| | |
|
ExplainingWhatISaidInClassToday 8 - 09 Feb 2009 - Main.KeithEdelman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OnWhyIDoNotSpeakInClass" |
|---|
I could put this post under the OnWhyIAmReluctantToTalkInClass parent topic; I think it became obvious today that I usually keep quiet because my brain-to-mouth filter is very porous and speaking one’s mind is too often a bad idea. | | | I actually think that privilege can be finite. Isn't scarcity of resources the basic assumption in economics? For example, there is not infinite number of colleges, if you consider education as "privilege." I believe that the tension between the privileged class and the underprivileged class, in which the privileged class is trying to guard their privilege, is one of the most recurring patterns in the history. However, I think good can still come out even when you perceive your privilege as finite. Granted, some people have more privilege than they need, and if diminishing marginal utility is ever true and people realize that, then privilege can be shared. I saw statistics that there are 300 million children in the world who never owned a pair of shoes. Projects that give used shoes that people donate to these children can be a small example of how people can share their resources when they have more than they need…
-- EstherKwak - 09 Feb 2009 | |
>
> | Upon first glance of Joseph's post, I wondered why exactly it is "irresponsible" for privileged persons to not acknowledge their artificial status. I thought that if an entitled person still gives back to his/her community, still strives to do well to help those that haven't worked as hard (as the ignorant person might assume), what is the wrong with this? I immediately thought of Holmes' classic point that things are not what they are called, but are what they do. To my mind, the "irresponsible" argument did not falter because it assumes the existence of a correct view. Rather, I thought that the argument does not succeed because there was no functional backing behind the claim that unawareness is bad.
After re-reading and further analysis, I find that I come to the same conclusion, but through slightly different reasoning (similar to the second half of Joseph's first theory). In my judgment, the unaware, privileged person does not normally behave as I described above. Surely there are counter-examples, but I believe that success generally promotes an "us vs. them" mentality - similar to that described by Arnold - which does not promote positive social action. Becoming aware evokes our emotions (such as compassion or outrage at the situation) that overcome our disaffection towards the situations of others. In other words, being unaware is “bad” because it prevents humans from acting in a socially constructive manner that can materialize through awareness. The anticipated response would be similar to Joseph’s second formulation that awareness can in fact foster “hoarding” and less social action.
I am not positive, however, that the aware elite hoard more than the unaware. If the egotist believes that the unprivileged are simply “not trying as hard”, wouldn’t he still try to protect his interests against the striving poor? If the unaware truly believe that everything is a matter of choice, I think they might still try to “hoard” as much as an informed elite, perhaps even more so. For me, the bigger problem posed by awareness is the “bonkers” consequence that Arnold supports. To me, whether this outweighs the positive effects (with respect to both justice and distribution of wealth) of becoming aware is still not settled.
-- KeithEdelman - 09 Feb 2009 | | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |