientific use of the term and its common usage.Quote:
“However, when academics use the term in describing how society works, they refer to the rights, advantages, and protections enjoyed by some at the expense of and beyond the rights, advantages, and protections available to others. In this context, privilege is not the product of fortune, luck, or happenstance, but the product of structural advantages.”
“[W]hile the lay usage may be loosely related to the [scientific] usage, the [scientific] usage has much greater specificity.”
Quote:
"One automatically receives privilege by being a member of a dominant group. Because dominant groups occupy the positions of power, their members receive social and institutional advantages.”
Quote:
“If the water is moving against you rather than with you, the amount of effort it takes to move forward is enormous. Yet this effort results in only the smallest increments of advancements. On the other hand, if the current is with you, swimming is almost effortless. With minimal effort, you can quickly travel a great distance and are seldom aware of the current at all (we are much more likely to be aware of the current when we have to swim against it). Privilege is like having this powerful current propelling you forward throughout your life.”
Quote:
“Privilege is socially constructed to benefit members of the dominant group. Further, structures of privilege are not just artifacts of a racist, sexist, or classist past; privilege is an ongoing dynamic that is continually reproduced, negotiated, and enacted.”
Quote:
“In this chapter we want to unravel two interrelated dynamics that are central to understanding social and institutional privilege: the external and structural dimensions and the internal and attitudinal dimensions.”
Quote:
Privilege has the following external and structural dimensions:
•A) the integration of the dominant group’s norms into the structures of society
◦In “Is Everyone Really Equal,” social scientists Robin DiAngelo and Özlem Şensoy contend that oppression is not simply an act of suppression, as it is commonly understood by the layman, but rather it is a system unto itself that can be found “deeply embedded” in and “operat[ing] on multiple levels” of society in perpetuum. “oppression is a deeply embedded system that operates on multiple levels at all times.” The result of this system is consistent unearned privileges and advantages for the dominant group, regardless of any one individual member’s intentions.” Eg. Even if a male disagrees with denying women the right to vote, and even if he works for women’s equality, he still lives in a society that automatically grants him privileges that are denied to women. Ie. by virtue of living in, and thereby participating in, an “unequally gendered” society, the male is privy to certain advantages that are conferred to him simply by virtue of his membership in the dominant group - not by merit, but by default.
•B) the constructions of what’s normal and not-normal as defined by the dominant group
◦“Normal” socially constructed. “Normal” is the line drawn around an arbitrary set of ideas that a group determines as acceptable in a given place and time. For example, in the early part of the 20th century in many parts of the United States and canada, some people were categorized as “feeble-minded.” This was a broad category that included many people considered “Other” including women who had children out of wedlock, vagrants, and immigrants. Those with this classification were in some cases forcibly (and in many cases without their knowledge or consent) sterilized to prevent them from passing on feeble-mindedness. Today, a range of learning disabilities that are seen as normal (eg. dyslexia) would have been included in the early 20th century classification of abnormal (feeble-minded). Based on the socially constructed idea of normal, people’s lived experiences become profoundly different.
◦These constructions are significant, because depending on whether we fall into the normal or abnormal social category, very real privileges are either granted or denied. These privileges are embedded in definitions (at what point does a characteristic move from normal to abnormal?) language (classicications such as feeble-minded versus dyslexic), structures (the way cities and buildings are built), and systems of society (legal policies such as forced sterilization or education segregation).
•C) the invisibility of privilege for the dominant group
◦Because those in dominant groups are not disadvantaged by the oppression but in fact benefit from it, they find it fairly easy to dismiss the experiences of members of minoritized groups. Living lives that are segregated (in schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, and social circles), it’s easy to avoid seeing what minoritized group members experience. We are not taught in schools and mainstream culture about the experiences of minoritized groups. This makes it difficult for dominant groups to see oppression. In addition to structural barriers, there are psychological and social investments in not seeing oppression. To see and validate oppression requires questioning a system that benefits us where we are in dominant groups. Those investments cause us to resist pressure to acknowledge oppression; where we are dominant, we generally don’t like to have our privilege pointed out. Thus raising the issue of privilege typically causes defensiveness and avoidance. This, of course, is another way that oppression stays in place: dominant group resistance to acknowledging it, and the social penalties meted to those who try to bring it up.
◦Members of the dominant group will likely not recognize advantages as privileges at all but as simply normal aspects of life. They have been socialized into their position of dominance since birth and have internalized this position as “natural.” Now let’s consider how the external and structural dimension of privilege interact with internal attitudinal elements.
Quote:
Privilege has the following internal and attitudinal effects:
•A) The belief that your group has the right to its position
◦Ideology is a powerful way to support the dominant group’s position. There are several key interrelated ideologies that rationalize the concentration of dominant group members at the top of society and their right to rule.
◦One is the myth of meritocracy. Meritocracy is a system in which people’s achievements are attributed solely to their own efforts, abilities, or merits. It posits that starting points don’t matter - as long as an individual works hard, they can climb up the ladder of social mobility (the son of a day laborer has as much of a chance of “making it” as the son of Bill Gates). Canada and the US are presented in dominant culture as meritocratic systems. From this perspective, those who do not succeed are simply not as capable or don’t try as hard as those who do.
◦A second related ideology is that of equal opportunity. This is the idea that in today’s world, people are no longer prejudiced, social injustice is a thing of the past, and everyone has the same opportunity (further, many dominant group members believe that society has moved in the opposite direction and unfairly privileges minoritized groups through “special” rights and programs).
◦A third related ideology supporting the dominant group's right to it's position is individualism - the belief that we are each unique and outside the forces of socialization. The ideology of individualism explains the measurable gaps between dominant and minoritized groups (such as in education, health, income, and net worth) as the result of individual strength or weakness. Therefore, those at the top are there because they are the best, brightest, and hardest working.
◦A fourth related ideology is the ideology of human nature. This ideology rationalizes privilege as natural - "it's just human nature, someone has to be on top..." - and underpins ideas about civilized versus uncivilized societies. Ideologies such as "Someone has to be on top" further support these hierarchies - consider who is more likely to believe that someone has to be on top: those on the bottom or those on the top? The question moves from "Is this true?" to "Whom does this belief serve?" With privilege rationalized through ideology, it follows that dominant groups are socialized to see their dominance as normal and/or earned.
•B) The internalization of messages of your group’s superiority
◦As members of the dominant group, seeing how our privileges manifest can be extremely challenging because everything in our environment is constructed to enable us to take our privileges for granted.
•C) The lack of humility that results from your limited knowledge of the minoritized group
◦The dominant group, while the least likely to understand oppression and the most likely to be invested in holding it in place, is the group in the position to write the rules. Thus the rules will continue to benefit them. One of the outcomes of unearned privilege - arrogance - causes the dominant group to feel capable of representing the interests of the minoritized group (if they consider them at all), regardless of whether they have consulted with them. In fact, the dominant group members may be seen as more legitimate to represent the minoritized group interests since they will see themselves as "objective" and not furthering a "special interest agenda." The concept of "code switching" explains how our relationships to others are so deeply internalized that we shift effortlessly back and forth between them, Adding the dimension of social power, we can think about internalized dominance as the default mode for engaging with the minoritized group. Because we have internalized our position in relation to theirs, we automatically interact with them from a position of unconscious superiority. We are seldom aware of this, because the messages have planted and reinforced since birth. Further, because we have been taught that it is wrong to treat others differently, we would likely deny our sense of superiority. Yet research shows that dominant-group interactions with minoritized groups are based in a sense of internalized superiority and are different than interactions with other dominant group members. Again and again, studies have shown that actual behaviour toward minoritized groups does not line up with dominant group beliefs about these interactions. Our lack of awareness or denial of our behaviour does not lessen the reality of its impact. In fact, our unawareness and denial makes it more likely that we will continue.
•D) The invisibility of one’s privilege
◦While many of dynamics discussed above make privilege invisible to the dominant group as a whole, there is a phenomenon that scholars describe as "sanctioned not-knowing" or "willful ignorance." These terms attempt to describe dynamics that help dominant group members remain ignorant to the overwhelming evidence of injustice in society. Thus we use the phrase 'willful ignorance" because minoritized groups have always tried to get dominant groups to see and understand their experiences, but dominant group members often aggressively resist this information. (examples available if necessary)
◦Perhaps the most subtle yet powerful way we resist knowing is by simply being uninterested. Internalized superiority make us indifferent to learning about the minoritized group because we don't see them as valuable. If we did see as valuable, we would seek them out - very similarly to how we seek out information regarding the rich and famous.
Conclusion: Offer a solution as a means of clearing up the misunderstandingQuote:
Common Dominant Group Misconceptions about Privilege
•"If we haven't personally discriminated, we are not benefitting."
◦The concept of privilege challenges this perceived neutral reference point by revealing that the dominant group is actually elevated by virtue of the oppression of the minoritized group. Language helps illustrate this point: While we refer to the minoritized group as underprivileged or disadvantaged, we rarely talk about the dominant group as overprivileged or overadvantaged.
•"If we can't feel our social or institutional power, we don't have it."
◦The key recognizing group level power is recognizing normalcy - what can be taken for granted. These men are indeed struggling against classism, but they are not struggling against racism. A man of color in the same job would be dealing with both classism and racism. Indeed, men of color (and women) have traditionally been kept out of these jobs. Thus, our own sense of power is not necessarily aligned with how others perceive or respond to us, nor our relationship to social and institutional networks.
•"If a minoritized person is in charge, there is no oppression."
◦Your dean may be woman, but she will have to enact male norms and values to keep her position and will still deal with unaware sexism from the men she supervises.
◦A Latino manager, while holding status over a White person he supervises, will still have to deal with the (often unaware) racism of his employees. Research shows that women and people of Color in positions of leadership are scrutinized more closely and judged more harshly than White men. People of Color, in particular are often assumed to be the recipients of special programs rather than to have earned their positions, and are often perceived as being biased, having special interests, and being "troublemakers." Conversely, one of the privileges of being in the dominant group is that you are perceived to be "just human" and thus neutral and unbiased in your viewpoint.
•"If we are oppressed in one social group membership, we can't be privileged in another."
◦Intersectionality is the term used to refer to the reality that we occupy multiple social groups. As we have discussed, some of these groups are dominant in society and some are not. For example, one may be oppressed as a female but elevated as White; oppressed as a person with a disability but elevated as male; and so on. Consider the oppression of sexism. While all women experience sexism, they experience it differently based on its interaction with their other social group identities.
◦Thus we can be oppressed in one axis of life and still experience privilege in another. Intersectional analysis requires that we consider how these various social group identities interact with one another.
◦Another aspect of intersectionality is how several forms of oppression can overlap and compound the experience of oppression for minoritized groups.
◦Dynamics of privilege are deeply embedded into our socialization and thus into our psyches. Ending a system of privilege is not as simple as identifying their external manifestations and "stopping them" or "giving them away." Many aspects of our privileges are intertwined into our very identities and personalities - how we see ourselves in relation to those around us and thus how we interact with them.
◦Deep level ideological, institutional, and behavioral shifts would need to occur in order to challenge privileges.
•Despite the overwhelming evidence validating the concept of privilege, many within the masses continue to deny it’s existence. Presumably, this resistance stems from a genuine misunderstanding of the concept, and if so, developing a more nuanced language for addressing the issue could aid in bridging this “knowledge gap” between the layman and the academic. Eg. refer to the the example of how the perception of transient individuals was change when we began to refer to them as “homeless” as opposed to “bums.”
•Of course, it can be argued that the meaning of certain terminology differs in the sciences than it does in the common tongue of the masses, but if the aim is to convey a message in such a way as to affect significant behavioural changes, social scientists and and activists alike will need to address the issue of miscommunication. In the same way that we managed to change the perception of homeless people by altering the language we use when referring to them, we can do the same to overcome resistance to notion of privilege.
•Some people reject the validity of the idea... Use examples from textbook explaining how certain terms mean different things in the sciences and in the common tongue of the layman.
•Language needs to adapt to the context if the message is to be correctly received and decoded
•Incorporate quote from the beginning of “Prelude to the Revolution”
•A more nuanced and neutral vocabulary/terminology devoid of value judgements would be a more effective approach in educating the masses.