Hi Evan
1. I'm e-mailing about your final essay. Brad and I divvied up the final essay proposals, and I'm e-mailing each student whose proposal I have. Sections 1 and 2 are identical in all of my e-mails, whereas section 3 addresses your particular proposal.
2. The final essay assignment says that the "central problem for these essays is simple enough: to what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?" As with the research essay, your final essay should not be just a description or report on the topic. Your paper should be argumentative. There should be a thesis that you defend. Quoting once again from the assignment, "your job is to pick some area in which you think the notions of time and progress are particularly complicated or interesting. ... As the syllabus explains, we're particularly interested in topics that will allow you to 'relate modern ambivalence about [progress] to its complicated history.'"
3. I don't know the details, of course, of how you will develop this, but it sounds like a fascinating thesis. A powerful nation's concept of progress may lead to war with a nation that doesn't share that concept. I can certainly see parallels between the British Imperial era and the present. I think particularly of General Gordon in the Sudan being overwhelmed the forces of the Mahdi, a man claiming to be the Islamic Messiah, and then Kitchner's Anglo-Egyptian army crushing the Mahdi. And then there's the present unhappy day. Is that the sort of thing you are planning?
I have two minor comments/questions about word usages in your proposal. 1) In what sense can a third-world nation be a counterpart of a Western nation? The Taliban is certainly an opponent, but I wouldn't describe that group as a counterpart. 2) The other is about the phrase political violence. Is progress a political concept? Progress seems to me something broader than politics. If it is, and if it leads to violence, the notion that the violence is political seems to me too narrow.
What sources do you have?
JBT
To what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?
Final Paper
IS 2001-Section 2, Fall ‘05/Political Violence, Fall ‘05
Evan Mowry
In this paper, I will attempt to outline a new theory of progress; not a new understanding of the inherent nature of progress, but a theory of its effect upon the world. This perspective, which I will label progressionism, for lack of a more suitable term, views events happening at every level of humans’ lives as primarily motivated by consonant or dissonant concepts of progress. The extent to which we are living with worldview change brought about by the industrial revolution is extensive, and I will examine contemporary conflicts over “progress” and draw parallels between them and turn of the century models of progress. Further, this essay is itself, essentially, an attempt to build upon, extend, and amend former models. The primary empirical focus of this paper is the conflict over Globalization and its familiar concepts: Democracy, Free Trade, etc.
In order to outline what is an apparently new perspective, clarifications must be made of certain terms that may have become distorted, or distortions must be made of certain accepted terms. For the following pages, please read the following terms not as what you previously thought of them, but what they are defined as here.
Historically, progress has been a rather slippery term, which contributes to its seemingly broad, but actually rather specific definition within1 progressionism. Progressionism views progress as a concept of the past and present, and more importantly, the future. Furthermore, progress, while being an objective concept as an extant abstract, is a highly subjective perspective when applied to the real world. The best analogy that comes to mind is that of a vehicle; there is one thing a vehicle must do, and that is transport or allow for the transportation of something. However, were one to ask another for an example of a vehicle, responses would vary widely, from something as obvious as an automobile to something as subtle as a road. Within the framework of the above example, and continuing on throughout the paper, “progress” will take the place of vehicle, and “progress ideals” will take the place of the myriad individual responses, such as cars and roads.
Progressionism has a much broader concept of politics than is currently fashionable; it does not limit politics in a society to city councils, or dictators, or international trade agreements. Politics is the everyday interplay of multiple progress ideals, at all levels of human behavior. International trade agreements are certainly political, as are classroom discussions, as are religious gatherings; playground antics as well are political.
Progressionism does not take a positive or negative view of progress, but instead classifies it merely as change that is perceived negatively or positively by different people. Progressive ideals always advocate some level of change in the future. This is not to say that conflict cannot arise from a progressive ideal and traditionalist ideals: people disagree just as much over the benefits or consequences of change as they do what sort of change should happen.
The two hundred-some year span of the Industrial Revolution has had two main effects. Primarily, it vocalized progress as an objective concept. Individuals during the turn of the century most likely didn’t view it this way, but for an unclear reason: perhaps it was the amount of minds focusing on the future as an attainable goal; perhaps it was the anthropological comparison of “primitive” cultures to those of Europe and the United States, a sense of possible betterment was engendered. For the first time, people began to think about the future as a “better” place than the present. Perhaps individual progress ideals were technological; perhaps social, some were undoubtedly spiritual, but whatever path they took, they all saw the next day, month, year, or century as a potentially better “place” in time than their current state.
Secondly, Colonialism was, in effect, the grandfather of the current state of our world. The domination of resources outside of traditional borders allowed for more colonies, and hence more economic development. This evolved, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, into Imperialism, as influxes of resources graduated from a part of the great game of nation states to the game of nation states due to the polarizing, and admittedly invigorating, effect of industry on governments’ policies, and is currently manifested as Globalism, which is essentially a reincarnation of Colonialism.
In the period of time since the Industrial Revolution, the United States of America has emerged as the Global superpower of the day, much as Britain was 100 years ago. American corporations such as WalMart, as a matter of course, purchase low-cost goods or services from countries with weaker economies-per-capita (WalMart has the dubious distinction of importing 10% of US imports from China in 2002 alone (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html)), and profit from them by re-selling them in the markets of stronger economies (primarily Europe, the United States, and Canada), with little benefit to China or other comparable countries. Further, Globalism has combined the Colonial ideal of massive influxes of raw or semi-complete material from less-developed nations with classical liberal free-market theory, which has the effect of expanding consumer markets to every locale possible. Companies like WalMart and McDonald’s are no longer “American” companies, in that they sell their product or service to citizens of many nations: McDonald’s website asks visitors to select their “country/market” from a list of 62 nations.
This globalization of trade has the effect of introducing (and in many minds, forcing) Western culture into societies that want little or no part of it. The introduction of America-provided jobs to a developing or third-world nation is often a double-edged sword, as the companies do not pay “American” wages (which would almost always be higher) and promote Western free-market ideals, western eating habits, and, most importantly, western progress ideals.
Is this, then, progress? From the perspective of a stereotypical American, of course it is. Globalism means that, in the future, goods will be cheaper, standards of living will be higher, democracy (our championed political system) will engender peaceful resolution of disagreement between nations and ethnic groups previously at odds, and philosophical conclusions that have been accepted by our country such as racial, gender, and economic equality will be accepted by the whole world. After all, once a hungry person discovers a new, good, food source (a fruit, if you will, for dramatic symbolism) isn’t it natural to share that fruit with those they love or depend upon?
Progressionism does not judge these progress ideals. The cynical tone of the previous paragraph was to illustrate that, in keeping with the idea that progress has no absolute positive value, it is simply change. Gender equality is a welcome change to most Americans, but many, less “advanced” cultures would see it as unnatural. It is in these cultural clashes between American or Western philosophical progress ideals and those of the rest of the world that a new, Cold War-esque conflict has arisen. Those who disagree with any of these tenants of the American progress ideal will likely fight back in order to maintain their current state or to unseat the future that Globalism has set and replace it with their own.
1. I'm e-mailing about your final essay. Brad and I divvied up the final essay proposals, and I'm e-mailing each student whose proposal I have. Sections 1 and 2 are identical in all of my e-mails, whereas section 3 addresses your particular proposal.
2. The final essay assignment says that the "central problem for these essays is simple enough: to what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?" As with the research essay, your final essay should not be just a description or report on the topic. Your paper should be argumentative. There should be a thesis that you defend. Quoting once again from the assignment, "your job is to pick some area in which you think the notions of time and progress are particularly complicated or interesting. ... As the syllabus explains, we're particularly interested in topics that will allow you to 'relate modern ambivalence about [progress] to its complicated history.'"
3. I don't know the details, of course, of how you will develop this, but it sounds like a fascinating thesis. A powerful nation's concept of progress may lead to war with a nation that doesn't share that concept. I can certainly see parallels between the British Imperial era and the present. I think particularly of General Gordon in the Sudan being overwhelmed the forces of the Mahdi, a man claiming to be the Islamic Messiah, and then Kitchner's Anglo-Egyptian army crushing the Mahdi. And then there's the present unhappy day. Is that the sort of thing you are planning?
I have two minor comments/questions about word usages in your proposal. 1) In what sense can a third-world nation be a counterpart of a Western nation? The Taliban is certainly an opponent, but I wouldn't describe that group as a counterpart. 2) The other is about the phrase political violence. Is progress a political concept? Progress seems to me something broader than politics. If it is, and if it leads to violence, the notion that the violence is political seems to me too narrow.
What sources do you have?
JBT
To what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?
Final Paper
IS 2001-Section 2, Fall ‘05/Political Violence, Fall ‘05
Evan Mowry
In this paper, I will attempt to outline a new theory of progress; not a new understanding of the inherent nature of progress, but a theory of its effect upon the world. This perspective, which I will label progressionism, for lack of a more suitable term, views events happening at every level of humans’ lives as primarily motivated by consonant or dissonant concepts of progress. The extent to which we are living with worldview change brought about by the industrial revolution is extensive, and I will examine contemporary conflicts over “progress” and draw parallels between them and turn of the century models of progress. Further, this essay is itself, essentially, an attempt to build upon, extend, and amend former models. The primary empirical focus of this paper is the conflict over Globalization and its familiar concepts: Democracy, Free Trade, etc.
In order to outline what is an apparently new perspective, clarifications must be made of certain terms that may have become distorted, or distortions must be made of certain accepted terms. For the following pages, please read the following terms not as what you previously thought of them, but what they are defined as here.
Historically, progress has been a rather slippery term, which contributes to its seemingly broad, but actually rather specific definition within1 progressionism. Progressionism views progress as a concept of the past and present, and more importantly, the future. Furthermore, progress, while being an objective concept as an extant abstract, is a highly subjective perspective when applied to the real world. The best analogy that comes to mind is that of a vehicle; there is one thing a vehicle must do, and that is transport or allow for the transportation of something. However, were one to ask another for an example of a vehicle, responses would vary widely, from something as obvious as an automobile to something as subtle as a road. Within the framework of the above example, and continuing on throughout the paper, “progress” will take the place of vehicle, and “progress ideals” will take the place of the myriad individual responses, such as cars and roads.
Progressionism has a much broader concept of politics than is currently fashionable; it does not limit politics in a society to city councils, or dictators, or international trade agreements. Politics is the everyday interplay of multiple progress ideals, at all levels of human behavior. International trade agreements are certainly political, as are classroom discussions, as are religious gatherings; playground antics as well are political.
Progressionism does not take a positive or negative view of progress, but instead classifies it merely as change that is perceived negatively or positively by different people. Progressive ideals always advocate some level of change in the future. This is not to say that conflict cannot arise from a progressive ideal and traditionalist ideals: people disagree just as much over the benefits or consequences of change as they do what sort of change should happen.
The two hundred-some year span of the Industrial Revolution has had two main effects. Primarily, it vocalized progress as an objective concept. Individuals during the turn of the century most likely didn’t view it this way, but for an unclear reason: perhaps it was the amount of minds focusing on the future as an attainable goal; perhaps it was the anthropological comparison of “primitive” cultures to those of Europe and the United States, a sense of possible betterment was engendered. For the first time, people began to think about the future as a “better” place than the present. Perhaps individual progress ideals were technological; perhaps social, some were undoubtedly spiritual, but whatever path they took, they all saw the next day, month, year, or century as a potentially better “place” in time than their current state.
Secondly, Colonialism was, in effect, the grandfather of the current state of our world. The domination of resources outside of traditional borders allowed for more colonies, and hence more economic development. This evolved, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, into Imperialism, as influxes of resources graduated from a part of the great game of nation states to the game of nation states due to the polarizing, and admittedly invigorating, effect of industry on governments’ policies, and is currently manifested as Globalism, which is essentially a reincarnation of Colonialism.
In the period of time since the Industrial Revolution, the United States of America has emerged as the Global superpower of the day, much as Britain was 100 years ago. American corporations such as WalMart, as a matter of course, purchase low-cost goods or services from countries with weaker economies-per-capita (WalMart has the dubious distinction of importing 10% of US imports from China in 2002 alone (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html)), and profit from them by re-selling them in the markets of stronger economies (primarily Europe, the United States, and Canada), with little benefit to China or other comparable countries. Further, Globalism has combined the Colonial ideal of massive influxes of raw or semi-complete material from less-developed nations with classical liberal free-market theory, which has the effect of expanding consumer markets to every locale possible. Companies like WalMart and McDonald’s are no longer “American” companies, in that they sell their product or service to citizens of many nations: McDonald’s website asks visitors to select their “country/market” from a list of 62 nations.
This globalization of trade has the effect of introducing (and in many minds, forcing) Western culture into societies that want little or no part of it. The introduction of America-provided jobs to a developing or third-world nation is often a double-edged sword, as the companies do not pay “American” wages (which would almost always be higher) and promote Western free-market ideals, western eating habits, and, most importantly, western progress ideals.
Is this, then, progress? From the perspective of a stereotypical American, of course it is. Globalism means that, in the future, goods will be cheaper, standards of living will be higher, democracy (our championed political system) will engender peaceful resolution of disagreement between nations and ethnic groups previously at odds, and philosophical conclusions that have been accepted by our country such as racial, gender, and economic equality will be accepted by the whole world. After all, once a hungry person discovers a new, good, food source (a fruit, if you will, for dramatic symbolism) isn’t it natural to share that fruit with those they love or depend upon?
Progressionism does not judge these progress ideals. The cynical tone of the previous paragraph was to illustrate that, in keeping with the idea that progress has no absolute positive value, it is simply change. Gender equality is a welcome change to most Americans, but many, less “advanced” cultures would see it as unnatural. It is in these cultural clashes between American or Western philosophical progress ideals and those of the rest of the world that a new, Cold War-esque conflict has arisen. Those who disagree with any of these tenants of the American progress ideal will likely fight back in order to maintain their current state or to unseat the future that Globalism has set and replace it with their own.
posted by evan at 4:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home