Thursday, November 26, 2009
Philosophy in Macbeth
Friday, November 13, 2009
Activism
A main argument in favor of democracy in John Stuart Mill's article is the kind of society it creates – an active one.
He claims that democracy, as the rule of the people is the best way of governing since it involves everyone. It does not include only a despot or a small group of influential people (aristocracy). In the other forms of rules the decisions are being made for and you sit passively in your house – not involved. In democracy, Mill says, people are forced to engage in their future and the future of their state and are ought to actively participate. This affects the behavior of the people – it not only that in voting they become active but rather they become active people (which is desired).
I am afraid I don't know how much of this is actually present in Modern democracy. I don't see leaving your house once every few years to vote as being active rather than passive. In what other way does democracy encourage activeness?
I can tell about my surroundings back home that I barely know anyone who is actually active in politics, including me. I grew in a society where instant media surrounds me – every round hour there's a news flash on the radio. We have the internet access 24 hours, the news channels on TV and a newspaper on our doorstep every morning. Yet it seems that many times they just pass by us… especially teenagers.
One reason for this I can think of is lack of political or activist education. This was never something that has managed to really catch my attention. We used to have a "news hour" every Friday in primary school and junior high but it somehow remained quite superficial.
On the other hand – you cannot make people interested in something they're not.
Why are we not interested?
This is exactly the problem with Mill's argument – I think many people feel they do not really have much say in their government's politics. It is a problem with representative democracy – it does involve a small group of people that decide for everyone else. Yes, once every 4 years we get to choose those people - but that doesn’t require much. Moreover, many times people feel the choice they have is between a douche and a tard sandwich. It is not a real choice and they personally really do not matter much in the future of the country because so much has and will be decided for them.
Take India for example – How can democracy make 1.3 people active? Would all of them been active it was complete chaos. But then again – how can 535 people represent this huge country?
I'm sure so many people are actually passive because in the biggest democracy in the world they don't count for much. A proof for that could be how political families have ruled the country, for example the Nehru family, for FOUR GENERATIONS, only Indira and J. Nehru together for more than 30 years! What kind of choice does this leave for the common people? (I hope what I mean comes across though I'm having some hard time to phrase it)
It seems to me that democracy can only help you reach activism in small and distinct groups. Otherwise – it might just lead to the opposite…
Thursday, November 12, 2009
I close the shutters in hebrew
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Levels of Exitment & Project Week
the real world
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Poor of Your City Take Precendence
"In the case of a Jew and a non-Jew, the Jew
takes precedence; a poor person and a wealthy person, the poor person takes precedence; a poor person of your own city and a poor person of another city, the poor of your city take precedence."
(The English parallel: Charity begins at home)
Just some points that crossed my mind regarding this...
* I can testify, that personally the easiest thing is to agree. It makes sense. I do care for my close environment first. I do care for my friends, the school, whatever is happening right here and right now the most. In school they always tried to prove us this - by showing us how the newspapers always report on different accidents and incidents abroad and you are always more compassionate towards the Israeli or the Jew.
* I wonder what the origins of this feeling are. Are they rooted so deeply in us because of our nationalistic education? (and I'm not talking about Israeli education specifically, but generally about most of us) why do we have different degrees of caring and compassion for different people?
* I can think of some reasons. Maybe our mind requires this kind of categorization. Arabs (in my case) are usually "against us" - so we care less about them. Americans are generally supportive of us, that means we should probably be in their favour most of the time. If we had to judge every single person individually in order to make up our mind or form some sort of impression we would probably go crazy (and won't have enough time.)
* I understand cultural identification that makes us feel closer to different groups of people. Yet one thing strikes me - the randomness of this identification. Had I been born an Arab I would probably place Jews or Israelis at the bottom of my compassion list. What a small coincidence determines something we feel so strongly about!
* Finally I want to look at the Economic aspect of this saying, for it does not only talk of moral support or cultural fraternity. It talks about the poor. It talks about people who disadvantaged or underprivileged - and prioritizes who should be helped first, who is more equal or more important.
And that makes me think - is this attitude what causes the enormous gaps between let us say Western countries and Eastern Countries? Developed Economies and Undeveloped Economies?
How did a manage to grow having my quite normal, safe life with abundant food - so used to this being so normal while in other parts of the world people are starving? What causes us today to see this is kind of normal, or distant?
Has this maybe something to do with this attitude, this proverb...? Our affiliations...?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Language and Inequality
Both CI's used to teach basic English to 5th, 6th and 7th graders in the Azde village government school twice a week. Due to changing attitudes towards our activities in the Azde School we have contacted the Paud School and are now shifting our activities there.
Last Thursday was the first time I went down with the CI down to the Paud School, and it has really made me think. This is my second year in India, and I have been travelling in both south and north. I've been living here in "rural Maharashtra" (?) for the last year and visited some of the biggest cities in India - Delhi, Bombay, Pune, Cochin and Calcutta, yet the inequalities in India had never appeared so brutal and real to me as when I visited this Paud school.
3 kids on one (little) table, 60 kids in class room, the English teacher that does not speak English... No syllabus, just a text book (which is in a much higher level than the kids are), the closed mindedness that I can not explain.
Some of my co-years and I started a new CI that helps 12th graders from the Paud high school in preparing for their final English exams. They are all in my age, and all very eager to succeed. All of them have been writing essays on how important education is and how they want to have a job and be successful during our last in class assignment. And this keeps striking me – we are exactly at the same age, and I know they are not lazy and success is important for them – yet they have been prevented from the education I have been complaining about back home. How big is the gap between me and them, and more striking, between an Indian who studies in muwci and an Indian that studies in a government school in the village.
And this also relates so much to our last Global Affairs session in which some people in my discussion mentioned how English has so much to do with the elite English speaking class that exists today in India.
I don’t know how a country can keep on functioning like that. It seems not much is done about the circle of education, of English…
After talking so much in class about hypothetical equality and socialism, I'm trying to think – what could be done? What is being done in India? How can such inequality prevail?
It also makes me think of our role as a CI. Are we really helping these kids? What does this hour a week do, especially since we seem not to get completely through or completely understood, especially with the language barrier?
Wouldn't it be great if we could change these kids' life? If we could walk in to the classroom and communicate, and explain and be understood? Sometimes I feel we could have done so much more if we all spoke Hindi or Marathi, that this is what these kids need, real communication.
I'm not sure what this post is about. It is about language, practical inequality, and our role, a little bit, I guess. Hope it's not too messy.