Dragon2003-ga,
Here are my thoughts as they pertain to your essay assignment. I hope
they are of use to you, and help you in focusing your own thoughts on
the subject. If you need any follow-up information, please let me
know by posting a Request for Clarification, and I will be glad to
assist you further.
1. Is this statement true?
On the one hand, it seems self-evident that people will have different
perspectives, values and interpretations when responding to an issue
of any kind, whether political, economic, moral, etc. Even the
smallest unit of social interaction -- two people -- are prone to
disagreements, no matter how similar they are, or how tightly bound
they may be to one another. It's a simple matter of common sense that
if two people will have inevitable disagreements -- then twenty, or
two thousand, or two million people can only multiply the level of
complexity. Controversy is inherent in the human condition.
In fact, it can be argued that the very root of civilized society
itself was the communal recognition that some sort of social structure
was necessary with which to resolve controversies as they arose.
On the other hand, many of the societies that did come into being --
historically, as well as in the modern world -- practiced a level of
repression deliberately meant to stifle self-expression and social
controversy. In these societies, it can be said that the premise of
this essay does not really hold true. Whatever the "array" of
perspectives and opinions that people may have held in, say, Nazi
Germany, very little of it was expressed in public discourse, at least
not internally in the country itself.
However, even in the case of dictatorships, controversies still seem
inevitable, if not internally, than from the external differences of
perspective that arise. Both Hitler in the 1940's and Saddam Hussein
more recently ran their countries with an iron hand that made
experssion of any sentiment but the "party line" a dangerous act for
an individual. But neither dictator could escape the "differences of
opinion" of other countries, differences that eventually put an end to
their reigns of terror.
So it does seem, when looked at broadly, that the overall statement is
true, at least at the national and international levels, although it
is possible to repress its inevitability for a time at the local
level.
2. How has the situation changed throughout history.
The invention of modern democracy in 18th century America gave a
certain credence to the value of public controversy. Much as Adam
Smith saw economic organization and social benefit arise from the
seemingly random, self-interested choices of countless individuals,
political observers saw the value of allowing -- even encouraging --
individual expression, despite the common fear that empowering the
"rabble" could produce nothing but chaos.
Thomas Jefferson was one of those who gave voice to the belief that
each individual should be encouraged to inform himself and contribute
to public discourse, especially through the functioning of a free
press. He wrote:
"I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always
be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but
will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their
governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true
principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely
would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way
to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give
them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public
papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole
mass of the people."
[from Thomas Jefferson letter to Edward Carrington 16 Jan. 1787]
Jefferson continues his letter to Carrington with one of his most
memorable quotes:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the
very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me
to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or
newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to
prefer the latter."
Here we have the leader of the young American republic arguing
forcefully that people have a right and responsibility to inform
themselves, and to voice their opinions, with the aim of holding their
leadership accountable. It's a sure formula for fomenting differences
of opinion, but it lies at the foundation of the modern idea of
democracy.
3. Has electronic communication changed the state of affairs at all?
The access to information and the public discourse envisioned by
Jefferson and others has been greatly augmented in recent decades by
the development of the Internet, and other forms of global-scale
information. Electronic access to information has even given rise to
new forms of grassroots organizing and activism. The popular
environmental slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally" has taken on new
meaning, as people -- with the push of a "Send" button -- can
communicate instantaneously with tens of thousands of like-minded
individuals all over the world.
The effect of this has been, in some sense, to seemingly increase the
chaotic nature of public debate, as more people than ever before can
participate more quickly than even before by communicating with
government officials, alerting the press to the latest issues,
organizing protests or other campaigns, and so on.
Where this will all lead is really too soon to say, but it seems clear
that the electronic exchange of information has become an important
and permanent aspect of public discourse in the 21st century.
4. What about 9-11? Has that changed things?
There is certainly a good deal of concern in the post-9/11 age, that
information will not flow as freely, and differences of opinion too
far from the mainstream will not be so readily tolerated. These are
-- and to my mind, should be -- very real concerns. But at the same
time, it also seems clear that democratic principles of public
involvment in the issues of the day -- whether environmental, moral,
political, economic, or any other sphere of human interest -- have
reached deep into more countries than ever before. I believe our
collective tolerance for vigorously debating these many issues has
been tested by recent history. And I also believe we will
collectively pass the test, and continue down the path of increasing
complexity, and increasing democracy, as the world's many social
systems continue to evolve. |
,
0 Comments
)