More on voluntary association & politcal association.

A perfect example of how we show our associations everyday.

"One must not shut one's eyes to the fact that unlmited freedom of association for political ends is, of all forms of libery, the last that a nation can sustain.  While it may not actually lead it into anarchy, it does constantly bring it to the verge thereof.  But this form of freedom, howsoever dangerous, does provide guarantees in one direction; in countries where associations are free, secret societies are unknown.  There are factions in America, but no conspirators."  - Tocqueville, Democracy in America (page 193)

 I was a bit surprised by Tocqueville in this chapter.  It read less like a love letter to Democracy and more like a critical analysis of political associations of citizens in the United States and how that translated to the quality of elected officials.  On the this subject, Tocqueville stated, "When I arrived in the United States I discovered with astonishment that good qualities were common among the governed but rare among the rulers." (197).  He faulted the American people for this by stating  "They are bound always to make hasty judgments and to seize on the most prominent characteristics."
(Page 198).

I hope that I'm not taking things out of context, I'm just trying to understand how Tocqueville could make these statements and still admire American democracy.

Democracy in small-town america (or my weekend in Nebraska)

I spent the weekend on a retreat with a group of Unitarian Universalists.  Prior to this weekend, I've never spent time in Nebraska and I thought of Northfield as a small town.  Needless to say, I was wrong!

Fun fact, one of world's smallest towns is Monowi, Nebraska.  It's sole resident is Elsie Eiler who continued to reside there after her husband's death.  She runs a tavern and a library by herself (source here).  Talk about shocking!

Aside from lengthy discussions about religion and our ability to affect the world, we served a dinner to local volunteer first responders.  We set up shop in an old two room school house that had served as the local K-12 school up until a few years ago.  Nebraska's population is so rural, they rely on volunteer responders instead of traditional paid firefighters and paramedics.  I was absolutely amazed by the sense of community these people had.  Even though they didn't have much, their bonds with each other were so strong.  It was a stark contrast to the suburban area where I'm from, where people disappear into their houses after work and don't even try to get to know their neighbors. 

I went with Alex, and we talked a bit about how population affects the lifestyle of the inhabitants.  Because residents are so separated by physical distance, it's hard for school districts to be formed and for election districts to be set.  Nebraska is also unique because it is the only state with a unicameral legislature.  This has hampered Nebraska's progress both economically, and in issues of social justice. 

I know that Tocqueville has set his focus on New England townships and the east coast, but I wonder what he would think of rural Nebraska. 

An example of a small town in Nebraska.

Civil Society as a Democratic Pratice (and as a modern practice)

 "A century later, the global scale of economic organization has destroyed the equilibrium between business and corporations and civic associatons, and democracy may hang in the balance."  - Mary P. Ryan, Civil Society as a Democratic Practice: North American Cities during the Nineteenth Century (page 584)

Mary Ryan saw cities and close groups of voluntary association as the key to advancing democracy.  I was please to read the above quote and I immediately thought of an article I read called "It's the Inequality, Stupid."  While I can't personally vouch for the accuracy of the statistics, the graphs illustrate a fact that is ever present in American society, the gap between the rich and the poor, and what this means in terms of power and fair share of government.

I would like to know what my classmates think of this information in the context of our reading (not to underscore the relations to the revolutions in Egypt and North Africa of course). 

Here is the link to the full article:  http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

The Logistics of Government

"Administrative decentralization produces several diverse effects in America.  We have seen that the Americans have almost entirely isolated the administration from the government; in doing this they seem to have overstepped the limits of sane reason, for order, even in secondary matters, is still a national interest." - Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy In America (Page 90)

Here, Toqueville devotes his time to exploring local townships and then a broad overview of the union.  Specifically, he looks at New England townships as the ideal form.  Toqueville even goes as far to say that the execution of all townships in America is not equal.  He prides America for the "municipal spirit" that drives its citizens, but also states that it requires a certain amount of education, awareness, and participation on the part of citizens, lest they become mere serfs that our found in monarchies.  

Tocqueville finds a flaw in the U.S. government of a lack of centralization.  He laments that the U.S. is wasting its potential with its unclear hierarchy of government.  I think he worries that there are not enough practial resources for the government supervise democracy under the present system.  As an example he states that ""In America, the means available to the authorities for the discovery of crimes and arrest of criminals are few." (Page 96).

We've all waited in line at the DMV, and seen the bureaucracy of our government at work.  You have to find out who to talk to and then wait to be served, and then move up the chain of command until your problem has been solved.  

Logistics aside, Toqueville praises the United States, and while it is not perfect, it is still the example he is bringing to the people of France. 

"I America the force behind the state is much less well regulated, less enlightened, and less wise, but is a hundred times more powerful than in Europe.  Without a doubt there is no other country on earth where people make such great efforts to achieve social prosperity.  I know of no other people who have founded so many schools or such efficient ones, or churches more in touch with the religious needs of the inhabitants, or municipal roads so well maintained." (Page 92)

Tocqueville & The Idea of Democracy

"I appreciate that in a democracy so constituted a society would not be at all immobile; but the movements inside the body social cold be orderly and progressive; one might find less glory there than in an aristocrat, but there would be less wretchedness; pleasures would be less extreme, but well-being more general; the heights of knowledge might not be scaled, but ignorance would be less common; feelings would be less passionate, and manners gentler; there would be more vices and fewer crimes." 

- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Page 15)

Toqueville views the United States as an example of the experiment of Democracy.  He takes an interest in America for France's vested interest in the future of Democracy.  Toqueville is observing carefully to determine where American democracy succeeds, and where it fails.  Then, he plans to adopt the parts that work for France, and avoid the mistakes of the United States in his home country.  As he states, "So I did not study America just to satisfy curiosity, however legitimate; I sought there lessons from which we might profit." (18).

One of the things Tocqueville remarks about, is equality of opportunity in the United States.  Keeping Toqueville in historical context, it would seem in the newly established United States with seemingly endless land were endless opportunities.  Also, I believe that because America was so young at the time, the gap between the elites and "average" citizens had not widened an insurmountable amount. 


Tocqueville best phrases this idea in his observation of the education level of Americans.

"But it is not only fortunes that are equal in America; equality to some extent affects their mental endowments too.  I think that there is not other country in the world, where, proportionately to the population, there are so few ignorant and so few learned individuals in America."- (Page 55)

 With the supposed closeness of education levels within he American population, it is easy for Tocqueville to envision society coming together on a middle ground for an ideal and working democracy.  However, as we try to apply Tocqueville and the idea of upward mobility to modern times, we see that the chasm has widened and the middle ground is shrinking.  I'm interested to see what my classmates have to say on the subject. 

Democracy in 25 words or less.

Towards the end of class today, we were asked to define Democracy in 25 words or less.  I came up with the following.

 "Democracy is a system of people united in self-governance where the majority rule does not infringe on minority rights. "

It's easy to see democracy as merely a people united and the majority vote determines the decisions.  I think that it's important to remember that we keep human rights in perspective.  During the era of civil war, the majority of people agreed with slavery, even though many people thought it was wrong.  I think one of the most important characteristics of American Democracy is it's ability to change and ideally protect the rights of all people, even if they aren't the majority vote.

Prayer & The Second Great Awakening (revisited)

"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." -Rumi

 This morning, I braved the storm and walked with some friends to Carleton's Skinner Memorial Chapel for a Unitarian Universalist service.  Aside from being fed and gaining camaraderie with a few Carleton students, I learned a valuable lesson about the nature of prayer.

Because I was raised without the influence of any religion, the idea of prayer has always been strange to me. While "thank god" is a part of my regular vocabulary, I have never deliberatley said a prayer.  My understanding of prayer up until today has been asking God, or placing trust in your beliefs, to put the power of the universe in your favor.  Quite simply, I perceived that people merely prayed to God when they wanted something, and that request was what constituted a prayer.

When I learned that the focus of the service today was prayer, I felt uncomfortable because of my perception of prayer.  Then, I realized that my definition of prayer had been too narrow.  Prayer is merely a response to the human need of voicing our concerns, hopes, and joys aloud.  There is actually a portion of all Unitarian Universalist services where anyone from the group is invited to light a candle and share what is weighing on their heart (good and bad).  While I watched this, an image of the anxious bench came to mind, the idea of people coming forward in a church to share what was on their minds.  I know that this is a loose tie to American Conversations and the second Great Awakening, but the Unitarian Universalists of Northfield have been teaching me a lot and changing my mind on what spirituality means.  As a result, the perspective I bring to conversations about religion is changing.  I'll try not to blog too much about the UUs if I can help it!

What is the Dream of Upward Mobility?

 "And like other American Dreams, the power of this one lay in a sense of collective ownership: anyone can get ahead." - Cullen (60)

 In this chapter, Cullen primarily explored three political figures, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and their relationship to the the idea of upward mobility.  All three of these men did not inherit their privelege, rather they worked for it.  They exhibited "rags to riches" stories of how an everyman could be lifted up to seats of importance and political power.

While addressing these men, Cullen also explores the disparities that exist.  Even within the idea of upward mobility, an equal playing field did not exist for all.  Most notably, Cullen identifies the anguish that Abraham Lincoln (most notably) and others felt as they were living out the dream of upward mobility while realizing the great disparity for others.

"What concerned them most was the way the peculiar institution compromised their view of themselves and their country.  Such people felt the legitimacy of both depended upon not having too great and ideological hap between what actually was and what the Declaration of Independence said should be."   - Cullen (74)

I think that this idea continues on our country, and from my experience, this guilt is an obstacle in actually solving the problems.  I see freedom  and guilt as closely related concepts and, I expect this will always remain true (until the world becomes a utopia or perfect place). This idea of upward mobility and guilt also ties closely with McLoughlin's idea that the United States is a nation of pietists.  I definitely see how Cullen and McLoughlin are related now!  

*My sentence, "For much of American history, then, upward mobility was understood, even defined by a visible alternative of immobility."
-I think this sentence works because it talks about the self-made concept of the American Dream, while addressing the disparity between the idea and the reality.  (I do plan to talk more about this in class.  This simply serves as a note so I don't forget on Monday!)

"The people united will never be defeated."

As I'm sure most of you are aware, there are currently widespread protests in Wisconsin over Republican Governor Scott Walker's plan to cut pensions and raise health insurance rates.  Not only is this an example of democracy in action, I see it as a symptom of increasing public awareness. 

 We talked about a ripple-effect like this in my Media Studies class.  Professor Sonnega observed that the protests and success of the Egyptian people would inspire other people to do the same.  While the situation is Wisconsin is very different from Egypt, the united protesters echo the same ideas.  Because we live in a time where news and information move so fast, it is easy for feelings of unrest to be provoked upon seeing the success of united peoples for the sake of democracy.  From Egypt to Wisconsin, the people united are the essence of democracy. 

Pietism & American guilt

"We feel perpetually guilty because we do not live up to our own ideals and because our country does not live up to our own ideals... It is from this self-doubting and guilt-ridden middle class that the more radical pietists of the right and left draw their strength for national reformations."

 For all our faults, I believe that the American people really do care about living up to high standards of freedom and democracy.  McLoughlin illustrates this by briefly going through American history and the emergence of individualism as a driving force of social change.  After reading his article, I now perceive reformation movements as a pendulum, going back and forth between movements doing too much, and not enough.

I think that intelligent Americans can see both sides of the issue, but may not speak out.  Individualism requires a lot of effort and as a result, there is an incessant search for an easier way than exhaustive, engaged thought about an issue.  The only true way to live up to American freedom is for individualism, people acting on their beliefs after much thought, to shape our democracy.  Mcloughlin sums it up nicely as this,  "No man, no group and no idealogy has the blueprint for our society." 

As a bit of food for thought I would like to explore the question, "Which is worse? When well meaning people overstep, or general passivity and no movement towards needed social reform?".

Flaws in apocalypticism

"And when such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi.

To be blunt, I did not agree with what Amy Frykholm had to say about apocalypticism at all.  The driving force behind acopalypticism, the idea that a person can never be wrong because there is no way to prove it won't happen is madness.  If we were to apply the same logic to any other situation, it wouldn't be acceptable.  For example, if I claim to be holding a million dollars behind my back, someone would ask me to prove it, and I would have to produce the evidence of my claim, the one million dollars.  Now, stay with me.  Because I claim to have a million dollars, I bear the burden of proof.

Returning to apocalypticism, if I make a prediction about the end of the world I bear the burden of proof.  Since I am making such a huge claim, I should produce sufficient evidence if I expect people to believe me.  I cannot ask people to prove me wrong, to prove a negative because doing so would be a logical fallacy.  There is nothing wrong with not believing something if there is no evidence to support a claim. 

The persistent nature of acpocalypticism in our country is a frightening idea to me, especially the growing number of people who give up on the world and make no effort to better society.  As a secular individual, I do not believe that the answer is to work to better ourselves and our world for the coming of Christ.  Yet, I strive to do the right thing every single day.  I do this not because I believe that I'll be rewarded for it in the end, or I'll be punished if I don't.  I do so because I believe in the inherent worth of every human being, and that we have to make the best of this life we are so lucky to have.  

I would like to know if the second great awakening is going to be our primary focus, and if there were any secular movements happening during the time period.  I do know the Universalist movement began during this time period (a group that believed no one was damned and would be sent to hell) but I've only seen them mentioned in footnotes or named briefly so far.

Rapture Culture and Censorship

"We censored ourselves, hoping that our censorship might prevent conflict and promote connection."

I have had little to no experience with evangelism  or "rapture culture".  However, I do vividly remember looking at the Left Behind series at a school book fair and wondering why everyone was so connected over the idea of the apocalypse.   Instead of asking questions, I listened and pretended to have the same vested interest in the subject.

I now know that the Left Behind series is Christian literature, and why it made no sense to me.  Where I haven't experienced any growth is emerging beyond a listener in a conversation about religion.  While I have a basic knowledge of the Bible thanks to my first year religion class and certainly enough opinion on the subject, I never speak out, fearing that I'll offend. 

I would really like to hear more about this quote from Amy Frykholm tomorrow.  Is there a growing expectation of censorship for opinions that are opposite fundamentalist Christian views? 

Standing on the Side of Love

I had the great privilege of hearing reverend Delfin Bautista, a figurehead of the Unitarian Universalist movement Standing on the Side of Love, speak twice this weekend.  After a wonderful dinner at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Northfield, Delfin spoke of his  personcal struggles and of hate crimes and exclusion in the present.  From the recent deaths of LGBT teens across America, to anti-gay legislation in the works in Uganda.

Before I heard Delfin Bautista speak, I never felt close to issues of LGBT rights.  I've been distanced, and thought that my acceptance was enough and no further effort was required on my part.  I now realize that believing in love means actively doing ordinary things with an extraordinary amount of kindness.  There is a difference between tolerance and inclusion.  Every time I the word "gay" slips out of my mouth as a synonym for stupid, I am a hypocrite.  Avoiding people with different sexual preferences than me because I feel "uncomfortable" makes me a hypocrite.  I have a lot of growing to do.

I've come to the conclusion that if I truly believe in the dignity of every human being, I need stop being passive. 

Religion and Democracy

"The revivals encouraged women to play a more active part not only in narrowly spiritual matters but also in the larger arenas of social reform.  Often in the context of revival, women strove mightily against slavery, for better treatment of the mentally ill, and later in the temperance crusade and social work in the cities."

I've never perceived religion as a driving source for social change.  It was only after class on Friday that I was able to gain an understanding of why the Second Great Awakening was important to American history.  In keeping with Abraham Lincoln's definition of democracy, government "by the people for the people", because religion shapes the views of the people, it thus shapes the nation.  What makes the United States unique is that there is a seperation of church and state, that the government does not support or authorize religion and allows for a free market of religions all competing against one another.

When people like Charles Finney set up revivals in the woods, they were advocating political change as they knew how.  I'd like to continue to examine the contrast between social movements from the past and present.

Me on Democracy

I do not share Whitman's view of Democracy. Within what he describes, he promotes unity of the Nation above all else. He states that “the fear of conflicting and irreconcilable interiors, and the lack of a common skeleton knitting all close continually haunts me.” in reference to the divide over slavery that ignited a civil war. I think he would be surprised that the Confederate flag is still flown in parts of the south and that regionalism plays a role in the United States.

The deciding factor of our representative democracy is the majority vote. As a result, not everyone will always get what they want. I believe the most important thing is agreeing to disagree and not to allow the majority decision trample minority rights. More often than not, the flaws of Democracy are more readily apparent to me than its success. The workings of our Democracy are complex, and stray far from “pure” Democracy where every single citizen has equal input. As mentioned in our class discussion, the population of qualified voters has to be defined. Then, lines must be drawn and where will it end? Should only land owning white males allowed to vote?

Whitman alludes to Lincoln's definition of Democracy from the Gettysburg address “The government of the People, by the people, for the people.” and continues to assert his opinion “But the People are ungrammatical, untidy, and their sins gaunt and ill-bred”. This is where Whitman and I disagree. As a result of disparity in unequal distribution of wealth and resources, upper class citizens emerge as more “qualified” voters able to distinguish their opinion.

What I do agree with Whitman about is that the to obtain struggle of Democracy has not changed, merely the arguments. Today, clearly slavery is no longer an debated issue. Instead, we are faced with illegal immigration and whether or not people have human rights without documentation. Again, the issue of who is considered a citizen, and furthermore, qualified to vote.

The best aspect of Democracy is its evolving, malleable nature. While it is not perfect, it can change. The worst, is that it requires citizens to be engaged and many people would rather ignore politics, only becoming involved when things impact their lifestyle. Citizens have a choice, and if they choose to neglect politics, the system will erode.

As the other article points out, for Whitman's faults, he has merits and that is why we are studying his democratic vistas. In Whitman's time, he viewed democracy as in “embryo condition” and to this day, democracy has is growing to maturity.