Humans are a strange species.We must cooperate in order to exist yet we spend a huge amount of time and energy fighting each other.Some form of government is essential to keep the fighting down and allow the cooperation.This month we discuss Democracy as a form of government.Here are some questions to consider:
What do we mean by Democracy?
Does representative democracy count as Democracy?
What examples of states using pure democracy are there?
What features of a society are required for Democracy to succeed?
Are political parties beneficial or destructive to Democracy?
If Democracy is not the best form of government, then what is?
Sabine's contributions: Systems of government vs. economic systems are things I will likely interchange (like a burr in some of your socks), partially due to a lack of study & insight, partially due to seeing the enmeshed state they co-exist in within groups of people governing or being governed. Capitalism rips at my heart with a ragged, rusty dagger on a daily basis, primarily for its violent impacts on our ecosystems, wildlife, and domesticated animals (food industry, fenced/caged animals, lab animals, etc.). I want the system that governs humans to be less vicious toward ecosystems and animals. I don't pretend to know what that is, but I spend energy desperately wanting it to exist. Instinctually I know this would equate with massive control to curb our overt and repressed desires for domination and power over each other, over the environment, and over other species. Controlling a populace, even if that were in the hands of the kind, gentle, critically thinking, and good (which it never is) would never work since so much repression of human impulses would lead to a worsening of our natures in the controlled populace (as we can see by the repression the Trumpsters have been dealing with in having to play P.C., non-racist, critically thinking, humane, mannered for all these years when they weren't at all). Obviously unchecked human impulses (our present capitalistic approaches) also don't seem to satiate us, so what is there to do but try for more curbing and control? If the masses and popular vote (if it were even honored) get to be in charge through elected representatives in a democracy, do I really want that? Probably not, because the majority do not seem to hold among their primary concerns that we have intact ecostystems, flourishing wildlife, a less human-centric approach, and reduced human impact. I don't trust a human-centric government or economic system, whether that is democracy, socialist, or the worse options. For this reason, I think we are asking the wrong question here in great part. Is democracy the best system of government? should be replaced with What is the best system of governing the human populace so it doesn't ever trump all the other species vying for space, life, and ease? I hope to learn through the more schooled people in this banter collective which form of government might even have a chance at addressing that last question. I'll chime in at banter night accordingly with questions and concerns from this standpoint. I am presently teaching 1984, The Handmaid's Tale, Beloved, and Brave New World via Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytic, and deconstructionist lenses, so believe me I well know what controlling the populace might result in; utopias for some only seem to create dystopias for the many when humans are involved. On the side, partially related to my threads of concern here, I'm reading The Monkey Wrench Gang and an old book with similar aim, except paired with super-plants that are aggressively taking back the planet at a rate the humans can't deal with, Rumors of Spring. One can hope.
In case you think I've given up on humans, I'm a big fan and a member of the Oxford Union, the very seed which began these banter nights eight years ago. Here are two speakers from different recent debates at the Oxford Union. One is debating that Democracy is For Sale, which speaks to my concerns that democracy ever will be too tied to capitalism for my tastes and sensibilities. The other is debating that Socialism Does Work (the last of eight people arguing that night - please see full debate on YouTube as my primary contribution to this topic; the opposition is superb). This debate over socialism nods at my hopes that a capitalist approach could be undone and that we are capable of being altruistic more often than we currently are, but doesn't address my concerns that humans would still be worrying only about humans in a socialist state, and not the rest of the planet's species' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Andrew Rosindell, MP, the first speaker for the Socialism Does NOT Work side, would call my trains of thoughts here ideological and simply balderdash, and he is probably correct. Theodore Dalrymple, the second speaker for Socialism Does NOT Work, is brilliant, speaking further to the fact that socialism requires us all to be altruistic all of the time (which isn't possible, therefore resulting in the North Koreas, Cubas, etc. of the world trying to force us into altruism), and here too is the flaw with all my ecosystem concerns above. Yet, hope for altruism & ecosystem I will continue to do, even if I did cast my vote to the side I'd rather not in this debate (socialism does not work; they did a better job at the debate). Which brings me to my whimpering, deflated response to our debate/banter question at hand, Is democracy the best system of government? Probably yes, due to our human nature. Though, as Katy Clark, former Labour MP, points out in the third speech for socialism, democratic capitalism offers much less quality of life than democratic socialism to anyone outside of the top 1-10%, which is why when you look around you in the UK or the USA at the humane, decent, diversified circumstances we all enjoy most about our communities, there you find socialist ideals at work, just ask a family with blacklung or research the formerly imprisoned miners of Scotland, what has helped and what has hurt their conditions of life? Surely not democratic capitalism, even if Trump has much of the working class duped for the moment. My hope in signing onto democratic socialism as a model is that once the humans are all treated well enough to care, conditions for animals and conditions of ecosystems they dominate over will further improve, with what we have left at that point that is.
Mitch's Contribution:
I’m looking forward to this discussion. For all the topics we have done, we have never, really, bantered about government or economics.
To my mind, whether a democracy succeeds, or not, depends, largely, on what form of economy it has (and how regulated and representative it is).
I believe that unregulated capitalist democracies are destined to move towards a modern form of feudalism. Greed and corruption eventually funnel the vast majority of the wealth into the hands of a few individuals (and corporations...who are considered ‘people’, now, too). The political and wealthy classes become the nobles and lords and the middle and lower classes become the peasants and serfs. Land ownership is still important but, unlike medieval feudalism, power and prestige come more from owning the means of production or having accumulated wealth (largely, through family inheritance or political kickbacks).
This is only a new idea, to me, I’m sure. I’ve recently read some long form articles and watched many hours of videos and lectures on the topic. They are all too long and complex to share here.
The following video is a biased opinion piece from RT (Russian Television) on the pitfalls of Democratic capitalism. Ha.
Bias aside, it is the best primer that I could find that summarizes the ‘corporate feudalism’ theory in the shortest amount of time. It's pessimistic. but I do believe that, in the future, after we all band together to fight off our sentient robot overlords, and win that war, that the human race will learn to govern itself in a more socially responsible manner.
Though my contribution strays into economics, to some degree, I look forward to hearing others thoughts on the interesting democratic governance questions that were posed. _________________________________________ Jivan's contribution:
"I think that since humans are part of any government it is flawed. It is just a system made up of rotten parts. Here is the bigger question: Is my own system of psychology in the best operating condition? Each individual needs to understand how their mind operates. Once we label anything we are completely caught by the world of memory reacting automatically to emotions. Political speeches and corporation advertising are geared to trigger us so we vote in a certain way or purchase a product. We are controlled.
The solution. Stay mindfully in direct experience. Don't let go of the label, but don't get attached! The biggest label is "I". We use it so much we think it is real, but it is a fleeting concept. If you ask, "Who am I?" you realize that there is no answer. Stay in not knowing. Blur subject and object. This allows for more empathy. You realize the environment, the deer and the wolf are unknown and beautiful essences. Getting a lot of stuff for our "self" (which is just an impermanent idea) is stupid. It doesn't make us happy." _______________________________ Nia's contribution (can't come but will someday):
Thought you might like these two essays on the subject of democracy, to share with the group if you like:
Socrates says that universal suffrage leads to disaster.
_________________________________
Mike's & Jill's additional thoughts:
Since the first governments appeared about 5000 years ago,
humanity has tried to steer a course between the violence of anarchy and the
violence of tyranny.In the absence of a
government or powerfulneighbors tribal
peoples tend to fall into cycles of raiding and feuding with death rates
exceeding those of modern societies, even including their most violent
eras.Early governments pacified the
people they ruled reducing internecine violence, but imposed a reign of terror
that included slavery, harems, human sacrifice, summary executions, and the
torture and mutilation of dissidents and deviants.(The bible has no shortage of examples.)
One can think of democracy as a form of government that
threads the needle, exerting just enough force to prevent people from preying
on each other without preying on the people themselves.A good democratic government allows people to
pursue their lives in safety. Protected from the violence of anarchy, and in
freedom, protected from the violence of tyranny.
Karl Popper argued that democracy should be understood not
as the answer to the question “Who should rule?” (namely “The People”}, but a
solution to the problem of how to dismiss bad leadership without
bloodshed.The political scientist, John
Mueller, suggests that democracy comes about when the people effectively agree
not to use violence to replace the leadership, and the leadership leaves them
free to try to dislodge it by any other means.
The above paragraphs are slightly edited versions of
material from Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now.
Jill and Mike would like to remind people that this topic
was motivated by the article about de Tocqueville’s views on democracy which
was included in Sabine’s announcement of the topic.
Summer ending means banter restarting.
While I'm sad that the season to "singest of summer in full-throated
ease" is passing, and crestfallen to see "the
true, the blushful Hippocrene" go, I'm really looking forward
to seeing you all amid cool, earlier-darkened autumn evenings (Keats).
Though we usually pick a topic as a group, I'm going to be presumptuous and
just pick one this time to get the ball rolling along again.
The varying deeper conversations I've been having
the past few days have all revolved around perceptions, assumptions, bias,
intentions, the unspoken, the unedited, he said/she said, the ways language
falls short or nails it just so, modes of operation, vantage points,
personality types, love languages, communication styles, levels of analysis, levels of intimacy, and all the ways that
we each operate with seemingly different or amazingly similar processors as
those around us. This tricky navigation with others is pressing with political
divides, of course, and the country is ripe for figuring out how to navigate
our differing m.o.'s there. As well, with our closest friends, dating,
partners, family relationships, and work relationships, how often or how steady
do we grow in that navigation, and how often do we muddle through mostly
unchanged since our first chat, defaulting back to our own modus operandi vs.
adopting aspects of the modus operandi from the one across from us?
How is it that we ever manage to communicate a message clearly
outside of our own interior landscape, in fact? Derrida's "Différance" may come in handy in
taking a look at how language's limitations play a significant role in this
(though a good PhD lit. friend recently said of him, "Derrida can kiss my
derriere"). The Baker/baker paradox might be fun to peek at
too.
Then there are the more popular-sourced, mass-marketed
the four+ learning
styles, and so on. Try out identifying yourself in each of
these links; they are mostly more satisfying than consulting your
horoscope. Get curious about the differences from those closest to you,
and how this plays out in the dynamic.
And, of course, where did all of these influences
and patterns come from? Who brought you into being an
analytically-expressive communicating, quality-time loving, ENFP, visual
learner, and why were you not consulted? Differing cultural and
historical/generational context can create one set of communication barriers,
yet even within a family system where contexts are very shared, communication barriers are frequent.
For those of us who mistrust emotion in favor of logic, or
vice versa, there is Jon
Kabbat Zinn's (MBSR) and other mindfulness practitioners' concepts
of being aware that neither the emotions nor the thinking can be relied upon or
viewed as much more than passing clouds across an otherwise vast, calm sky of
the truer self; this truer self can observe the mind's ways and the ways of the
emotions with some objectivity (metacognition), especially developed through
practice. Does metacognition have a love language or personality type or
is it a blank canvas? What does spending time in a state of metacognition do for relationships?
What does identifying our own communication/personality/learning/love/perceptual
languages do or have the potential to do when engaging with others? Does much
change happen for our modes of thinking/loving/expressing if we study the
different modes to think, to love, to learn, to express, to be mindful?
Or does winging it with the skills acquired via family upbringing,
cultural/historical context, and other random influences have similar results
in the end, due to the deep psychological wiring of our m.o.?
It always helps me to sidestep thinking that
anything we feel/think/do is very specific to humans; we are not somehow
feeling/thinking/doing in ways that are vastly different than our mammal
affiliates feel/think/do. Consider how a grizzly bear moves through its
habitat and how it deals with coming across other bears; or, consider dogs at
the dog park, if bear behavior is not your strong point. They navigate
all sorts of personality styles, body language styles, mannerisms,
love/loyalty/mistreated traits, learning styles, pack dynamics, etc. as they sort each other
out at the doggie park. Consider too what teeth shown and direct eye
contact mean to a dog, vs. what they have come to mean to humans; yet, we still
have to override the mistrust of the stranger or new person in our territory,
just as the dogs do in the dog park via their initial tentative approach,
followed by "meh," "yikes," or "yay, let's play!"
As mindfulness
gets at the idea of the mind being thinking/emotions crossing like clouds across
a sky, there is a cognitive psychology concept that purports that mind is not
separate from the body. Take a look at the idea of "embodied mind" from UK/Euro cognitive
psychologists. The concept of the "embodied mind" or "embodied
cognition" holds that the nature of the […] mind is largely determined by
the form of the […] body. The aspects of the body include the motor system,
the perceptual system, the body's interactions with the environment
(situatedness), and the ontological assumptions about the world that are built
into body and brain" (Jarman Lab).
I hope you'll take these loose threads and find something cohesive
to weave with them. You folks in the group who are not long-winded, and
meandering in your approach, I did my best to pin down - what is our topic?! -
via the subject line: How do we impact and reach each other despite
Différance? This could be phrased as: How do we navigate the modus operandi x2 (or levels of
analysis, or levels of emotion, or personalities, or barriers in place...) within a relationship
to arrive to shared, barrier-reduced exchange? For those who meander too,
the body of this blog post is for you!
After you've made sense of your approach with
this topic, spend some quality time with the linked throughout the above post. If you want to add materials, please send those my way by early September & I'll add them to the blog post below. Then let's
meet and discuss the ideas at hand on a mid-September evening, despite Derrida's disbelief that we ever
could find cohesion or clear conveyance of anything based on language, as if
there even is such a thing as cohesion or meaning anymore (post-structuralists,
bah!). Derrida can kiss your derriere too, if you'd like.
"Marilynne Robinson’s Pulitzer Prize and National Book Critic Circle Award winning novel introduces us to the fictional town of Gilead, Iowa. We hear the gentle voice of the narrator, the ageing Rev. John Ames, as he writes a letter to his seven-year-old son Robby, leaving a legacy of family heritage, love, forgiveness, and serenity."
