| | |
|
SandorMarton-FirstPaper 4 - 11 Feb 2008 - Main.SandorMarton
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | Paper Title
-- By SandorMarton - 09 Feb 2008 | |
<
< | *
FIRST THOUGHTS*
1000 words.
Goal: Apply the new concepts introduced in class to an issue
Limitation: Ensure subject matter is not too broad. Want to carefully explore one issue. Too broad will probably result in an imprecise essay that tries to do too much.
First Thoughts On Possible Topics:
I. Criminal Law
- Premise: Our current system is incapable of reliably "finding" the facts of a case and then making predictable decisions.
- Question #1: Is this a problem? Certainly it is in conflict with the popular conception of "justice". However, does our mythology effectively mask this fact from the majority? Seems to. If the people believe they are getting "justice", does it matter that the system is almost entirely subjective? Implications for minority groups of all types who are confronted with this subjectivity daily? Perhaps this comes down to the goals of our society? Are we only concerned with stability? Do we really want equality and justice or do these concepts lose their effectiveness when objectively unjust results can be explained away by the national mythology?
-
- Question #2: Could we design a system that incorporates the above premise into its function so as to provide more just results? Would that mean changing the goals of the system? i. Probably way too broad to be properly explored in 1000 words. Fun to think about, though.
II. Organizational psychology
- How could one use awareness of people's propensity to rely on "magic"/"logic" to effect change?
- need to narrow this much further. Perhaps select a specific type of organization... or perhaps one facet of an organization?
B. Can one build an organization which is able to adopt best practices that conflict with the organizational creed used by rival organizations?
-
- Alternatively: if all organizations rely on a set of creeds/attitudes/habits/myths in order to exist and if this reliance severely handicaps their ability to adapt/learn from other groups, how could one design an organization which avoided this handicap?
- How could one change [select some current organization] in order to make it more adaptable?
- How do organizations change their creeds? Example: China's 4 modernizations effectively end communism for much of the country... admittedly the process took 20 some years to carry out. Contrary to what one might assume, could it turn out that a police state run by a dictator or oligarchy is actually MORE flexible in making changes to its creed than a democracy? That is to say, can one simply use force of arms to make the people adopt a new creed?
Is there a non-violent way to induce organizational change of creed? Civil Rights Movement an example? On other hand, even in the civil rights movement there was conflict with the established creed. More refined question: can a change take place merely through a reasoned decision on the best policy decision as opposed to through a violent struggle? If so, does this hold true in a democracy? | | | C. Case study of military specifically? Significant costs result from the sort of creeds adopted by armed forces as here the "us vs. them" element so central to creeds in general is used to help inflict violence on other people. These same creeds also make "rules of engagement" difficult to enforce. It is difficult to expect a 19-year-old who has been taught that his life's mission is to kill the "enemy" to be able to set aside those habits. War atrocities would seem to be impossible to prevent. On the other hand, the military creed is necessary for soldiers to carry out their duty. Or is it? (worth thinking about). Once our society decides that it needs a military, and if we think that a creed will make our soldiers more effective/save their lives, how do we weigh those interests with the atrocities which are sure to occur? Currently, our society handles the occurrence of atrocities by telling the citizens that the victims deserved it or that the action did not happen. Is there an alternative approach that would allow our military to maintain a creed and simultaneously regulate the costs of use of a creed by an organization whose avowed purpose is killing?
1. Analysis of the military under Arnold's theory. Perhaps this is too simple/easy? Maybe make this one part of the larger paper? Can I perform such an analysis in a couple hundred words? Too cursory?
2. Examine effects.
3. Discuss alternatives/solutions. | |
<
< | Section I | >
> | Different take on military topic: what happens when two conflicting sets of attitudes/habits that are part of the same creed collide? Consider the "duty to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic " vs. loyalty to civilian control and the national command authority. If the president illegally declared martial law, how would the military handle the order? | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | military needs creed to perform function | | | | |
>
> | results in inhumane actions by soldiers | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | Assuming we want to prevent such actions (not entirely clear... depends on a nation's national creed), how do we do so?
is this a trade-off between effectiveness and "humanization" of foreign people?
Or can we incorporate good treatment of civilians into our creed. Military has repeatedly attempted this with very mixed results. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | Section I. The Military fits Arnold's model | | | | |
>
> | Subsection A. Analysis Under the 4 Elements all Social Organizations Share (keep this very short) | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | | | | |
>
> | Section II. While necessary for the mission of the Military, these elements also impede efforts to control and direct the military's violence
Subsection A. Discussion of how the military's creed influences combat effectiveness/makes the military's mission possible.
Subsub 1 | | | Subsub 2 | |
>
> | Subsection B. Discussion of conflict between creed and efforts to contain violence/avoid human rights violations.
Section III. Resolution? | | | | |
>
> | Subsection A. Can we change the military creed? (yes). Would a move towards a greater value on non-American human life help solve the problem? Military has tried this repeatedly with mixed results. | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | Subsection B. Is there a trade-off between effectiveness and increased "humanization" of military creed? Is that acceptable? | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Subsection C. Does the issue come down to the goals of our society? Most (non-tactical/strategic) institutional change in the military has been driven by civilians | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | | |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |