Category Archives: Archive

Archive of all past posts not to be visible.

Plato vs. More

Posted on by

Lehrer: Good evening, gentlemen. Your first topic tonight is Democracy. Plato, you go first.

Plato: Thank you, Jim. I am not and have never been a supporter of Democracy. Democracy is the result of the poor overthrowing the rich and killing or driving them out. Afterwards positions will be handed out to everyone and their cousin with no thought as to whom is fit for which job. There is complete freedom for the people. This freedom to say and do as they please will result in the population being extremely diverse, with no one filling his or her role. Soon the people get a taste for freedom and start living a life of excess. Finally the people will want even more freedom and overthrow their democratic government. The leader of the coup will be made a tyrant.

More: Plato, where is your faith in humanity? Do you not trust the citizens to be able to run their own state?

Plato: The only people fit to rule must have been trained for years in order to handle such power.

Lehrer: More, what do you think?

More: Well, in Utopia the cities are run by rulers that are elected by a group of politicians who are chosen by the people. The leaders require no training because I trust them to act in the people’s best interest.

Plato: That is why your system will never work.

More: I do not require the rulers to be trained because then it becomes a small number of educated people holding control over many, which is an oligarchy. I seem to recall you saying in Republic that an Oligarchy is bad because it results in the poor staging a revolution and forming a democracy.

Plato: That is why you must keep firm control on them.

More: If you do not allow the people their freedom then they will rise against you just as surely as if you give them too much.

Plato: That is why you must have a Philosopher- King to keep them in hand. If the people are not ruled completely they will overthrow the government.

More: That is where you are wrong. The people are More capable than you give them credit for.

Plato: We shall see whose government is overthrown first.

More: Indeed.

On Capitalism: Smith vs. St.Simon

Posted on by

(St. Simon [St S] from 1817 time-travels back to 1776 and conveniently sits next to Adam Smith [AS]  in a bar)

AS: Hello good sir, I am Adam Smith from Scotland. From where do you hail?

St S: Good day to you, I am called Claude Henri de Rouvroy but most commonly Henri de Saint-Simon of France.

AS: It is nice to meet you. Say, what are your thoughts regarding this glorious rise of industry and capitalism in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom?

St S: Glorious? It is the foremost poison of our society that exists today. This shortsighted drive for progress and profit will lead to the destruction of the economy itself!

AS: I respectfully disagree. Capitalism will be catalyst to a new era of progress from industrialism! A revolution, if you will.

St S: This revolution of which you speak may seem appealing, but you must consider the long-term results of it.

AS: The long-term results? Of course there will be long-term results! The consequence of this progress is nation-wide wealth and success on a scale only imagined in dreams!

St S: I completely disagree. How do you define this success of nations? Keep in mind the personal consequences of industry in addition to the social consequences to not only the business owners, but of families and the unemployed.

AS:  Would you not concur that the success and reputation of a nation is derived from two things: its skill with regard to labour, and of the number of citizens thus employed? Moreover, are not the recent innovations towards the de-specialization of professions the source of great production and new opportunities to work, and consequently wealth for the nation?

St S: The wealth of a particular nation need not be based solely on its productions. This individual egotism, this laissez-faire, laissez-passer mentality in industry leaves out consideration for the workers and those who are run out of business because of competition. One can hardly consider a nation holistically wealthy when the select few benefit from the toils and despairs of many.

AS: I offer a counterpoint that these successful few spur production and opportunities for labour for the good of the nation. Through the division of labour, with one labourer being skilled in a single aspect of production, the production efficiency and quality of goods will increase exponentially. As a result, the quality of life of even the poorest of families will become incomparably better over the majority of families in savage nations that suffer from poverty.

St S: I would hardly consider the cycle of all available workers rushing into the each successive industry with the promise of success efficient. It is a waste of resources; this action leads to deficiencies in the other industries while leaving countless men who have lost their jobs to your so-called innovations in industry with only the promise of future success to satiate their hunger.

AS: Your views are troubling, and they are only detrimental to the marvelous industrial revolution on which we are on the precipice.

St S: It seems we are of opposite beliefs then, and it appears that we will not be able to come a mutual understanding. I bid you farewell, but with a few parting words: remember my words in 30 years, perhaps you will see the errors in your beliefs.

Dialogue on democracy between Plato and More on a friday night over a drink.

Posted on by

Robert Ekblom

Professor Qualls

Utopias/Dystopias Seminar

 

Dialogue on democracy between Plato and More on a friday night over a drink.

 

M(ore): What is your opinion on social freedom and individual role in society?

P(lato): I believe in three classes. There will be those who rule, the warriors, and the masses. The masses will work, and will not involve themselves with ruling or responsibilities of the society, and a select group will take on the responsibility of leading the society for the good of the whole.

M: I don’t agree with your position.

P: Please, elaborate.

M: Should the masses not have a voice? A chance to raise the issues they feel are important?

P: The rulers will address the important issues, for the good of the society, without the masses rising. If people have the power of voice, that is all they need to overthrow rulers.

M: Should an able leader not take into consideration what their subjects feel or think?

P: An able leader should not need to consolidate with their subjects. An able leader knows the needs of their subjects, and does not need them to repeat their concerns.

M: I disagree. No leader can know all the wishes or concerns of their subjects.

P: So what you suggest is that the people have the option of voicing their concerns and having a role in governing the society?

M: Precisely.

P: If they have this power, can they not attempt to overthrow those in power? Can they not decide they are never content with the decisions of the rulers? Does the power you suggest not permit uprising?

M: The rulers and those in power will make decisions for the good of everyone in the society. The difference between our proposed states is that the masses in mine are able to voice the concerns that the rulers might overlook.

P: I can understand your point of overlooking issues; however, I would be concerned giving the freedom and power nevertheless. It is the responsibility of the rulers to govern the state as they see fit. The decisions the rulers make should be the final verdict, for the good of the whole. Once you permit the masses to address their concerns, you permit the masses to govern. Hypothetically, an issue arises and the masses raise the issue to those with responsibility. Should the ruler not be able to rectify the issue, the masses would begin to question their leadership, and consequently, chaos will pursue.

M: Only prosperity would pursue by allowing the masses to speak. The masses would see no reason to rise against their leaders if they are part of constructing their society. With the people having the ability to work alongside their leaders, and help in building their ideal community, the people would not rise up, solely because they would themselves be to blame for any mistakes. However, clearly we do not, and will not, see eye to eye on this matter. We should agree to disagree.

P: Agreed. How’s the wife?

Dehumanization

Posted on by

Jeremy Pozner
First Year Seminar
Professor Qualls

Paper Prospectus

I intend to write about the use of propaganda to influence both the German citizens’ and the Nazi soldiers’ views of the Jews as Üntermenschen. The Nazis used propaganda campaigns in order to glorify the blue- eyed, blonde- haired Aryan and to dehumanize the Jews. These propaganda campaigns included movies, posters, and even comics for children that blamed the Jews for all of society’s ills. This propaganda influenced the Germans’ view of Jews as less than human and created a psychological gap between the two parties. When added to the propaganda that boosted the Aryan soldiers of the German army as Übermenschen, the effects were magnified. This effect, known as dehumanization, made it easier for the German soldiers to commit horrible atrocities against the Jews in concentration camps such as Auschwitz because they viewed the Jews as inferior life forms.

I am going to try to answer the question “How did the propaganda influence the thinking of Nazi soldiers and their ability to exterminate Jews?” as well as “How did the propaganda influence the German civilians and could it have helped them turn a blind eye to the suffering of the Jews?”

This topic has been covered quite a bit, however I am also going to try and cover the angle of the civilians as well as the soldiers.

Bibliography
-Zimbardo, Phillip. “The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo.” The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo. http://www.lucifereffect.com/dehumanization.htm (accessed October 1, 2012).
This page is based on the book The Lucifer Effect by Phillip Zimbardo. It talks about the Nazi propaganda that dehumanized the Jews and influenced the German citizenry to think of the Jews as bad.
-” Dehumanization of the Jews.” Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh. http://www.jfedpgh.org/page.aspx?id=148357 (accessed October 1, 2012).
This page talks about how the Germans used various forms of propaganda to portray the Jews as subhuman.

– Smith, David Livingstone. Less than human: why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2011.
This book talks about how dehumanization of a people is a crucial aspect that leads to genocide. It not only talks about dehumanization of the Jews by the Nazis but also about other instances in history such as the Rwandan genocide.

Gender and Sexuality under Differing Ideologies

Posted on by

Emily Smith

Revised Paper Proposal

 

In this paper, I want to examine the way that gender and sexuality are viewed under different forms of government. Gender and specifically women’s role in society has always been a controversial subject because different societies view women with varying degrees of equality. In the United States, women did not have full rights until the nineteenth amendment outlawed discrimination in suffrage based on gender. Yet women continue to have lower wages and have more difficulty obtaining jobs in certain fields than their male counterparts. When thinking about gender inequality and how women were only allowed full rights recently, a logical connection is the current debate on sexuality and how same sex couples continue to be discriminated against in much of the United States. The United States claims to be one of the most progressive societies in the world, and yet there are two major oppressed groups that are still working to gain equality in a country that claims to be the “land of the free”.

First I will examine one of the earliest works of literature to reference sexual relationships between two individuals of the same sex, Plato’s The Republic references the relationship between two males. I will examine Plato’s view on sexuality and gender, then the society which the philosopher lived in. How were the roles of women and sexuality viewed in classic Greek society? This question leads me to look to a government system essentially in opposition to the democratic republic of the United States, Soviet Socialist Russia. What are the similarities and differences in the ways gender and sexuality are treated in each society and form of government? How have these perspectives changed with time or have they changed at all? In my investigation I will attempt to expand upon these questions and why each society views gender and sexuality the way they do.

Originally my plan was to compare socialist and communist governments in general to the way democracy views gender and sexuality but when attempting to research I found that there was a lack of general information about each ideology and this made obtaining information much more difficult. In order to fix this problem I narrowed my research topic to three specific societies and ideologies. This has made research much easier and the information more related to the topic. I am in possession of Plato’s Republic, in which the philosopher strives to create an ideal state of justice and truth. In Bertel Ollman’s article, Social and Sexual Revolution, the NYU fellow discusses the changing views of sexuality in the social setting from the perspective of many different ideologies ranging from Marxist theories to radical liberalism. Another source which I will rely on is Disorders Of Desire Rev: Sexuality And Gender In Modern American Sexology, written by Janice Irvine, this work explores the evolution of sex in modern American culture. She investigates the psychological effects of these changes and the changing views of sex in the social setting. These resources and others such as: Socialism and Homosexuality, Gender and Society in Soviet Russia, and Greek Homosexuality will help me to investigate different perspectives on gender and sexuality during different time periods and under various government ideologies. There is enough information from these sources to support my investigation and comparison of these topics, with most of the sources available in full text online.

Works Cited

Ashwin, Sarah. “Gender and Society in Soviet Russia.” Well Placed Pottery. www.wellplacedpottery.org/alec/literature/russia.html (accessed September 30, 2012).

Harrison, Thomas. “Socialism and Homosexuality  | New Politics.” New Politics. http://newpol.org/node/79 (accessed October 1, 2012).

Irvine, Janice . Disorders Of Desire Rev: Sexuality And Gender In Modern American Sexology. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2005.

Irvine explores the convoluted psychology of sexuality and gender in modern American culture. She uses social movements, government policy, debates and research to create a summation of American sexology in the late twentieth century.

Katz, Marilyn. “Ideology and `The status of women’ in ancient Greece..” History & Theory 31, no. 4 (1992): 70.

Kon, Igor S.. “The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: Russia.” Der WWW2-Webserver — Website. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/russia.html (accessed September 30, 2012).

Loftus, Jeni. “America’s Liberalization in Attitudes Towards Homosexuality.” American Sociological Review 66, no. 5 (2001): 762-782.

Ollman, Bertel. “Social and Sexual Revolution.” The Writings of Bertel Ollman. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/ssr_ch06.php (accessed October 1, 2012).

A more general view of the changes in perspectives in sexuality, Ollman discusses sexuality from varying perspectives and ideals. He provides useful background in different idealogies and time periods and how each viewed sexuality in a social setting.

Plato. The republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. *Primary Source*

The philosopher explores his ideal fantasy of the “perfect” state, in which all individuals are working most efficiently towards a common goal. One of the first works to ever mention the most basic ideas of communism and socialism, Plato explores the topics of family, property, government, and what it means to be truly just and whether or not this creates happiness.

van Dolen, Hein . “Greek homosexuality.” Livius. Articles on Ancient History. http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html (accessed October 1, 2012).

 

The Effects of Collectivism, and a Lack of Individuality on the “Individual” In Anthem and We

Posted on by

The Effects of Collectivism, and a Lack of Individuality on the “Individual” In Anthem and We  By Katie Mooradian:

Proposal:

I plan to analyze individuality in both Ayn Rand’s Anthem, and Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We. I hope to find similarities between how their limited opportunities for individuality, take away their humanity. Both stories feature a removal of “human universals” such as choosing a mate, and child rearing by their natural parents, which compete against what we today would term as human nature. I am assuming that the protagonists of each story will share similar personality traits, and that I can analyze how their lack of individuality affects their overall psyche. I plan to analyze this information directly from the texts. I also wish to look at differences between societies, most specifically how each government keeps control over its citizens, and how they maintain a lack of individuality among them. We has technology, but the government highly oppresses their citizens with laws, and police who have nearly complete visibility of all citizens including their home lives because every one lives in glass houses. This creates very complacent citizens who fear disobeying any rules, as well as other individuals who ban together in an organized rebel group. In Anthem society has regressed, and is now less technologically advanced by state mandate. Citizens have very restricted freedom of choice in how they live their lives from childrearing, to career choice.  These topics may eventually lead into talking about revolutions by the protagonists against the rest of society, and what acted as their catalyst. Both stories include another female character who helps to assist the main character, but Anthem ends much more successfully with the creation of a new society, whereas any progress made in We was annihilated by the government.

There is much writing on the biblical references in both We and Anthem, which describe how both novella’s include two main characters, one male, and one female. They are both said to be expelled for “Eden” to create new societies, in the same way as Adam and Eve. Although there are some works done describing individuality in each book separately I have only been able to find one article by Peter Saint-Andre titled Zamyatin and Rand which tries to analyze the books together. Saint-Andre focuses on the similarities between both utopias, why they collapse or do not function properly, and similarities in structure. Since I have not read We I am unable to draw further conclusions just yet, but I hope to see connection to how a lack of individuality takes away what could be considered natural human behaviors, and how it spoils a potential utopia, transforming the societies into dystopias.

The primary sources that I will be using are of course both novels themselves, as well as a variety of criticisms of each novels, focusing on sections involving individualities, human nature, and reasons why each society is a dystopia. Literature such as Human Nature in Utopia: Zamyatin’s We, and Needs of the Psyche in Ayn Rand’s Early Ethical Thought will speculate on how collectivism effects the “individual’s” emotional wellbeing and shape their interactions with the world. Where-as Deception of Self in Zamyatin’s We focuses more exclusively on how the lack of individuality changes the lives of characters in We. Nearly all criticisms of Anthem discuss the lack of individuality because it is such an obvious part of the book since “I” and “Ego” are entirely removed from the book, and it is such a turning point when the main character discovers these words and their implications.

I own both of the primary sources for my topic which helps make this paper more practical, but I am struggling with secondary sources, especially for Rand. I am able to find informative pieces on all the subjects I am looking to cover in the databases, but Dickinson doesn’t own many of the books and journals I need for my paper so I will have to take out interlibrary loans for all the sources for Anthem, as well as the majority of sources for We. I am hoping that the library will be able to help me get access to them, otherwise my research topic will be somewhat impractical. Overall I have found more related information than I had originally expected to find, and the scope of my project has broadened. I plan to focus the majority of my attention on the affects of individuality, but since that is so interconnected with concepts such as human nature and the structure of government in We and Anthem both will inevitably be included, and articles on those topics are likely to also include information about individuality.

 

 

Works Cited

Primary Sources:

Rand, Ayn. Anthem. Champaign, Ill.: Project Gutenberg, 1938.

Anthem was written by Ayn Rand in an attempt to warn of the dangers of collectivism. The novella takes place in the future, but the date is not specified. Technology has been limited, and individuality has been entirely removed from their society to the point where “I” and “Ego” are no longer part of citizens vocabulary. As in We individuality is removed for the collective will of the people. The main character, Equality 7-2521 has lost much of his humanity due to the way citizens are raised, which includes being raised by someone other than biological parents, he may not choose his profession, and is not allowed to have friends. The names in Anthem are similar to We in that people are primarily identified by numbers.

Zamyatin, Evgeniĭ Ivanovich. We. New York: Viking Press, 1972.

We is a novel which is focused primarily on the idea of surveillance. The main character D-503 living in a house made of glass which removes all possibility of privacy for the citizens of One State, a futuristic nation. The way of life in D-503’s country also limits individualism. Characters are forced to march in formation, there are strict rules controlling relationships, and children are also raised by the state. Collectivism and government control has a very obvious effect on the personalities of the characters, most specifically D-503 who is wary of breaking the laws, when compared to the rebel I-330 who is in an organization, MEPHI which is revolting against the government and its restrictions.

Secondary Sources:

Berman, Michael. “Studies on Themes and Motifs in Literature.” In Disguise, Deception, Trompe-l’œil: Interdisciplinary Perspectives.. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. 133-148.

Brook, Yaron. “The Ayn Rand Institute: News and Highlights.” The Ayn Rand Institute: Center for the Advancement of Objectivism. http://aynrand.org (accessed September 20, 2012).

Cooke, Brett. Human Nature in Utopia: Zamyatin’s We. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 2002.

Doyle, Peter. “Zamyatin’s Philosophy, Humanism, and ‘We:’ A Critical Appraisal.” Renaissance & Modern Studies 28 (1984): 1-17.

Mayhew, Robert. Essays on Ayn Rand’s Anthem. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2005.

Saint-Andre, Peter. “Zamyatin and Rand.” Journal of Ayn Rand studies 4, no. 2 (2003): 285-304. http://stpeter.im/writings/rand/zamyatin-rand.html (accessed September 30, 2012).

Saint-Andre works to analyze both We and Anthem together. He looks at similarities in the structure of the writing, and of the utopias themselves. He points out many parallels experienced by both of the main characters including their way of life within each society. They experience the same types of upbringing, and neither was able to choose his own profession. This article has proven very helpful because it is very thorough and detailed.

Smith, Natalie . “Human Nature in Utopia: Zamyatin’s “We” .” Slavic and East European Journal 47, no. 2 (2003): 317-319.

Wegner, Philip. “On Zamyatin’s We: A Critical Map of Utopia’s ‘Possible Worlds.” Utopian Studies 4, no. 2 (1993): 94,23.

Paper Proposal

Posted on by

American society is one that values boldness and strength, and the person getting the attention is most often the one demanding it.  People are recognized and rewarded for being outgoing.  Success and happiness are often associated with sociability and popularity among peers, while loneliness is often associated with introversion.  However, a significant portion—at least a third—of the American population consists of wallflowers, of people who’d rather listen than be heard.  In my essay, I’d like to discuss the value of the quiet ones, and bring attention to the household names that belong to people who were brilliant and introverted, such as Einstein and Van Gogh.  One doesn’t need to be extroverted to be social, and one shouldn’t need to be ostentatious to be heard.

Loneliness is a state of being or mind. It is circumstantial, it is almost always negative, and it is also very different than being alone.  Introversion is not just a choice, it is a personality trait and it characterizes the lifestyles of millions of people.  In my essay, I would like to discuss the differences of loneliness and being alone, as well as the affects of both on many peoples’ health and way of life.  To define and explore loneliness and how it affects people, I will refer to essays and research summaries written and reviewed by licensed doctors and psychologists, some of which can be found on www.webmd.com.  In addition, I’m watching an hour long film released by Cornell University, titled The Anatomy of Loneliness, which outlines the effects of social isolation (real and perceived) on cognition and health.

The next questions I want to address are as follows: what is it about boisterousness that is so attractive?  Is it just that the loud ones are the easiest to see, and people tend not to put the effort into understanding unassertive people?  Ostentatiousness is unmistakable, but is it as valuable as it seems?  Why or why not?  Before I begin to answer these, I’d like to define “introvert” and “extrovert” and compare them and the associations with which they come.  An article in Time Magazine called The Upside of Being an Introvert (and Why Extroverts are Overrated), available online from the Dickinson Library, outlines the differences between introverts and extroverts, and references many psychological studies of child development in an attempt to pinpoint what external factors may contribute to introversion.  Similarly, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, by Susan Cain, includes many narratives from individuals that consider themselves introverts, as well as Cain’s views on why introverts are undervalued in America. She lists famous, successful, and highly influential people who were/are also “quiet”, and goes on to explain why dismissing introverted people is dangerous for the growth and success of America.  This book, which can be taken out from the Dickinson Library, will be very helpful, because it includes first-hand accounts and explanations of what it is like to be a quiet person in a very loud community, and will help me to explain what it really means to be an introvert, and why it is just as (if not more) valuable as being an extrovert.

I hope that differentiating between introversion and loneliness will set my paper apart form other writing, due to the fact that it combines and compares two related, but very different concepts.  I want to clarify that introverts and extroverts are both valuable members of society, and examine why it is that the latter is held in such high esteem, when so many of the worlds most famous thinkers, activists, and political figures were “wallflowers”.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 

PRIMARY SOURCES: 

Cain, Susan. Quiet: the power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. New York: Crown Publishers, 2012.

In Quiet, Cain refers to psychological as well as neuroscience studies in her explanations of the differences between introverts and extroverts.  Cain compiles her own experiences with research and tales from other people to determine why America undervalues introverts, and how that hinders society.

Christakis, Nicholas A., and James H. Fowler. Connected: the surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2009.

Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

The Anatomy of Loneliness. Film. Directed by Cornell University. Ithaca: Cornell University, 2010.

The Anatomy of Loneliness is an hour long documentary film featuring John Cacioppo, an University of Chicago psychologist, as he summarizes his research on the effect that isolation has on the brains, the bodies, and the personalities of socially-deprived individuals.

 

SECONDARY SOUCRES:

Brock-Abraham, Cleo, and Bryan Walsh. “The Upside of Being an Introvert (and Why Extroverts are Overrated).” time, February 6, 2012, 40-45.

Goodman, Brenda. “Loneliness Linked to Death, Disability.” WebMD – Better information. Better health.. http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20120618/loneliness-linked-to-death-disability (accessed September 30, 2012).

Osterweil, Neil. “Putting Presidents to the Personality Test.” WebMD – Better information. Better health.. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20000805/putting-presidents-to-personality-test (accessed September 30, 2012).

Parker-Pope, Tara. “Why Loneliness Can Be Contagious.” New York Times, December 1, 2009. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/why-loneliness-can-be-contagious/ (accessed September 28, 2012).

WebMD Health News. “New Ways of Looking at Wallflowers.” WebMD – Better information. Better health.. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20011221/new-ways-of-looking-at-wallflowers (accessed September 29, 2012).

Zelenski, John M., Maya S. Santoro, and Deanna C. Whelan. “Would Introverts be Better Off if they Acted More Like Extraverts? Exploring Emotional and Cognitive Consequences of Counter Dispositional Behavior..” Emotion 12, no. 2 (2012): 290-303.

 

Paper Proposal

Posted on by

Since Thomas More first coined the phrase “utopia” in his eponymous book, idealists, realists, and cynics alike have been fascinated with the possibility creating an ideal society. We have exhaustively explored the concept in fictional and critical contexts, with utopias at the focus of numerous works of literature, film, and scholarship. Various subcultural groups, such as the shakers and transcendentalists in the 19th century, attempted to create insular utopian communities. The evident human fascination with utopia raises numerous questions: can a utopian society be actualized? Is it possible for humans, with their diverse interests and often selfish needs, to coexist in an ideal setting, developing a socio-political structure that is desirable to all?

Past attempts at creating utopian communities tells us that the likely answer to this question is ‘no’, but that doesn’t mean that some societies come closer to a utopian state than others. In my paper, I will examine factors that contribute to quality of life within a society and attempt to determine the effect of political structure (ie, monarchy versus democracy) on the happiness of citizens. In any given nation, the government will be ultimate agent for controlling factors such as crime rates, employment, respect for human rights, and access to health care and education, all of which will impact the quality of life for citizens within that state. By examining aspects such as these across the globe, research groups have for more than two decades attempted to quantify the average happiness of citizens within different nations to determine which places on earth are the best or worst to live. The end result of this research is a series of annual lists that rank the countries on earth in order of the average happiness of their citizens. These “Best and Worst Nations to Live In” lists are released annually and often given perfunctory coverage in magazines or news programs. Discussion of these rankings within the media is superficial at best, with no attempts to understand the methodology for rankings or the implications that they carry. It is understandable to be skeptical of the idea of quantifying a concept as intangible as happiness, but I believe that these rankings carry implications that are not examined in the media – for example, they contain unexamined truths about the effect of government on quality of life. In order to examine the effect of political structure on happiness of citizens, I will use these rankings as a starting point for my research and compare the nations that rank highest as the most desirable to live in and compare them with the nations that rank the lowest. I will attempt to answer the following questions: which political systems lead to the happiest citizens? Why is this so? I will then compare my findings to the utopian societies described by More and Plato to see whether their ideas have been realized – or could be realized – in the modern world.

My standard for this paper will be the 2011 index compiled by the United Nations (UN). United Nations is an international organization that operates with funding from 34 member countries. Among other initiatives, the UN has compiled a wealth of statistical information to compile its rankings, and as a non-for profit organization without any governmental affiliation, the UN can be trusted to give unbiased and objective statistics and other information. Using these indexes as a starting point, I will delve deeper into investigating the factors that contribute to or detract from quality of life, such as protection of rights, employment rates, and access to healthcare, and more. For this information, I will draw from research conducted by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, the Organizatoin for Economic Cooperation and Development (OEDC), Partners In Health, and Journalists without Borders. All data generated by these organizations is published on their websites and available for the public to download and use as research. When comparing nations, I will use a methodology similar to that used by sociologist Max Weber when conducting his comparative historical analyses to determine the causes of the industrial revolution. Professor Stephen Kalberg details Weber’s methodology in his recent book Max Weber’s Historical analysis, which I have checked out from the library. I will also draw from the ideas of philosopher John Rawles, in particular his “veil of ignorance” thought experiment, and the societies described by Plato in The Republic and Thomas More in Utopia. Criticism of Rawles, Plato, and More can be found in numerous books in the dickinson library or through the library’s databases.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Plato. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2000.

More, Thomas. Utopia. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1997.

United Nations Development Reports. United Nations. Last modified November 2, 2011, http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

This website is the hub for all of the statistics compiled by UN researchers each year. This page contains the most recent ranking for human development and happiness (completed in 2011) as well as individual country profiles with access to statistics and ratings concerning factors such as health, poverty, inequality and education. This resource will be highly valuable to me in comparing specific aspects that affect quality of life within different countries.

Human Rights Watch World Report. Human Rights Watch. Accessed September 30, 2012. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2010.pdf

Reporters without Borders Press Freedom Index. Reporters Without Borders. Accessed September 30, 2012. http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

Secondary Sources

Kalberg, Stephen. Max Weber’s Comparative Historical Analysis Today. Burlington: Ashgate, 2012.

This recent book by sociologist Stephen Kalberg deconstructs the methodology used by Max Weber when he conducted his comparative historical analysis in the 19th century. Kalberg applies Marx’s methodology to his own comparative analysis, tracing forces such as the singularity in american culture and the foundations of modern citizenship. Kalberg’s book will allow me to use Weber’s methodology to determine the relationship between political structure and individual happiness. It will offer a comprehensive guide when researching and writing my paper.

Firth, David and Marshall, Gordon. “Social Mobility and Personal Satisfaction: Evidence from Ten Countries.” The British Journal of Sociology 50, no. 1 (1999): 28-48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/522763

de Vries, Willem F. M.. “Meaningful Measures: Indicators on Progress, Progress on Indicators.” International Statistical Review 69, no. 2 (2001): 313-331. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1403818

Paper Proposal

Posted on by

 

Where Technology meets Religion

While reading and analyzing Plato’s The Republic and More’s Utopia through class discussion, it has been made quite clear that human nature poses a major problem in shaping ideal societies. No “perfect” society can truly be formed. Even in films like “Metropolis” and “Gattaca” it was greed, lust, anger and pride that led to failures of their technological worlds and made it a dystopia. However, would those worlds have succeeded if there was a way to limit human desires? Karl Marx argues in the Communist Manifesto that it is the unsatisfying human wants that will lead to innovation and make capitalism prosper but in the process it will also create class differences and essentially, a dystopia. However, even Marx’s theory would be proved wrong if wants were restrained. Is it possible for capitalism to exist without having class difference oppression? Or is instant social revolution always the answer? My paper’s objective will be to apply the religious practices in More’s Utopia and the education methodologies in Plato’s Republic to the technological utopian society in I, Robot. Combining each of these authors’ ideas may possibly unveil the ideal society they were striving to achieve. It may also mean that happiness for all may not mean sacrificing the happiness of the capitalists through communism, as Marx had suggested in the Manifesto.

The impending problem to any technological utopia is the volatile temperament of human nature, which is swayed by the slightest selfish nudge. Therefore, we must somehow control this desire or want in humans. In Plato’s The Republic and More’s Utopia, we come across many ways in which the authors propose to control this yearning. Compulsive religious affiliation as in More’s Utopia will allow people to strive for spiritual means rather than materialistic things. While looking for a way to find the religious enlightenment they will discard greed, lust, anger and pride. In More’s Utopia we see that happiness cannot be found from wealth, rather from the satisfaction that comes from helping others and devoting yourself towards religion and self-sacrifice. Fearing the repercussions of causing chaos in this world prevents violent or selfish thoughts. Could religious association serve as a restraint to the unlimited wants that humans naturally desire?
With that said, there also must be a way to enforce these ideas and provide a strong sense of discipline and faith within the people. Here, I would like to use Plato’s ideas of raising the philosopher king and guardians which he had identified in books 2,3,4 and 8. If selfish wants and the desire for better life are not encouraged in society will they ultimately become obsolete?
Robbin (1969) in his article “Utopia: Ideal or Illusion” illustrates that the concepts in Utopia were not as optimistic and impractical as suggested by critics, rather they were quite applicable in real life. Dominique (2009) in his article “The More Part: Upstaging the Law” agrees that More also did believe that good will and the right sense of justice could create a utopia.
On the contrary in Kessler’s, “Religious Setting for More’s Utopia“, he discusses that More’s work was strongly influenced by his resentment of the Catholic Church for their one religion propaganda and the English monarchy, which ran on the King’s personal motives rather than the good of the people. In the same way, Plato resented society because it killed his teacher, Socrates and led him to believe that democracy was flawed because the opinions of the majority were not always correct and therefore his Republic believes in an elitist society. These works were flawed because they were not completely unbiased and hence, could not achieve the ideal society that they were thriving for.

The work is quite original in that no one has so far compared Plato or More with the movie I, Robot, let alone integrated these ideas to form a Utopia. However, there are many that have analyzed the similarities between Plato’s and More’s works and how one influenced the other (Miles, Leland, “The Platonic Source of Utopia’s ‘Minimum Religion’“). Furthermore, a utopia without extreme insurgent ideas is relatively new as previous utopian writers have suggested that it would be impossible to model a new society while following the rules of the present one or without undergoing a revolution.
In regards to research materials, I already have the books, “The Republic”, “Utopia” and “The Communist Manifesto”. The film, I, Robot can either borrowed from the library or viewed online through any one of the popular video streaming websites. My secondary sources i.e. the articles and books are available through Dickinson College Library Database (EbscoHost) and their personal catalog.

Bibliography

Plato, . The Republic. New York: Dover Thrift, 2000.
Plato recounts the dialogues that Socrates had with other students and fellow citizens to answer the question, “What is Justice?” and the what makes a ‘perfect’ state. He uses metaphors and different allegories to try to understand the concept of justice in different contexts. Finally he comes to the conclusion that they could do all the thinking they wanted but maybe true justice is something unachievable by humans in their current state. This book also gives methodologies on raising leaders or effective members of society which I believe are essential to apply to the ideal society proposed in my paper.

More, Thomas. Utopia. New York: Dover Thrift, 1997.
More imagines a perfect world in a island separated from the rest of society. His world practices religious tolerance, excessive democracy and the people do not own property. His society prospers on optimistic belief in human nature and mostly positive fundamentals. More’s emphasis on religion and good practices are a vital element in controlling human wants which I intend to show with my paper.

 

Marx, Karl, and Freidrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Dover Thrift, 2003.

Proyas, Alex. “I, Robot.” Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Mediastream Vierte Film       GmbH & Co.             Vermarktungs KG, Davis Entertainment. Decem,14 2012. DVD
The film is about a technological utopia where robots are the ones doing all sorts of labor and making the lives of humans easier. Although the film’s main focus is around a homicide of one of the major scientists who developed robotics, it shows what a society where capitalism is successful can be like. It helped me see what a technological utopia could be like and hence is also an important setting for my paper.

Johnson, Robbin S. More’s Utopia: Ideal and Illusion. N.p.: Yale University Press, 1969.

Here the author explores some of the concrete and realistic(idyllic) features of More’s Utopia and the concepts to be learnt from it. People can learn about human nature and themselves from Utopia and can learn know how their evils can be controlled and also what human society should aspire to be like. Thomas More’s work should not be criticized for being too optimistic rather consulted for its realistic aspects that can be applied in real life. The author cites the opinions of articles that analyze the pragmatic concepts of Utopia.

Miles, Leland. “The Platonic Source of Utopia’s ‘Minimum Religion’.” Renaissance News  9,         vol.2 (1956): 83-90.

Goy-Blanquet, Dominique. “‘The More Part’: Upstaging the Law.” Law and Humanities 3., vol. 2
(2009): 151-74.

This article tries to answer if More believed in his ideas that good law and education can run a society well and did he believe some laws could be changed so that a perfect society can exist with flaws.
His behavior in life contradicted his ideas. However, since he died upholding his sense of justice he possibly could have believed some of them. More’s doubt in his ideas not only reflected in his ideas but also in his life decisions. The author draws on contradictions between More’s life choices and principles in Utopia by referring to accounts More’s Biography.

Sanford, Kessler. “Religious Freedom in Thomas More’s “Utopia”.” The Review of Politics 64, no. 2          (2002): 207-229.

Paper proposal

Posted on by
  • I want to examine the effect that photography as propaganda can have on a society.  Photographs are the ultimate tools of manipulation because they are seen as facts/reality/truth. In reality, photographs are easily manipulated and can cause people to believe whatever they see, without considering what “lies beyond the frame.”  Because of peoples’ tendencies to believe whatever is in a photograph, photography is often used in propaganda by governments in an attempt to sway the people in a certain direction. I will examine propaganda from Nazi Germany that was used to persuade Germans that Jews are inherently “bad” and are the cause of all their problems. Propaganda in Nazi Germany often involved unflattering photographs of Jews, causing people to view them in a negative light. Ultimately, photography played a huge role in turning Germany against the Jews.  I will go on to discuss propaganda in democratic societies and how, although we may not consider it propaganda, photography has often been used as a means of persuasion in America. For example, during the great depression, the Farm Security Administration produced many photographs depicting the impact of the depression on rural America.  The goal of these photos was to sway public opinion in favor of Roosevelt’s rural economic recovery program. Although the intentions of these photographs were good, they could be seen as propaganda because their point was to influence politics and the public opinions.

 

  • Propaganda and censorship are both methods used by the government to control their people. In The Republic, Plato describes a society in which censorship of literature is used in order to shelter society from negative descriptions of the gods. However, he is also trying to form a utopia in which everyone is educated and has escalated from the “cave” that is naïveté.  By including censorship in his government, isn’t Plato actually pushing society back into the cave? How are censorship and propaganda similar and what effects have they had when implemented in real-world societies? What makes photographs such a powerful tool in influencing people? Can propaganda be ethical?

 

  • The use of photography in propaganda has been debated for a long time and many have questioned the ethics of using images to persuade a society.  In the book of essays, On Photography, Susan Sontag argues that photography, in a way, has chained humanity down, creating a reality for us that may not actually be true.  She argues that a camera is like a gun in that whoever holds it has complete control over the subject and the situation. Her overall thesis is that we are chained down by our assumption that everything we see in a photograph is true.  This concept relates to propaganda throughout history, beginning with Nazi Germany.  One example of propaganda in Nazi Germany is a book called The Eternal Jew, which contains unappealing and dehumanizing photos of Jews.  Photos like these made Germans more comfortable with blaming and turning against Jews because they seemed less human.  Another source I will use is an article called “The FSA photographs: Information or Propaganda?” by Chris Meyer. This article takes a look at the photographs used by the Farm Security Administration and discusses whether or not they should be considered propaganda.  This can tie into my question of whether or not propaganda is always bad

 

  • There is enough evidence to prove my points.  There are many books and essays explaining how photographs can be deadly because people believe whatever they see.  Furthermore, many people have written about the effects of photography in propaganda and how a society can be influenced through the use of photography. I will use a few primary sources, with pictures of influential propaganda and I will also use some secondary sources that argue what the effects of propaganda are.  All of these books and journals are available in the library, but On Photography is checked out right now.  It can be borrowed from another library though.

 

Works cited:

Chris Meyer. “The FSA Photographs: Information or Propaganda?” WR: Journal of the Arts & Sciences 1, no. 1. http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-1/the-fsa-photographs-information-or-propaganda/

  • This article is helpful because it confronts my question of whether or not propaganda is always bad.  This article examines the FSA photographs and how they influenced Americans. While the consequences of these photographs may have been beneficial, they were still aimed at manipulating the political views of Americans, and therefore they are propaganda. This article will help me discuss how photography in propaganda has also been prevalent in democratic societies, but perhaps in a different way than in authoritarian governments.

San Mateo County Community College District. “Persuasion, Propaganda, and Photography.” Films on Demand video, 27:00. 2001. http://envoy.dickinson.edu:4734/PortalViewVideo.aspx?xtid=30811

 

Sontag, Susan. On Photography. London: Penguin, 1997.

 

Morris, Errol. Believing is seeing : Observations on the Mysteries of Photography. New York: Penguin Press, 2011.

 

Welch, David. The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda. New York: Routledge, 1993.

 

Bytwerk, Randall. “The Eternal Jew.” German Propaganda Archive. August 2004. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/

  • This website is helpful because it includes various examples of Nazi German propaganda that portrayed Jews as evil. These examples will be very useful because in order to fully understand the effect that propaganda had, people must see the actual propaganda itself.  The pictures on this website will help to show how the Nazis attempted to portray the Jews as hideous, inhuman creatures.