skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Originally Written: 11 October 2008
As defined by Reference.com, “Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state’s political system) and commercial institutions” (“Civil society”). This definition of civil society indicates that American civil society is lacking, as the number of civic and social organizations dwindles towards oblivion. There are many areas that have been suggested as places to assign the blame, but there are a variety of factors that have combined to serve as catalysts and yield our present plight. I attribute the majority of the blame, however, to one of these factors: work. Although I blame work for our current American civil society status, humanism can be used to fix the problem and improve the quality of our lives as well as the health of our society.
A variety of factors have forced us into our contemporary predicament, but work is the major underlying cause. The fundamental issue that has allowed work to degrade civil society is our declining importance of family and friends and increasing emphasis on ‘things’. The only way to get ‘things’ is to work, to earn money, and to purchase. This overwhelming materialism has caused Americans to lose sight of the reasons for which the emphasis on work was so high in the first place. Immigrants came to this country in order not only to make a better life for themselves (yes, materially speaking) but also for their family. Many people do work to support their families and maintain the lifestyle to which each member has become accustomed, but the average American has lost sight of this fact – that they are working to support their family because they care about them and they mean a great deal within the worker’s life. I would not deny the fact that people realize they love their family, but I would argue the point that Americans’ obsession with providing for their families’ ‘needs’ has led to them spending less time with their families overall. When they get home from work they do not want to play games, or engage in anything constructive, they want to sit and vegetate in front of the television, sleep away their exhaustion, or drown it in alcohol. This may seem a bit dramatic to some, but I am willing to bet that many Americans do at least one of these things to cope with the overwhelming stress and anxiety caused by working so much. My question is this: ‘If we work so much, when will we have the time to enjoy the benefits of our work?’ These benefits would include things like spending time with family, friends, taking trips, or having the ability to relax (from the peace of mind that you get when you have enough money to rely on). Instead, Americans turn to their televisions and away from the social connections that were once given such high priority.
Several writers of the day have echoed and/or supported my sentiments regarding Americans’ inability to function socially. In Barbara Kingsolver’s Jabberwocky, she writes: “We seem to be living in the age of anesthesia, and it is no wonder. Confronted with knowledge of dozens of apparently random disasters each day, what can a human heart do but slam its doors?...It’s a practical strategy to some ends, but the loss of empathy is also the loss of humanity, and that’s no small tradeoff” (Kingsolver 208). While she is not saying that American civil society is languishing, she is pointing out that Americans have become ‘desensitized’, no longer feeling emotion for the awful things they see, as they have seen them so many times before. It is this disconnection from the world that has landed our civil society in its present state of affairs. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death proclaims that “America is engaged in the world’s most ambitious experiment to accommodate itself to the technological distractions made possible by the electric plug,” and claims that Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, saw that “people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think” (Postman 196). He eventually comes to the conclusion that this is one of the “ways by which the spirit of a culture may be shriveled” (Postman 200). This is exactly what has happened, Americans have lost sight of what is really important in their lives. Martin E. P. Seligman’s Work and Personal Satisfaction, summarizes all of these points in saying that “Money…is losing its power…more money adds little or nothing to subjective well-being” and although “real income in America has risen 16 percent in the last thirty years, the percentage of people who describe themselves as “very happy” has fallen from 36 to 29 percent”. It seems that the American drive for a comfortable life, as fueled by materialism and a subsequent need to work, has led to an unhappy existence, with fewer social connections which could in fact help to defray the effects of working so much. There are other writers who support my point of view, however.
Several other writers have written about the effects of materialism and the loss of social connections within society. Pope John Paul II wrote in his Centesimus Annus that “The economy in fact is only one aspect of and one dimension of the whole of human activity…if the production and consumption of goods become the centre of social life and society’s only value…the reason is to be found…[that] the economic system itself as in the fact that the entire socio-cultural system…has been weakened” (Pope John Paul II 157). He further emphasizes my point that Americans are forgetting the former value that they placed on their families in saying: “When man does not recognize in himself and in others the value and grandeur of the human person, he effectively deprives himself of the possibility of benefiting from his humanity…a society is alienated if its forms of social organization, production, and consumption make it more difficult to offer this gift of self and to establish this solidarity between people” (Pope John Paul II 159). One must not forget that it is the American materialistic drive to work that has enabled man’s ability to forget the value of his fellow human counterparts and has also led to the decline of American civil society. Lastly, I would like to mention Robert D. Putnam, who stated in his controversial book, Bowling Alone, that there has been an immense decline in the membership of many traditional organizations. The most memorable example is that of bowling leagues, in which membership has declined, but the number of people bowling has increased greatly (“Robert D. Putnam”). This can be explained by the disconnection that I previously mentioned. Americans have unplugged their social lives in favor of plugging in their television sets or whatever other distractions they can get their hands on, all in an effort to assuage the stress of the increasing amount of time they spend working. There is hope however, as solutions exist that could turn our society around.
Despite the common perception that ‘the world is going to hell in a hand-basket’, there is still hope for the future. If American society as a whole can come together and realize how many fundamental issues it has, and genuinely wants to fix the problem, we can restore our civil society to its former glory. ‘How?’, one might ask. My answer: humanism. Having been introduced to the idea by studying the Italian Renaissance in a European history class, I realized what an amazing society it must have been. What an outstanding philosophical stance humanism took: placing particular emphasis on the worth of the individual and the individual’s education. Humanistic education encompassed a wide variety of disciplines, oratory, ethics, history, rhetoric, and poetry to name a few – relying on ancient Greek and Roman texts for study. The part of humanism that interested me the most was its stress on citizenship and participation within the community. Humanists felt obligated to get involved in politics and they wanted to improve humanity and society by instilling a feeling of patriotism and public duty within the general population (“Renaissance”). This description of humanism is the answer to our present struggles.
My charge to the American public is to embrace the humanistic ideals, their educational and political philosophies particularly. If Americans would become less focused on themselves and put more emphasis on their community and American society as a whole, not only would they be happier, but American civil society would also improve and the overall quality of life would as well. By giving special significance to the community and civil society, Americans’ overwhelming need for inter-personal relationships and connections will once again be satisfied, and no longer neglected. They will work less, contribute to society more, and spend more time building the vital networks of ties that are so important to the maintenance of a positive communal atmosphere.
In conclusion, work is the major underlying factor, among the many others, as to why American civil society is declining, but there is hope for America to fix the situation if it realizes it has a problem. This is easier said than done however. Think about it, how would someone go about trying to get Americans to participate in everyday civic life if they are only focused on going home and forgetting about their day? My answer to our problem is humanism. America: it is time you realized that you have a problem, admitting it is the first step towards recovery.
Works Cited
“Civil society.” Reference.com. 2008. Dictionary.com, LLC. 11 October 2008.
Kingsolver, Barbara. “Jabberwocky.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 208.
Pope John Paul II. “Centesimus Annus.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 157,159.
Postman, Neil. “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 196, 200.
“Renaissance.” Msn.com. 2008. Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2008. 11 October 2008.
Renaissance.html#p26>
“Robert D. Putnam.” Reference.com. 2008. Dictionary.com, LLC. 11 October 2008.
Originally Written: 7 October 2008 Last night I attended the lecture by the former president of Columbia, Cesar Gaviria. I had been looking forward to hearing him speak, having heard that he was a Latin American champion of democracy who had done several things in Columbia, and Latin America as well, to improve their social, economic, and political standings.
He had several main points throughout his lecture. He talked about how many Latin American countries (possibly all) had seen the sort of economic crisis we are seeing right now, and how learning from their mistakes could have kept us from making the same one. He stressed that we, as North, Central, and South American countries need to work together – to trade with one another, build the economies of neighboring countries, and promote a higher standard of living. He went on to mention some of the deplorable conditions under which many Latin Americans are living, and placed a particular emphasis on the fact that it was completely unnecessary that these people live like this. It could be avoided, but the governments weren’t doing enough. He also placed particular importance on the fact that we as North, Central, and South American countries do not SAVE enough. He mentioned that many Asian countries save approximately 40% of their earnings, and attributed this fact to their economic well-being and lack of financial crises.
He also addressed the issue of drugs. He maintained that South American countries are doing the best they can to work with the American government, and their expectations of eradicating drug production and trafficking. However, despite the fact that they are meeting the USA’s expectations and doing everything that they are, Gaviria noted that our drug problem has not decreased in the US. If not from their countries, it will just come from elsewhere. He said that we needed to work with them on controlling paramilitaries, as he called them, which cultivate the drugs and transport and sell them. Without proper cooperation, the situation will remain the same, he warned.
What I found to be the most interesting was his, what I perceived to be, intense admiration for the United States, its free markets, and the general freedoms that it has; more often than not, our citizens take them for granted. I believe he appreciates what we have more than we do because he has lived under different circumstances. But I believe he likes our system, albeit imperfect, and recognizes that although certain changes need to be made, it’s much more preferable to many Latin American countries’ way of doing things. It was very refreshing to hear a foreigner speak so highly of America, especially a diplomat! What a rarity it was indeed.
I was also pleased that the audience members were given the opportunity to ask questions of the president, by submitting them on three by five cards. He was very polite, diplomatic, and well-spoken. I was particularly impressed by his answer about Hugo Chavez. Someone had questioned whether or not Chavez was a threat to democracy, particularly within South America. Gaviria responded by staying calm and mentioning that he disagrees with many of Chavez’s policies, but said that his country would learn from their mistakes, and would hopefully not make them again. He stated that Chavez had way too many powers for a president. Continuing that there were not enough checks and balances in place within their system of government to properly check his power and make sure it didn’t turn into an authoritarian government.
All in all, I was very pleased with the event and very happy that I attended, and took advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to hear such a powerful, influential man speak.
Originally Written: 18 September 2008 “You will either step forward into growth or you will step back into safety” (Napier). As suggested by Abraham Maslow, a PhD in psychology, you can either take a journey and try something new, or you can remain in your box, figuratively speaking. This is the issue that the residents in the movie, Pleasantville, are confronted with in the end. The filmmakers are perhaps suggesting that a lack of predictability is preferable to a lack of anticipation of what will come in the future. I would have to disagree, although many would say that life is boring without any variation to stir things up. However, I would argue that people would be better off and altogether more content, if the world were not such a volatile place. There is a reason that the common phrase, “ignorance is bliss”, exists. If people are ignorant to the fact that they are missing out on something, they won’t realize that they don’t have it, and thus there is no harm done. The residents of Pleasantville are delightfully unaware of the fact that their lives are so full of monotony. But isn’t this what makes Pleasantville so pleasant? People are so content with their lives due to the fact that they are unaware of all of the strife and variation in day-to-day activities that they could be ‘enjoying’, if one wishes to call it that. The main element to my argument is that we have grown up in a world where certainty is absent. We never know what may come at us the next day, or ten years from now. So the idea of “Pleasantville” seems strange, abstract, and boring to some. But the citizens of Pleasantville don’t think so! Imagine being born into that society, one would have no idea that life could be any different. Their life is the one to which they have become accustomed, and thus there is no harm, no foul done. One would be completely content within such a society, so full of stability. Is the lack of security really a risk worth taking, as the prompt asks? No! If you could be raised in a society full of certainty, you wouldn’t know the difference. In fact, would the concept of boredom even exist? Most likely not, because people are so used to doing the same thing, day after day, it becomes a routine. This is not to say that people couldn’t engage in different activities, but I am saying that people would be more satisfied with life in general, because of the stability and predictability within that kind of society. The devil is in the details! One must realize that we can’t judge other societies or their inhabitants based on our own ideals or present state. Other societies’ citizens think differently, behave differently, and are assimilated differently. If security is the price of growth, I’ll keep my security, and forego the growth that most certainly keeps people from leading what the blissfully ignorant see as fulfilling lives. The cost of this approach is ignorance, albeit unrecognized, and the chance to experience variability and variety. But as I’ve already argued, what people don’t know can’t hurt them.
Works Cited
Napier, Eric. 2008. Quotes about Security. Quotation Collection. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.quotationcollection.com/tag/security/quotes
Originally Written: 15 September 2008 “The world is in need of annoying, troublesome, Socratic-like thinkers who will keep us from intellectual and spiritual slumbers brought on by lethargy, hyperstimulation, self-satisfaction, or simple discouragement over the magnitude and complexity of the challenges that have been set before us” (Morowitz 7). This quote, from a paper by Professor Harold J. Morowitz of George Mason University, serves to summarize the reasons why the University of the Pacific believes that critical thinking is the most important purpose of undergraduate education. UOP wants to send its students out into the world not only prepared with the skills necessary for their vocation, but also with a set of skills needed in order to be productive, acutely aware members of society, not just passive global citizens. UOP hopes that its students will challenge ideas in an intellectual way, not just accepting any one thing for truth, but also proving to one's self why it is the truth. As shown through several pieces of writing throughout Chapter One of the Pacific Seminar One What is a Good Society? text, and the articles Purposes and Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion by Derek Bok and John Stuart Mill in particular, UOP values critical thinking above all else in regard to undergraduate education.
Derek Bok stresses eight principle purposes of undergraduate education in his writing, including critical thinking skills. In his work, Purposes, Bok, a former President of Harvard University, states that “a student should always be free to question principles of behavior both in and out of class, no matter how correct they may seem” (Bok 12). In other words, a university should seek to cajole its students, through argument and intellectual demonstrations, as to why policies or widely held beliefs are right. Students should not simply accept them because they’re rules, but understand why, and agree or disagree with them. They should challenge whatever it is that is being presented, and prove to themselves what is right, and what is wrong (Bok 13). If the University of the Pacific didn’t believe this, why would its faculty select a reading such as this for its students to read? It begs students to question, and incites an individual to inquire. “An ability to recognize and define problems clearly”, to identify biases and relevant information pertaining to all sides, to “perceive as many plausible solutions as possible, and to exercise good judgment in choosing the best of these alternatives after considering the evidence” is vital in Bok’s opinion, as well as in the opinion of UOP (Bok 15). Furthermore, Bok continues by saying that students should also have a basic knowledge of statistics, probability, and math, as well as an idea of their common applications, to aid them in sifting through problems and situations that require these abilities (Bok 15). It should also be mentioned, however, that the ability to think critically also aids in the realization of the other purposes of higher education as identified by Bok, namely Moral Reasoning, Preparing Citizens, Living in A More Global Society, and Preparing for Work. Bok himself even states that “these aims…interact and overlap in many important ways” (Bok 22). Perhaps this is why the University of the Pacific holds the ability to think critically in such high esteem when it comes to the students who pass through its institution. However, another writer also shares this emphasis on the ability to think critically.
In addition to Bok, John Stuart Mill also makes an effective argument for the importance of critical thinking. In Mill’s Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, he argues that “Judgment is given to men that they may use it” (Mill 27). He says that no opinion should be silenced. Instead, everyone should share their opinions so that the rest of society can benefit from them, or at least the conversation that leads to their dismissal. He conveys the fact that when people are silenced into not sharing their opinion, society is “deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Mill 26). This more clearly defined realization of the truth comes about when members of society think critically in order to arrive at a logical answer or stance. This is why it is imperative that universities make their students’ ability to think critically one of their top priorities, and is perhaps the reason that UOP has done so. In addition, Mill plainly asserts that constantly adjusting your own opinions and points of view by comparing them to those of others is a good habit to get into. Not only does it reevaluate and possibly reassert your own beliefs, it challenges others and forces both parties to think critically, looking for gaps in logic.
In conclusion, the ability to think critically is valued above all else when it comes to the undergraduate education provided by the University of the Pacific. UOP, among many other academic institutions, believes that this proficiency is absolutely essential in developing people who will become more than just the average, everyday resident. UOP wants to cultivate members of society who will be adept at making decisions and profoundly cognizant of what is going on in the world around them. These people will be more productive and will create a positive effect on society as a whole.
Works Cited
Becker, Jeffrey, ed. Pacific Seminar 1 What is a Good Society?. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2008.
Bok, Derek. “Purposes.” Becker 8-24.
Mill, John Stuart. “Of Thought and Discussion.” Becker 25-38.
Morowitz, Harold J. “Prison of Socrates.” Becker 5-7.
Originally Written: 4 September 2008
“Judgment is given to men that they may use it.” This brief sentence sums up the main idea of English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s work, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion. Mill was a well-educated man who wrote on many topics in order to convey his opinion. And ironically, that is exactly what his paper is about. Opinions – the necessity to look at both sides, Mill writes. He sifts through many examples throughout his examination of the topic, encompassing various themes.
Mill begins by mentioning government, and providing several examples having to do with this theme. He says that government should not limit free speech, even though it could if the people wanted the government to do so. He argues that by denying dissenters the opportunity to express their opinions, the “human race” and posterity lose out on the chance of “exchanging error for truth”, or appreciating the general consensus more if the dissenters are in fact wrong. Mill goes on to write that individuals and government have a responsibility to form their own opinions – but never force others into agreeing or going along with them. These opinions serve as a guide for our own conduct. He says that individuals should constantly compare, edit, and adjust their opinions by paying attention to the stances of others. However, he creates an exception, saying that as long as the public consents, government may enforce some laws simply to preserve individuals’ well-being (as long as it is necessary and vital). However, government is not the only theme for examples that Mill explores.
Religion also seems to be a common theme for arguments in Mill’s work. He condemns the Roman Catholic Church for its practices and it’s parishioners’ perception as the Church being the ‘be all and end all’ of reasoning. Furthermore, he questions as to why, if people believe so fervently in the fact that their viewpoint is truth, they don’t try and make their religion into laws? He even goes so far as to say that those who placed Jesus on the cross were justified in doing so. They did what they believed was right, he argues. However, it seems contrary to his point when he presents this example. By killing Jesus these men forced their opinion on others, Jesus especially, and thereby changed history, in arguably perpetual terms. In order to perhaps become more convincing, Mill also tries a more general approach, devoid of any one theme, except perhaps the theme of miscellaneous examples.
Mills also references several non-themed arguments in his work. He mentions Socrates, who was generally believed to be wrong in his time, but actually came up with many revolutionary ideas. He also appeals to the more scientific mind when he says that if someone is so confident in their opinions, why not let them be challenged? Just like a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be tested, so too should a truth, argues Mills. It must be testable in order to prove its worth as a fact. He points out that it’s as if people are threatened by having what they hold to be truths questioned, once again referencing the Roman Catholic Church. He states that if society as a whole wants to enrich the minds of it’s citizenry with knowledge and critical thinking skills, what better way than to debate over the validity of something which some people regard as a truth, or hold as an opinion? He goes on to say that until the irrefutable evidence is acquired to say that something is a fact, we don’t fully comprehend or appreciate the foundation of our opinions. Lastly, a vital point that Mill makes in his justification for his reasoning is that in order to have a true comprehension of “moral and human subjects”, individuals must look at all sides of an argument. If there isn’t more than one side, says Mill, it is hard to believe anything (because there is no opposing view to compare it to).
In summation, Mill explores several themes throughout his work, in order to convince his readers that everyone should use the analytical abilities given them to discover their own versions of the truth. He presents several arguments, many of which prove to be logical and unbiased. However, he does at times represent a slanted point of view – clearly expressing his distaste for the Roman Catholic Church several times. Yet, in the end, it is up to his readers to decide whether or not to take what he says as true. Because after all, how could he refute what he believes to be the fact that everyone should reach his or her own final analysis of an opinion or truth?
