| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | |
| | Contributing Member of Society
-- By LissetteDuran - 16 Feb 2012 |
|
>
> | I have lived in a one-bedroom apartment with four other people.
And I have fallen asleep to the gentle sway of my classmate’s yacht.
I have gone hungry.
And I have had dinner with President Clinton at Madison Square Garden.
I have had to share textbooks in a classroom of 40 students.
And I have watched the stars, in astronomy class, through my personally assigned telescope. |
| | |
|
<
< | Introduction
We all want to be contributing members of society. It is one of those lofty goals like equality and world peace. But what does it actually mean? How can we contribute? And, does everyone?
Absolute Society
It is hard to believe that we all belong to one great club where admission is free and exclusion is based on the sentiments of the whole. Yet, we often refer to one large society. I take it that this society is very much like Robinson’s civilization. It is some type of “idealized sense of what makes us human.” But what are these ideal factors that make us one society? Are they shared beliefs, goals, or understandings? If we look to our political discourse today, it would be difficult to pinpoint which one of these we would agree on.
Why is the content of
political discourse a useful way to establish the boundaries of
social structure? I don't feel any less part of the same society as
Republicans or Conservatives who inhabit Manhattan than Democrats or
Socialists. Whether I am part of the same society as Texans, on the
other hand.....
I think we have tricked ourselves into thinking that we can be joined as one absolute society. We hold this society sacred. For us, it sits next to absolute truth and absolute justice as the attainable end of an eternal struggle. Because to concede that as a people we are fragmented and can have irreconcilable differences would be to undermine our idealized notion of how we progress. We need to think that we move as one and that no one is left behind. So, we believe that we progress as a "people", or as "Americans", or as any other extremely large grouping. When in reality, we progress as individuals and as small societies. Some get far in life and some inevitably die out. Our progression and success is measured in relation to those of others.
Our belief in one society is therefore ungrounded. To say that we progress as one would go against how we measure progress. We are a conglomeration of societies. And as a whole, we share nothing but space.
I don't see the
"thereforeness" about this. I didn't read an argument, just a series
of assertions, some prefaced by "I think," and some not. I don't
know that these formulations are wrong any more than I know they are
right. If you want to depend on them, you should support them
somehow.
Multiple Societies
If we are just various different societies in proximity, then the question becomes to which societies do we belong? I believe that we are all born into a society. As we mature and create relationships, we become members of others. As the number of your individual memberships grow, it becomes more difficult to maintain the memberships of the previous societies. This cycle is inevitable. Yet, we are judged by our handling of it. With each new membership comes a test of belonging.
Given these
difficulties, why haven't you defined "society"? It seems to me you
are deliberately using it in a non-standard
way. |
>
> | I have done a lot of things. But no one experience, event, or interest defines me. I believed that in law school I would acquire more interests and find more ways to get involved and learn. Yet the mythical dichotomy that exists here is daunting. Not only do they make you believe that you have to choose one—either public interest or corporate law—but you also have to choose quickly. It seems as though students’ minds are made up as soon as they pick up their CLS book bag from orientation. |
| | |
|
<
< | Now at the end of my schooling, I am dealing with these tests. Although I think that memberships can be held simultaneously, this conception is challenged on a daily basis. I am a part of the Columbia society yet, I am still part of the Washington Heights society. I am part of the rich schooling society but I am still a member of the poor. But I can no longer traverse these societies seamlessly. The memberships I have added on often create tension with my previous ones. I find this tension mostly when reconciling my home society with my school one. Right now, I am part of the Columbia society. I am the privileged law student tackling the questions our very expensive law books create for us. But right outside, is my other society. This one is less privileged. It is composed of people--including my father--holding signs denouncing the unfair treatment of workers by the Columbia administration. Their picketing outside of JG does not bother me, that is, unless I am trying to read for class. |
>
> | The question posed is always the same: Are you going to help the poor and be a contributing member of society, or are you going to help the rich get richer?
But it has never been that simple. I refuse to look at the world in such a binary when I am walking proof that there is some gray. |
| | |
|
<
< | My reaction to the boycotters outside is sustained by the way the Columbia society treats nonmembers. Although it sits in Harlem, Columbia prides itself in the difference between them. When Columbia's world and Harlem's worlds interact, it is usually through an Anthony Pallone email. Their differences are highlighted as negative. Those emails are a constant reminder that "they" are not part of "this society." |
>
> | My first issue arises with defining society. I do not believe there is one absolute society to which we all contribute. Instead, we belong to various different communities. We are all born into one community and as we mature and create relationships we become members of others. My refusal to fit into one of those neatly packaged categories stems from my membership in very different, yet very important communities. |
| | |
|
<
< | For those who traverse various different societies, these tensions force us to choose to which society we will belong and contribute. |
>
> | I was born into a poor community. I have seen my neighbors leave IOUs on bodega counters anticipating the arrival of insufficient welfare checks. I know what eviction letters look like. And I know what eviction letters feel like. I can recognize the inner frustrations of a young kid dressed in hand me downs too big for his body but too small for his dreams. I love this community. I was raised in it. I learned humility, hard work and how to make a lot out of a little. |
| | |
|
>
> | And then I became a member of a more affluent one. I have classmates that are CEOs of companies. I have friends who take spontaneous vacations to Europe over the weekends. I watch Broadway shows from the orchestra level. And I have watched my mom use the $250 bottle of Johnny Walker Blue Label in our closet to sweeten her morning coffee. I have learned a lot from this community too. For one, it helped me realize that the world was bigger than my backyard. I learned what you could do with extra and what it was like not to need. |
| | |
|
<
< | How do we choose? |
>
> | And I want to continue to be part of both. Before law school, I traversed these communities almost seamlessly. I would go from a trip to the Hamptons with my Andover classmates to running through open fire hydrants on the corner with my friends from the block. I could go from my suit and Movado watch to my Jordans and hoop earrings. My involvement in one never jeopardized my existence in another. I was able to bring what I learned from one community to enrich and inform the other. |
| | |
|
<
< | Although I do believe that memberships in different societies can be reconciled, I have yet to figure out how to reconcile mine. The more college/law school/graduate school friends I have made, the less Washington Heights and Harlem friendships I can maintain. The more I immerse myself into this Ivy League bubble, the less I find myself understanding and sympathizing with the people and the struggle I knew back then. |
>
> | Yet law school’s definition of contribution is so rigid. Apparently they are mutually exclusive—you can only contribute to one at a time. Thus, here I find myself hastily trying to choose between my communities. Should I strike with my father or should I sit there angrily as the other students do because they are interrupting? In a way I feel like I am splitting before I even take the job that has me on the wrong side at two in the morning. |
| | |
|
<
< | Law school makes this decision even more difficult. They create binaries--nonprofit or corporate; make money or make change--that I think are detrimental to the way we process the societies in which we live. There is an assumed permanence to these choices that I think is unrealistic. You don't relinquish your membership to one by joining another. You can choose the corporate or nonprofit sector and switch. Especially as attorneys, since we are engaged in practice, we have the ability to change what we do with more ease. |
>
> | After two semesters here I have decided that I do not have to choose. I will be part of and contribute to both communities. I will continue to contribute to the community in which I grew up by sharing their stories. I will continue putting our stories on wikis and newspaper pages so as to not let people forget we exist. I plan on working hard to make sure my community has better access to opportunities. And I will also contribute to my affluent community. I will bring in my experiences from Andover, Penn and now Columbia. I will learn about big businesses and understand how they work so I can help my friends when the time comes. |
| | |
|
<
< | I think that the first step to achieving this goal of "contributor to society" is to define a society. Instead of trying to conform to one general undefined society, we can define one specific society and focus on that. We can use what it does to gauge what we want it to do and then tailor our contributions to those desires. |
>
> | Until then, I am going to take advantage of the law school’s buffet of choices. Instead of focusing on what side of the spectrum I land, I am going to run across it. I will take a little non-profit, a little corporate, a little government and see if I can shape my practice to look and feel a little more like me—a little rich, a little poor, and everything in between. |
| | |
|
<
< | At the end, I think that we are all contributing. It is easier to say to society in general because figuring out to what and how is too difficult. Nonetheless, I still think it is an exercise worth doing. |
| | |
|
<
< | Maybe "society" here is
a synonym for "community"? Read that way, the draft has some greater
coherence for me, but it still seems to me unclear what the central
idea is, or how it's being developed. I think going back to the
outline and trying to identify the central idea is the right place to
start. |
| | \ No newline at end of file |
|
>
> | Eben, I realized that when I started writing this paper the first time, I wanted to write about myself and the difficulty in trying to balance these two communities. What I ended up writing about the more vague sense of contribution. I wanted to take my experiences to show why each community is important to me and why I do not fit into the binary the law school creates. Instead of outright choosing, I want to focus on learning and taking everything I can, in. Hopefully, 2L & 3L will have a little more of that. Thank you for a great class. |