Internalize is a word I haven't used, that I can recall. The other day I heard it used in terms of Democracy. One meaning of it is "to make internal, personal, or subjective". This act more than anything else makes democracy possible, making it part of oneself without really thinking about it. Internalized democracy is inherent, a life style, something that is in us permanently, which we don't have to always consciously think about. Having democracy internalized means that it is part of our DNA.
Another word I like is excogitate. It means, "to study intently and carefully in order to grasp or comprehend fully" For those of us who have internalized democracy that means we don't always have to rethink democracy with every political or judicial move we make because it's already in us, excogitated. It also means that if we don't always act democratically we will naturally be pulled back into being democratic because that's the way we are. It becomes like walking or breathing; we don't have to excogitate democratic acts every time we do them. Imagine if we had to excogitate or reinterpret it every time we did it? It would be confusing, chaotic and most likely violent.
Democracy, then, sounds like a very sophisticated system. It is because of the transition it has taken from it being an unnatural state in us to one of being natural, through excogitation and internalization. We were not naturally born democratic but have learned it. But we don't have to relearn it from scratch every time because it is passed down to us by previous generations who have excogitated and internalized it before us. What also makes it a sophisticated system is that it has taken many generations to learn it and put into practices.
It is no wonder then that peoples who have never practiced democracy or acted democratically have such difficulty with it. It takes a long time to become familiar with it. It takes a long time to excogitate and internalize this extremely convoluted system.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Democracy and the arts
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the renowned but now deceased historian, wrote that democracy is impossible without capitalism and the private ownership it affords us "because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom."
Recently I came across a book entitled "Provoking Democracy: Why we need the Arts" by Caroline Levine. Her book provoked a thought in me, that the arts play a role like capitalism. Like capitalism the arts also cultivate an autonomy in people and a personal independence from the state such as Schlesinger describes. The arts also provide a basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom essential to democracy. What the arts engender is the reason why we fine so many Jews in the arts. When in the past Jews were denied participation in the mainstream of society they found accommodation in the arts, which afforded them the self-indulgence and expression they craved. What the Jews found in the arts is a big aspect of what upholds and reinforces democracy - people pursing their own self-interests and freely expressing themselves.
The main thrust of Levine's book is that people should be able to express themselves freely through art, without being harassed or censored. Art provokes democracy because it stimulates debate and deliberation, key ingredients in pursuing and maintaining democracy. For democracy to remain democracy it cannot become static or complacent. As Kant rightly pointed out human have a propensity for laziness and complacency. Thus, it's great to have a vehicle like art around because it constantly provokes, agitates and stimulates, keeping the zealous piety and authoritarianism that can ruin the democratic process at bay. Oscar Wilde was one of those artists who provoked and challenged the powers that be, helping to liberalize society in its thinking so that it be more open, accommodating and democratic.
In his book "What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" Bernard Lewis attributes the nonexistence of democracy in the Arab/Islamic world to the lack of polyphony. Polyphony means many sounds or voices and is generally associated with the arts, mainly the performing arts, like the sounds and voices heard from orchestras and choirs. But Lewis was using it in political terms, as the many voices of diversity and the variety of opinions that facilitate and lubricates the democratic process. In mature democracies democracy could not survive without the many voices of its constituents and the demands those voices places on it. Those many voices keep democracy churning and vital. It is no wonder then that the Arab/Islamic world has a hard time understanding or embracing democracy since the multitude of voices it requires is nonexistent.
How about the arts under communism? The Soviet Union and other communism countries heavily cultivated the performing arts, which also produced a sense of polyphony. So why didn't democracy develop there? Ah, but eventually democracy did come. The arts did help lead to democracy. The cultivation of the arts in communist countries is one of the major things that ultimately led to communism's downfall. Ironically the arts in those countries cultivated the intellectual opposition and freedom that democracy requires. I say it's ironic because the arts cultivated by the communist regimes cultivated the resentment that eventually turned against and overthrew those regimes. The arts in those countries helped cultivate the polyphonic atmosphere and foundation that eventually ushered in democracy.
The more complex a society the better it works. The arts tend to make things more complex. They add additional voices and increase the engagement within a governing system. The more interaction, whether it be in the arts or in any other endeavors like capitalism, the better. The more voices in a system the better it will function. Systems like democracy, especial democracy, require feedback in order to remain fluid, legitimate and vital. The more feedback and deliberation a system gets or receives from its members - the arts, capitalism, the more legitimate and relevant it will be. The arts and it participants certainly engender a lot of feedback.
There are those that bemoan the fact that the arts are depending more on capitalism for their funding. Capitalism sponsors a lot of artistic events. Under communism the arts were funded but the government but there were strings attacked; the arts had to look favorably on the government and never criticize it. There was no artistic freedom under communism, only censorship. However, in the end communism collapsed in spite of it all, because the Soviet state bankrupted itself trying to maintain a bogus, illegitimate governance. Capitalism may sometimes tarnish and taint artistic endeavor but it rarely, if ever, sensors it. On the contrary, capitalism has promoted the arts like nothing else, through the many benefactors and philanthropist it has given birth to.
Recently I came across a book entitled "Provoking Democracy: Why we need the Arts" by Caroline Levine. Her book provoked a thought in me, that the arts play a role like capitalism. Like capitalism the arts also cultivate an autonomy in people and a personal independence from the state such as Schlesinger describes. The arts also provide a basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom essential to democracy. What the arts engender is the reason why we fine so many Jews in the arts. When in the past Jews were denied participation in the mainstream of society they found accommodation in the arts, which afforded them the self-indulgence and expression they craved. What the Jews found in the arts is a big aspect of what upholds and reinforces democracy - people pursing their own self-interests and freely expressing themselves.
The main thrust of Levine's book is that people should be able to express themselves freely through art, without being harassed or censored. Art provokes democracy because it stimulates debate and deliberation, key ingredients in pursuing and maintaining democracy. For democracy to remain democracy it cannot become static or complacent. As Kant rightly pointed out human have a propensity for laziness and complacency. Thus, it's great to have a vehicle like art around because it constantly provokes, agitates and stimulates, keeping the zealous piety and authoritarianism that can ruin the democratic process at bay. Oscar Wilde was one of those artists who provoked and challenged the powers that be, helping to liberalize society in its thinking so that it be more open, accommodating and democratic.
In his book "What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" Bernard Lewis attributes the nonexistence of democracy in the Arab/Islamic world to the lack of polyphony. Polyphony means many sounds or voices and is generally associated with the arts, mainly the performing arts, like the sounds and voices heard from orchestras and choirs. But Lewis was using it in political terms, as the many voices of diversity and the variety of opinions that facilitate and lubricates the democratic process. In mature democracies democracy could not survive without the many voices of its constituents and the demands those voices places on it. Those many voices keep democracy churning and vital. It is no wonder then that the Arab/Islamic world has a hard time understanding or embracing democracy since the multitude of voices it requires is nonexistent.
How about the arts under communism? The Soviet Union and other communism countries heavily cultivated the performing arts, which also produced a sense of polyphony. So why didn't democracy develop there? Ah, but eventually democracy did come. The arts did help lead to democracy. The cultivation of the arts in communist countries is one of the major things that ultimately led to communism's downfall. Ironically the arts in those countries cultivated the intellectual opposition and freedom that democracy requires. I say it's ironic because the arts cultivated by the communist regimes cultivated the resentment that eventually turned against and overthrew those regimes. The arts in those countries helped cultivate the polyphonic atmosphere and foundation that eventually ushered in democracy.
The more complex a society the better it works. The arts tend to make things more complex. They add additional voices and increase the engagement within a governing system. The more interaction, whether it be in the arts or in any other endeavors like capitalism, the better. The more voices in a system the better it will function. Systems like democracy, especial democracy, require feedback in order to remain fluid, legitimate and vital. The more feedback and deliberation a system gets or receives from its members - the arts, capitalism, the more legitimate and relevant it will be. The arts and it participants certainly engender a lot of feedback.
There are those that bemoan the fact that the arts are depending more on capitalism for their funding. Capitalism sponsors a lot of artistic events. Under communism the arts were funded but the government but there were strings attacked; the arts had to look favorably on the government and never criticize it. There was no artistic freedom under communism, only censorship. However, in the end communism collapsed in spite of it all, because the Soviet state bankrupted itself trying to maintain a bogus, illegitimate governance. Capitalism may sometimes tarnish and taint artistic endeavor but it rarely, if ever, sensors it. On the contrary, capitalism has promoted the arts like nothing else, through the many benefactors and philanthropist it has given birth to.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Begging and giving
The other day we were discussing giving money to beggars. Some people think it is our moral duty to give them money. Others think we shouldn't. One person argued that society would be better off if it didn't give money to anybody because that would help and persuade people to stand on their own.
I don't like giving to beggars but I have. I had a beggar (I'd rather call them street people.) who came around regularly for money. In exchange he would do some yard work. However, it got that he was coming too often for money and I told him I felt he was taking advantage of me. So we had to agree on rules, that he would only come every two weeks. Sometimes he broke the rules and I refused to give him money. Nevertheless, he would keep on and plead about how desperately he needed the money. Often I would give in. He would say he needed new shoes or a coat. Sometime I'd curse him and tell him to get lost. Sometimes that worked but most often it didn't. He said that when I yelled at him to go away I scared the hell out of him. Imagine I scaring him! I guess he had feeling too.
On occasions he put himself in rehab for a few months or he would be arrested and thrown in jail. After each incident he would come out a different person, clean and lean. But he always reverted to his old self. That's generally what happens. Sometimes I would tell him he smelt like a barn. He wasn't offended. On the contrary. He'd say to me, you know what I like about you, you're honest and up front. One day he smelt so badly my wife could smell him on the second floor.
Once when I gave him money I saw him jump straight into a taxi. I was livid. The next time I saw him I said, I didn't give you money to jump in a cab but to take care of yourself. Perhaps, though, he had to go to the hospital. During one winter I didn't see him for months. I could have used him to shovel the snow. I said to my wife in a sarcastic tone, I bet he's vacationing in Florida. "No wonder with all the money you give him" she said in an equally sarcastic tone.
My street person knew he was giving me angst. He could see it in my anger towards him sometimes. In view of that he would say, "I am the son you never wanted" He was so right. But what a cheek!
You can imagine the surprise I had the other day when I came downstairs and saw him standing in my store. He told me he had been incarcerated for 16 months. He looked plump and healthy but his teeth were still missing. I didn't ask him why he had been in jail. That slipped my mind due to the shock of seeing him. I told him I thought he was dead. He told me he dreamt I had moved away. Anyway, he told me he was broke and asked me if I could help him. Back to his old self I said. I gave him twenty dollars and he said he would be back to do some work for it. I told him that the same rules apply as before, not that it will make much difference.
There is the belief amongst some that street people should work or be put to work, that they can work like the rest of us. Well, they can't work like the rest of us for several reasons. My theory as to one reason why they can't work is because they've never had the work ethic instilled in them. They didn't have the parents that might have taught them how to apply themselves. My street person only knows a little bit about working and that's it. And in being dependent on others most have become very crafty and charismatic in order to survive.
As the masthead of my blog reads my subject is about democracy. So what does this have to do with democracy? Well, much of democracy has to do with the recognition and upholding of human rights. Human rights means that all people deserve a measure of respect. Street people are human. They deserve a measure of respect.
I don't like giving to beggars but I have. I had a beggar (I'd rather call them street people.) who came around regularly for money. In exchange he would do some yard work. However, it got that he was coming too often for money and I told him I felt he was taking advantage of me. So we had to agree on rules, that he would only come every two weeks. Sometimes he broke the rules and I refused to give him money. Nevertheless, he would keep on and plead about how desperately he needed the money. Often I would give in. He would say he needed new shoes or a coat. Sometime I'd curse him and tell him to get lost. Sometimes that worked but most often it didn't. He said that when I yelled at him to go away I scared the hell out of him. Imagine I scaring him! I guess he had feeling too.
On occasions he put himself in rehab for a few months or he would be arrested and thrown in jail. After each incident he would come out a different person, clean and lean. But he always reverted to his old self. That's generally what happens. Sometimes I would tell him he smelt like a barn. He wasn't offended. On the contrary. He'd say to me, you know what I like about you, you're honest and up front. One day he smelt so badly my wife could smell him on the second floor.
Once when I gave him money I saw him jump straight into a taxi. I was livid. The next time I saw him I said, I didn't give you money to jump in a cab but to take care of yourself. Perhaps, though, he had to go to the hospital. During one winter I didn't see him for months. I could have used him to shovel the snow. I said to my wife in a sarcastic tone, I bet he's vacationing in Florida. "No wonder with all the money you give him" she said in an equally sarcastic tone.
My street person knew he was giving me angst. He could see it in my anger towards him sometimes. In view of that he would say, "I am the son you never wanted" He was so right. But what a cheek!
You can imagine the surprise I had the other day when I came downstairs and saw him standing in my store. He told me he had been incarcerated for 16 months. He looked plump and healthy but his teeth were still missing. I didn't ask him why he had been in jail. That slipped my mind due to the shock of seeing him. I told him I thought he was dead. He told me he dreamt I had moved away. Anyway, he told me he was broke and asked me if I could help him. Back to his old self I said. I gave him twenty dollars and he said he would be back to do some work for it. I told him that the same rules apply as before, not that it will make much difference.
There is the belief amongst some that street people should work or be put to work, that they can work like the rest of us. Well, they can't work like the rest of us for several reasons. My theory as to one reason why they can't work is because they've never had the work ethic instilled in them. They didn't have the parents that might have taught them how to apply themselves. My street person only knows a little bit about working and that's it. And in being dependent on others most have become very crafty and charismatic in order to survive.
As the masthead of my blog reads my subject is about democracy. So what does this have to do with democracy? Well, much of democracy has to do with the recognition and upholding of human rights. Human rights means that all people deserve a measure of respect. Street people are human. They deserve a measure of respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)