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/ For this blog post, I thought I'd shake things up a little bit. So for the sake of eliminating meta-commentary, I thought that I would explain my intentions at the beginning. This is is a letter addressed to John Locke on behalf of members of the Flat Earth Society, essentially asking for his blessings of tolerance. This letter (if I wrote it correctly) should cover everything mentioned in the prompt given by PTJ. At the end, I will give a brief response (in the voice of Locke), which will represent my opinion of what his opinion would and should be. He (me) will then give his reasoning for either accepting or rejecting the Flat Earth Society. This blog is for the Blog Prompt given in week 5:
Feeling especially homesick this morning. I'm from a magical and sunny place called Florida, where mice live in castles and pirates lurk in our bays. Washington DC is magical too, in its own way....but NOT for its weather. I checked the weather in Tampa, FL and right now its 87f, mostly sunny. What a glorious temperature. In DC? 52f completely dry, with an ugly drizzle. Ah well. I had a very stressful week, but luckily world politics class this week had to be one of my favorites, mainly because of how much I enjoyed the reading. I did not agree with everything, which made it even more interesting for me. As usual, our desks were arranged in such a way that would allow for engaging discussion, rather than a convenient lecture. We all sat and analyzed whether DuBois' essay could be applied to other issues besides race, and even within race of it was only relevant to African Americans. We had all answered this question previously on our blogs earlier this week, but further shared our perspectives and opinions in class on Thursday. I recorded a video that goes more into depth of the conversation that we had in class. If I can figure out how to embed it, it will go right here: Alyssa mentioned the episode from the show "The Office" called Minority Day. I have never seen an episode of this show, but fortunately she explains it to us: The episode is about a day where the employees wore the title of a minority on their head, but were not allow to know or view what they were given. People around them were aware (because it was on the person's forehead), and as a response had to treat the person with the minority label as whatever minority they were given. Stereotypes and mistreatment followed, along with some hilarious mix-ups. I later decided to look up the episode, and it was funnier when she explained it, but STILL good for an uncomfortable laugh. This weekend was also our fall break, where we had Friday off as well. I only have an 8am class on Friday and then immediately make my way to work, so it didn't make much of a difference for me. Sadly, I also got the date mixed up and therefore rushed to class, only to find no one there. On Monday we will be diving into themes such as race and identity, which closely relate to the readings that we've analyzed so far. This reading is more on a global scale, so we are now expanding outside of the United States. I'm intrigued. As mentioned in last week's reflection, I was fascinated with Du Bois' essay. It was my first time reading more than a quote or two of his writing, and it did not disappoint.
In response to PTJ's prompt this week, I have mixed feelings...society can be so complicated. To me, there is this precarious line that both politics and society have a difficult time navigating, especially when it comes to "people who are problems". As we discussed in the previous class regarding the themes of District 9, society is not always well equipped to deal with foreign "problems" (whether they're international or intergalactic). When we are faced with situations mostly or completely out of our depth, we tend to try and apply our cultural applications as solutions or answers. In the case of DuBois' enlightening essay, the content has been warped and molded to become a concept that others can understand. To me, I feel that it has become a watered down version that hardly captures the essence of the original intent. For those who have had and continue to experience it, the notion of "double consciousness" is not a new revelation or theory; and I do not believe that the desire to be understood by others can justify the original meaning of the text losing any definition and therefore any significance. That being said, I would be amiss to not recognize that other groups experience similar levels of "double consciousness". Even so, I do believe that it looks very different depending on who you are, and therefore would apply to different situations with varying degrees and results. I think that by doing this, we are trying to categorize human experiences and trauma to fit into our own social constructs. This is necessary to process information, but still can be harmful or not entirely accurate when it comes to processing and then dealing with any unfamiliar situations. For example, I do not believe that DuBois' theory could apply to all of the African Diaspora, and certainly not to other cultures or large migrations throughout history. Colonial oppression and trauma is not a badge that is worn proudly, nor is corrupt government/society. From my experience, double consciousness is a result of how society perceives you based on their own ideas. So through that extent I believe that everyone is capable of having a type of double consciousness. Does it impact their daily life as it might with others? Highly unlikely. At the end of the day, there are bits and pieces from DuBois' writing that can be applied to almost any situation that has a dichotomous narrative woven throughout it. For that, his writing will remain reviewed and relevant as long as these types of situations continue to come up. Like Machiavelli, his writing has both a specific and vague applicability attached. It is because of this "one size fits all" style of the essay that I am slightly wary of the execution and of his true intentions. "Better late than never, but never late is better" -Drake
*gasps* Could this possibly be a reflection post??? How embarrassing that it has taken this long, but I have no one to blame but myself. This weekend, I spent most of my time in two places: the doctor's office and the library (boohoo). Something that I've been forced to face here at AU is that you cant run from certain things: the state of your health, and blog posts. For example, a couple of weeks ago, I slipped and fell down a flight of stairs (during World Politics, actually). No big deal, right? Wrong. Turns out I had been trying to ignore a concussion. Mix that in with self defense training where you are getting hit on the head repeatedly: The doctor looked at me like I had sprouted a third eye....I wasn't even there for head pain. I have been given ample time to rectify both situations, so it has now reached a point where I know that I'm not taking enough personal responsibility. I am capable of being a better student and healthy human being. Although I have not posted, I have been reading over the blog posts of my classmates each week, and I've loved getting to see their personalities and thoughts come alive through their posts. It is like getting to have dozens of conversations in short periods of time. On Tuesday and Thursday, the class discussed Constructivism, with comparative Machiavellian theory peppered in for good measure. Preston was kind enough to host a "midterm" review in the sky-lounge a few days prior, and had a PowerPoint prepared for us. I am thankful that he took the time to make sure that we had an opportunity to fill in knowledge gaps. At this point, I don't know what I don't know...which is a little terrifying but feels nice to admit. The night before (on Wednesday) I had attended a 5 hour self defense training class (Krav Maga), my entire body hated me. Luckily, our class conversation was very dynamic; so I found it easy to stay engaged and ask questions. American also hosted an event called "overcoming procrastination" There were only 4 students there, including myself. I find that surprising, but I certainly got "anonymous support group" vibes from the session. I attended office hours on Thursday as well (....which turned out to not actually be the right office hours, oops), which opened up a series of rabbit holes of international theory. These 20-30min slots help me fill in my knowledge gaps, or even just expand on ideas and viewpoints that I didn't get to in class. PTJ patiently listened to me ramble on and attempt to flesh out my thoughts/understanding of our discussion in class. My opinion is that culture defines society, which in turn structures our politics. We then talked about my definition of culture, and how some of the keywords that I learned so far in the course relate back to my definitions. My favorite part of our discussion was when we mulled over the idea that perhaps international theory is limited due to us always using "mini guidelines" and theoretical boxes that may be restrictive to the advancement of the discipline. PTJ also gave me some background on our reading on Monday's class (10/8). Du Bois was a respected sociologist who was well known (especially in Europe), but was not respected in American circles of academia. I read it while I sat in the doctor's office, and absolutely DEVOURED the piece. His theme of "double consciousness" is something that I can relate back to my own identity. I ended up including Du Bois as a source for a paper that I have to write in a few weeks. Enloe also wrote very compelling material. I'm looking forward to hearing other GloSchos' opinions of the essay. |
AuthorGlobal Scholar. Gullah Girl. Social Entrepreneur. Archives
December 2018
Categories |