This week incorporated our final stimulation, and the reading Horizons.
Class Reflection: "Feel Good" activism ≠ "Real Good" activism Feelings on this week's piece about celebrity activism: The topic of this class is something that I have many conversations about: The Western World is obsessed with My Week in a Nutshell: The past month and a half at work has been spent preparing for an event that happen this past Tuesday. We discussed the opioid crisis in Anne Arundel County. I am so honored to have had a chance to be a part of the process and to have gotten to see it all came together. If you are interested in hearing the radio broadcast, you can do so here. I have included some of the photos taken during the event below. I am now in the process of producing a radio emission about food gentrification in Washington DC, and assisting with the prep for 2 other upcoming events. I love my job! On Wednesday, the entire Global Scholars cohort was invited to an informational career type of event that Preston and Lily set up for us. We had a guest speaker from the Career center come, ate some really fantastic food, and got to learn about what makes a strong candidate for job and internship opportunities. Wyatt and I also got to find out how about Global Citizen Year (our Bridge Year Program) wants to partner with American University's SIS and even Global Scholars sometime in the future.
One of the main benefits of living in D.C. are all of the opportunities for growth, networking and education. On Friday and Saturday I attended the Puerto Rico Diaspora Washington D.C. Summit with Anneli. I will be writing a separate reflection blog post to discuss what I learned during the event, as I'm still working through my notes... so I will not delve too much into it here. I have just started the reading for class on Monday. Our keywords are National Interest and National Security. National/international defense has never been one of my strongest talking points, so I may need to do some supplemental research in order for me to add anything to the conversation. INVITATION TO EVERYONE: Every week the State Department puts on these called Foreign Policy Classrooms, which gives the "opportunity for students to attend a relevant foreign policy briefing with a Department official at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC." They are available to students and faculty. The next classroom briefing is on this Tuesday, 10/30 from 2-3pm. They will be having a discussion on International Religious Freedom with Ambassador at Large Sam Brownback. The following classroom is a briefing of Defense Agreements and Burden Sharing with the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (from 2.30-4pm on 11/7). I have attended two of them so far, but would love to extend an invitation to other GloSchos (including Preston and PTJ) who might want to attend. I suggest bookmarking this page to stay up to date as they add more classroom events: https://www.state.gov/r/pa/pl/c18671.htm Sometimes I confuse myself and think that more weeks have passed than what is actually reality. This probably has to do with the fact that some of my classes are several times a week. In the case of World Politics, this happens a lot because of how our transitioning of topics work. They can be too smooth sometimes. I would not call this class redundant...perhaps thorough? We may cover similar materials, but they all come from different angles, and then we compare it to previous materials and angles... I do not think that I have ever been so susceptible to "rabbit holes", before.
On Monday we discussed the Global Color Line, and covered themes of race ≠ ethnicity. We completed the first half of our stimulation on Thursday's class. While I am not very passionate about automobiles, the whole experience was reminder of the power of perspective. For every issue, there are certain angles and factors that always come into play. I was in a group with Anneli, Miranda, and Halle. We represented the Sierra Club. The other students were divided into: Ford Auto Company, The Workers Union, Foreign Auto Companies, and Consumers. PTJ acted a political representative/point of contact with the White House. I think it would be very interesting if this stimulation had another team, comprising of political parties and the press (whistle blowers) or something of that nature....I mainly say this because I would like to see bribes and political manipulation during the stimulation. Regardless, it was a good first day of "stimulating" (?), and we will reconvene during Monday's class. SOON TO EDIT: A representative arranged to discuss things further with me, but rescheduled our phone call to later this week. This section will be updated during that time, because he had really interesting things to say during our previous brief phone call. On the personal side, it turns out that cold air can turn a really bad cold into pneumonia. So can being over-prescribed antibiotics. Who knew. I also learned that sauerkraut spoils fairly quickly once you open the jar, and that you must always eat it with a protein. Especially on an empty and upset stomach. Translation: spoiled sauerkraut on an empty upset stomach, with nothing else will make you start hallucinating. No joke. The probiotics aren't worth it. "Instead of convincing arguments -- arguments which, if a first truth is admitted, will compel belief in their conclusions in all rational minds, generally and technically, that is, by calculation -- we are once again investigating the nature of persuasion, the different ways of achieving assent in different, particular audiences." (John Shotter, "Rhetoric and the Recovery of Civil Society," p. 167)
Shotter does not draw this distinction lightly or by accident. Certainly his argument in the chapter is that we need more persuasion and less striving to be convincing (in the special and technical ways he defines both of those terms), at least in public life. Do you agree? Will such a move, from convincing to persuading, help to address the general problem that Shotter diagnoses, in which not everyone is able to participate fully in the shaping of our social lives together? And where does this leave scientific facts? No bonus points for talking about alien contact scenarios This blog is for the blog prompt given in week 4: Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 15: "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussions of imaginary rules and talk about practical realities." The following passage is quite long, but all of it is important for a sense of context. I have underlined and italicized the particular phrase that I believe most relates back to the question: "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussion of imaginary rulers and talk about practical realities. I maintain that all men, when people talk about them, and especially rulers, because they hold positions of authority, are described in terms of qualities that are inextricably linked to censure or to praise. So one man is described as generous, another as a miser; one is called open-handed, another tight-fisted; one man is cruel, another gentle; one untrustworthy, another reliable; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and violent; one sympathetic, another self-important; one promiscuous, another monogamous; one straightforward, another duplicitous; one tough, another easy-going; one serious, another cheerful; one religious, another atheistical; and so on. Now I know everyone will agree that if a ruler could have all the good qualities I have listed and none of the bad ones, then this would be an excellent state of affairs. But one cannot have all the good qualities, nor always act in a praiseworthy fashion, for we do not live in an ideal world. You have to be astute enough to avoid being thought to have those evil qualities that would make it impossible for you to retain power; as for those that are compatible with holding on to power, you should avoid them if you can; but if you cannot, then you should not worry too much if people say you have them. Above all, do not be upset if you are supposed to have those vices a ruler needs if he is going to stay securely in power, for, if you think about it, you will realize there are some ways of behaving that are supposed to be virtuous, but would lead to your downfall, and others that are supposed to be wicked, but will lead to your welfare and peace of mind. " (Niccolo Machiavelli) Going back to the question: To me, this could have several meanings. It seems like a "covert insult" to the Church, yet also an obvious one. If not directly aimed at the Church, it definitely was aimed at what the Church stands for: ethics and morals (based the desires of a supreme being or whatever else). Again looking at the passage, one main theme stands out above all others...Personal ethics should NEVER be the downfall of a political power. To Machiavelli, "practical realities" are the realities of the world that he lived in (and even in some cases, the world that we currently live in today). Having morals is a good thing (he does not disagree with this), but it is not always possible given the current state of politics. Therefore, it is better to "appear" to be virtuous and to play the game like a devil, then to play the game as a saint and to be devoured by true devils. In a cutthroat environment, one must cut throat, so to speak. Machiavelli does not even want to entertain the "but what ifs" of life. He is a pragmatic and stoic in his approach to politics and diplomatic relations. Overall, I would say no. I do not agree with him at all. Yet I also cannot ignore the ruthless ways in which some people choose to conduct politics and themselves. Perhaps I am denying the natural order of things, but I'd like to expect more of society. I found a blog that incorporates this argument and includes a more religious perspective to this question. You can read more about it here: https://findingtangle.com/2016/09/29/the-makings-of-a-prince-erasmus-machiavelli-and-idealism-vs-pragmatism-in-political-rule/ |
AuthorGlobal Scholar. Gullah Girl. Social Entrepreneur. Archives
December 2018
Categories |