Contradictions of the Enlightenment

#009

Modernity has been a western phenomena. It started with the Enlightenment and embraced the ideals of reason, rationality, and scientific thinking. Then, when these Enlightenment ideas found expression in the French and American Revolutions, they  instead took a new form, embracing emancipatory and humanistic ideals of freedom, equality and solidarity -- Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.

Thus, the Enlightenment embraced two sets of ideals – one very practical that easily found expression in capitalism, hierarchical institutions, and representative democracy, and the other libratory and grassroots. The latter had difficult emerging because of communications and transportation problems. By default, capitalists run businesses and production sites, and politicians rule without much input from citizens.

There is indication that this is beginning to change. What are your thoughts about this? What would it mean for societies and work organizations? What would it mean for people?

 

Comments

[Sarah R]

The information age is not shifting power from one extreme to the other. Rather, it is creating a real balance of power among classes, nationalities, genders, and levels of authority. Information is power in this age, in both the ability to receive and proliferate it. Therefore the increasing access to information changes the form of control. It began with grass-roots movement by NGOs, growing exponentially in the last decade, and now has played a role in electing the most powerful man in the world. This year in the U.S. we talked about governing from the center; a left to right ideological center. This in itself is a movement toward more democratic governance. The capacity for political influence provided by the information age is a different and even more powerful form of governing from the center. Not right/left, top-down, or even bottom-up. It involves a meaningful interface between necessarily removed delegates and the masses of people "on the ground."
The public has the capacity now to put items "on the agenda," providing video running on the internet and even major media venues, creating spaces for discourse outside of traditional and restrictive institutions, and narrating stories of real people far beyond our own social networks. Not only are we exposed to these voices, but the internet as a means of personal communication allows us to really hear them. The interactive nature of efficient flows of information enables Arendt's cycle to begin in earnest, getting around fear of "the other" and fostering empathy and respect, giving a meaningful voice to disaffected peoples.
There are still barriers, however; we are far from done. Literacy is more important than ever, and access to and knowledge of technology can severely limit the ability to participate. It is possible that restricted access to technology could indeed continue to prevent people on the periphery from more active participation in policy making.
Also critical is reciprocal engagement from officials. We need people with authority to make timely decisions and act on our behalf in our best interest. Smart decision-making and coalition-building takes time; this is why we decide where we stand collectively and then choose the candidate that we feel will best represent us when it is time to make decisions.
Because of this two-way information flow, politicians are more accountable than ever to their constituents,and so they will respond, or not be elected.
Citizens now have a responsiblility to raise their voices on the net in a responsible and engaging manner and officials find it necessary to respond in kind.
Can we rise to the challenge of interactive citizenry? I say Yes We Can. ; )

[Ariel W.]

As I have learned in ecology, a population exists in spatial and temporal heterogeneity (an ever-changing environment dependent on space and time) and to survive, a population must adapt to specific conditions. It is quite obvious that we exist in a time and space very different than that at the time of Enlightenment, the beginning roots of capitalism. Our environments (social, economical, natural, etc.) have changed to where we are now realizing that if we continue in the same way, the effects could be devastating. I believe the founders of the Enlightenment saw this philosophy as being necessary at that space in time for them to survive as a people and all of humanity has experienced many benefits because of this philosophy. People started revolutions based upon the ideology of Enlightenment which, as noted above, is half based in reason and half based in giving ownership of the state to the people. While in hindsight, we are now able to see why the former has taken precedence over the latter with devastating force, I think in our current space and time, we are beginning to the necessary changes we must make as a people (meaning from the bottom, up) to survive.

For people to act on a local or national scale, this means a motivation to preserve common goods and a wide realization of Sartre’s idea of a freedom that exists in a society rather than for an individual. Also in America, people must accept Arendt’s philosophy of freedom through uniqueness and appreciation of diversity that can create real progress and allow sustainable development. In theory, this is already exhibited in our society within some workplaces (and should be exhibited in more) that operate by way of specialized units that must participate with others. Each specialized unit focuses on doing its job as best it can while depending on other units to do the same and share benefits based up how well they work as a team (sustainable ecosystems operate in the same manner). Hierarchy within the corporation exists for leadership and to mediate between units and make sure that they are all working towards a common goal and quality product, but the entire model is mostly “bottom – up.” When workers value being part of a whole rather than pursuing self-interest, the entire operation is more efficient and successful, but this model is not widely achieved in the Western world.

To our benefit, this type grassroots organization within communities now has the capability to communicate and organize without time being an issue. Conversation and formation of ideas is happening instantly by way of the internet, text messaging, chat, video conferencing, etc. I think that it is important that we, the people, continue to utilize these tools to our benefit and ultimately, our freedom and survival. It is important that we begin to organize, question our leaders in the workplace and different governing institutions, and let representatives know that we hold them accountable for their decision making. We can ultimately create a new democracy that is truly “of the people, by the people, for the people,” but it requires us taking ownership and realizing that populations can only experience freedom as a whole. It takes, as was intended in the founding of our nation and as President-Elect Obama says, “a paradigm shift,” because if I have learned any lesson from ecology, it is that a population cannot survive when “capitalizing” beyond the capacity of its changing environment.

[Kathryn Blackmar]

While the enlightenment brought great progress in the form of reason, rationality and scientific thinking, it also created a clash between ideals of freedom and human rights in regards to capitalism. Though capitalism has brought about an incredible wealth of knowledge, technological advancement and individual development, it has left instances of human rights on by the way side; capitalism, commercialism and free enterprise has produced created major inconsistencies between “the haves and have-nots.”

In Judith Blau’s post, she states “There is indication that this (capitalism) is beginning to change.” I would agree with up to a certain point, the quality of our lives rests primarily in the hands of our government—and often times the government does not have human rights interests in mind. We are, however, taking a major step with this recent election! While doing some research on Barack Obama and human rights, I came across the following quotation: “The Bush administration treated human rights advocates as enemies and shrugged off their reminders of international standards as inconvenient roadblocks. The Obama administration will consider these same groups to be allies and even partners in promoting human dignity and freedom at home and worldwide,” stated by Julie Mertus in Foreign Policy In Focus. In sum, we have reason to be hopeful like Professor Blau indicates. However, I remain critical of our current policies and fear American’s disinterest in human rights and human rights issues have the potential to squander those who continue to advocate for these rights, both domestically and abroad.

[Daniel Hall]

1. For a comprehensive analysis of the current application of Enlightenment thought and philosophy in our modern day, we must dissect the institution of capitalism from the ideals of “freedom, equality, and solidarity” Blau aptly alludes to in her blog. While capitalism has brought humanity a greater growth of wealth than any other form of government and economic structure, it has also creates the largest discrepancy in wealth between neighbors (literal and figurative) than any other system. Surely, in a society in which government and economic policy are defined by the same “isms” – capitalism, commercialism, and colonialism – there is a lack of focus on the essential values undermined the Enlightenment period in which capitalism was borne.
Indeed, today is better than yesterday. While on the one hand economic disparity is larger than ever, our federal government is more than ever democratic and focused on creating global alliances. Bush policies aside, grassroots movements have become mainstream calls-to-duty, bumper stickers have become billboards, and “liberal” topics such as homosexual marriages, marijuana legalization, and college funding are common talk on a national scale. Perhaps a cohort effect in “generation x” and the baby boomers is responsible for social action becoming an intrinsic part of national government, but perhaps the real change is an economic one. The so-called “green jobs” and “green technologies” like new batteries, hybrid cars, and more sustainable building construction are viable economic tools driving our economy into the forefront of the global capitalistic economic system. The answer to Blau’s question is by no means an easy one with a clear answer or a simple solution, but there are indications of Enlightenment-like thoughts of freedoms, equality, and solidarity evident in modern political and economic trends.

[Jessica Anders]

While there may be some indication that our capitalistic ideals are beginning to change I would say that the political democracy still rules in this country. While we pride ourselves on living in a democratic society, individual citizens are still not given as much voice as one would assume in a true democratic system. Our right to vote is essentially our right to voice our opinion and creates the illusion of a democracy. However, with the vast improvements of technologies for communication and interaction among many different individuals in many different places around the world, the potential for self-governance and a true democracy “of the people, by the people and for the people” may be much more easily achieved than it once was.

The idea of democratic self-governance is a noteworthy goal because it is important that the rights and freedoms of all people and citizens are heard, voiced, and taken into consideration when implementing important policy decisions. For societies and work organizations this would mean that the individuals comprising these systems would be made owners/leaders instead of simply workers/followers. Social mobility and a sense community would be fostered with the elimination of a separation among individuals based on one’s title or position in society or in work organizations.

The UDHR is a great step towards achieving democratic self-governance and true democracy. Under the UDHR, if all people share the fundamental rights to public goods (housing, water, healthcare etc) why should they not also be allowed to participate directly in the democratic processes that advance these rights? If individuals can achieve self-governance there is more opportunity for them to achieve the other human rights set forth by the UDHR and the rights that they believe they deserve for themselves and their other fellow citizens.

[Dustin Duke]

Throughout the period of the Enlightenment, capitalism, hierarchical institutions, and representative democracy were the basic rule-of-thumb. Comparing that to the present, we begin to question whether or not these Enlightenment ideals are becoming outdated. Limited technology and communication during the Enlightenment period helped hierarchical institutions and representative democracies prosper. With the technology that we currently have, it is possible for more voices to be heard from a distance. For instance, in the 1800s, how tough would it have been for every citizen in the United States to have their input for president if we were a direct democracy? The length of time to collect ballots from thousands of miles away and deliver answers would have been a costly and timely affair. Today with the internet, however, the possibility of a direct, rather than a representative democracy could very well take place. It is possible, but I do not think that Congress would be willing to add an amendment to the constitution to take away the Electoral College. However, I do believe that capitalism will continue in the United States for the foreseeable future. We still have the three distinctive divisions in our social class (upper, middle, and lower class) and the distance between the upper and lower class is still increasing. The rich continue to get rich and will do so as long as we have a democracy.

Grassroot organizations are now beginning to prosper with the immense communication and transportation that we have in place. With the internet and television, organizations are beginning to spread their message. The people have more of a voice, so this is the opportune time for organizations to be heard and to get their message onto the agenda of the United States government. This will allow the people to have more of a voice in government. Our class is a perfect example with Human Rights. Start small, spread the word, and eventually get your idea spread throughout the community which will lead to the rest of the state and hopefully to Washington. With a new administration, now is the time for the United States to approve of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[Taylor Hastings]

Capitalism has become an economic system that is more powerful and more important than political activity. Society is caught up in game that favors external goods like money, fame, fortune and power in the form of besting opponents, rather than internal goods that are marked by the enjoyment of work and productivity. It is what Marx would describe as the alienation of labor. Certainly this is evidenced in our society as the products of our workers are hardly their own, but rather owned by a conglomeration of corporations. The ideas of capitalism aren’t bad, but if unchecked they create a situation that is damaging for human rights. This is witnessed by its overpowering influence on the fabric of our democracy. People are disengaged from political activity because they are more concerned with providing for their family and accumulating those external goods. With that said, improvements in today’s world in terms of technology can change the world and make political activity possible amongst the masses.
True democracy needs a constant reflection of what is best for society. For it to be a true democracy it needs the input of everyone at the table. When considering what is best for society the opinions of the people are essential. In today’s technologically expanding world this is becoming possible. In today’s democracy politicians are often left unchecked because of the superpower of Capitalism. But, political activity can be crucial to making this process of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer stop. If the masses are heard, change can occur. But this still requires action of the people. Technology has created forums (like this blog) that can promote constant political discussions of what is best – normative questions that are paramount in the decisions to enact certain policies. It also can better inform the people. Education is a key in political activity, and with more and more information readily available, the people can be better political actors. The internet can be a valuable organizational tool for societies and work organizations. Democracy is great in that it is perfectible. It does not have to promote the constant strive for the top are at the height of Capitalism’s pitfalls. But in order for change to occur it requires the responsibility of citizens. Hope does not lie within a single prophet, but in the actions of many. Then it will be a government by the people, for the people.

[Laura Gonzalez]

While change may be starting to take place, as a society we still have a long road before we can truly embrace the principles of human rights and leave aside the purely capitalistic mindset. I was in the healthcare group for this class and based on the meetings I attended, I feel that people willingly agree with the idea that everyone is entitled to certain human rights. However, when this would affect their own privileges, people tend to be more cautious and hesitant to agree to the existence of these rights, such as the right to healthcare. The congregations stated that the idea of equal healthcare for everyone was in accordance to their church’s doctrine, but they expressed fears regarding universal healthcare. As we have discussed in this class, there seems to be some association of universal healthcare to socialism that some people refuse to see past. Some of the fears expressed were that universal healthcare would mean waiting in longer lines, less access to primary doctors, and lower quality of care. This shows that while there is a general consensus regarding the idea of everyone having access to healthcare, there is great hesitance when it comes to making this a reality. I would imagine that a large percentage of the population also feels the same way when it comes down to other cultural and economic rights that are present in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but are not recognized by the United States. We still have a long way to go. The large amount of voters that turned up at the last election is a sign of change towards a more actively participatory democracy, but it will take a long time before we embrace Sartre’s “I fight for your freedom.”

[Tyler Kaufman]

In order to analyze the current form that the ideals of Enlightenment thought take, there must be a separation between the economic institution of capitalism and the essential ideals of “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité”. Capitalism brings an increased wealth not seen in other governmental and economic structures, such as Communism. At the same time however, capitalism creates the largest levels of wealth discrepancy out of all the available options. Incredible advances in wealth, technology, and knowledge have overshadowed the basic necessity of human rights. The haves and the havenots remain a very large part of our capitalist society.
The situation today is far better than the situations of the past though. Now more than ever, grassroots movements are becoming main-stream and wide-spread. Previously taboo issues such as homosexuality are now talked about and discussed on a national scale. The voice of the people is more powerful than ever. Thanks to the powerful mediums of the television and the internet, the messages of the grassroots agenda are able to reach a wide audience and hopefully allow us, the people, to have a larger say in what goes on in our government. By starting small at the local level, hopefully the message will diffuse up though society and eventually to Washington, where real change can happen. The United States’s acceptance of the UDHR is the perfect place to start.

[Callan Blough]

Democracy is when “individual voters express their preferences for this or that candidate, in this or that election, and the candidate who wins will solemnly exercise the will of the people (134).” This occurs in politics through elections, and is also seen in business through stockholders. Theoretically, this democracy is supposed to be giving a voice to the people through capitalists and politicians. However, the people’s voices tend to be lost from the time of the election to the time the politician takes off. In the past, capitalists and politicians had more freedom because everyone’s voices were lost in communication or transportation barriers. However, as this begins to change, the system needs to begin to change with it.

From the evolution of the railroad, to the invention of the Internet, transportation and communication have become as easy as a click of a button. Therefore, with better access to information voters and stockholders are becoming increasing aware and opinionated about issues on policy and the systems around them. As a result, their voices should be heard and should exclude no one. This gives societies and work places a greater opportunity to actually hear the voices or the people. The power of the increasing voices should translate over into increased power and opportunity for change. It is time to make democracy truly representative of the people, perhaps by eliminating the Electoral College and having all offices won through popular vote. It would also offer the citizens of the United States more power within their government, which they would have to use through their vote. It would put even greater responsibility in people to get out and vote.

[Laura Hernandez]

Throughout history, we have experienced a roller coaster of trends that oscillate from one extreme to the other. An example of this would be with political parties in the United States. A moderate Republican Party is in power and experiences a lot of support, and then it gradually becomes more extreme in their beliefs and policies. As the Party becomes more extreme, it loses support and the Democratic Party comes to power, operating on fairly moderate policies. Their support grows, and their policies become more extreme, and they lose support, dragging the political power back to the center again, ready to lean Right. Like the political parties, modernity at this moment is at an extreme, ready to lean the other direction. It started off as an inventive process, with intentions of benefitting society with free political systems and free economic systems. Then these systems inched away from this original belief, become more corrupt and exploitative in nature. Neoliberal, capitalist systems have contradicted what modernity originally intended to embrace, the “emancipatory and humanistic ideals.” Non-democratic corporations that control vast amounts of wealth with exploitative tendencies towards workers do not identify with the original beliefs of modernity. Representative democracies that are distanced from society and care more about relieving large corporations than its citizenry are not the goals of modernity. These practices can only go so far before they reach an extreme and society fights to change the policies.
More and more, we see people advocating for the rights of “the little man.” We see more people upset that the government is so distant, and want to do something to change it. We see the failure of a corporation-driven, capitalist economy, and we want to do something to change it. If work organizations and society could unite against the authoritative institutions of a capitalist society, change is possible. Citizens would have more power and control over their life, instead of it being dictated by a low-wage job, for example. I also see a turn towards democratic governing of institutions that are not part of the government. The possibility of a democratically elected Board of Directors for a corporation, or of a democratically elected CEO is on the horizon. With more institutions abiding by democratic policies, people will have a greater sense of empowerment, leading them to want to help one another and attain fairer wages, or representation, or whatever it may be. If this were to happen, we would finally see a return to the goals of the Enlightenment, with freedom as the central ideal.

[Lindsay Lassiter]

The difficulties encountered by the libratory and grassroots movements during the Enlightenment due to communication and transportation problems are increasingly absent in today’s world. New technologies have eliminated the obstacles of distance and space almost completely. The World Social Forum is a perfect example of an event that has surpassed distance and space obstacles to create a voice for human rights issues. The ejidos economy is a great example of an effective economic system that does not lead to the oppression of the people. If capitalism could change into a system like ejidos that worked for the people, this could have so many positive effects. If people had more power over the economy and citizens had more control over their government it would be possible to obtain equal rights and true freedom in the world. There would be real democracy, direct democracy, in which people would have much more say in the policies. If the libratory, grassroots movement that started in the enlightenment period can continue to increase in the future there is no reason why people in the world cannot gather in solidity to make effective changes in our exploitative economic and political structures. It would mean a better world.

[Kara Murphy]

I believe that the idea that capitalists run businesses and production sites, and politicians rule without much input from citizens is beginning to change as the economic and political are becoming much more connected and concerned with the protection of human rights. This has been made possible because of the solution to past problems in communications and transportation. As discussed in Chapter 7, the global civil society is becoming more of a movement connecting human rights, democracy, environmental protection and economic justice (Blau and Moncada 107). The global civil society is also connecting individuals with those outside of their local communities to make these changes, which has been made possible through increases and communication and transportation technologies. In creating these networks, global civil society has linked the Global South and Global North, therefore transforming the role of human rights awareness and security within global economy (Blau and Moncada 108). A way that this has been done is through emphasis on globalization’s effects on human rights by the World Social Forum in creating the World Economic Forum (Blau and Moncada 108). These forums promote democratic action by allowing citizens to address their grievances and create avenues for change (Blau and Moncada 109). The Porto Alegre Manifesto also works to validate the global civil society’s role in affirming human rights in economic venues through a democratic framework (Blau and Moncada 112). This ease of communication and travel has also increased the number of Non-Government Organizations and therefore sites for democratic action. As Dr. Blau has discussed, citizen action has increased and produced changes across borders because of the work of these NGOs (Blau and Moncada 138).
The change in availability for citizen action through increasing communication and transportation venues has not only allowed for a democratic framework for citizens grievances but is also forming relationships across borders. Citizens are able to more widely discuss their concerns with globalizing forces and address these concerns with corporations in order to change the capitalist structure in favor of fair work conditions and trade. The connection between the Global South and Global North also emphasizes the concept of cosmopolitan citizenship that Dr Blau discusses, as citizens are not only acting on their own behalf but are also transforming the global economy for others involved in globalization (Blau and Moncada 140). In this way changes in citizen interaction and democratic forums have allowed for local and global transformations to connect economic and political means for securing human rights.

[Diana D]

In the past, business owners were very separated from their workers, politicians were disconnected from their community and grassroots organizations were hard-pressed to find modes of communication and transportation to spread their ideals. This is, however, beginning to change. At no other time in history has each individual had so much access to a public audience, and with this comes the power to influence a vast number of people. With the advent of social networking sites people can band together across the globe, and the emergence of blogs provides anyone the ability to have their ideas open to an audience of billions. The Internet is an incredibly powerful tool for grassroots organizations, which can now communicate easily without lack of transportation or inefficient communication providing the same barriers that they did in the past. People can find others who support their cause, as well as broadcast their ideas to those who may have never been previously exposed to them. Politicians are also now subject to the input of citizens. Because of the lightning fast transfer of information, people can be kept unbelievably up to date on the policies and actions being considered by those holding or running for political office. While in the past a politician’s fumble may have gone on unnoticed, every move can now be dissected and debated, and these feelings of disappointment and frustration can reach a much larger sector of the public, which can in turn affect the re-election of this said official back into office. Therefore, modern politicians do indeed answer much more strongly to the citizens they are appointed to represent.

I believe this newfound transfer of information is a great thing. It is very important to be able to debate ideas and events, both new and old, with such a large community. It provides a discussion forum for issues that were previously ignored or hidden. This allows societies to hold more power in the decisions made by their elected officials, and workers a better framework to discuss their rights and unionize.

[Chelsea Ginyard]

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. While economic power is equivalent to production, political power is equivalent to force. Increased economic mergers encourage political freedoms promptly by opening society to new technologies, means of communication and democratic ideas. Economic loosening offers compensation to governmental power. Economic and political freedoms are relative because they strengthen one another.
That being said, I do believe that capitalist and political roles may change slightly in the future. With the current economic failures, I think it is growing more and more important for economic and political democracy to be more closely related. While they are dependent on one another, few politicians take both into consideration. Now that their paths are merging more closely, I believe that these issues will gain awareness and precedence in our society. People are becoming increasingly aware and affected by the state of the nation’s finances and with the election having just passed, I think these same issues gained even more awareness. Rather than making blank statements about their plans for economic growth, politicians are being forced to explain how they will make these changes and prove themselves. The gap between those who have and those who have not is increasing at a rapid pace and the middle-class is trickling away. Since so many people once fell into this class, and their status is being diminished, I think there will be a stronger demand for politicians to make good on their promised and make the changes they said they would.

[Corey Tunstall]

There are several implications that this shift will have on the whole world. The Enlightenment ideals were applicable at the time, and made the most sense. The world wasn’t industrialized and globalized as we are now, and most people were illiterate. While the Enlightenment put power in the hands of the rich and privileged who had deep educations, the emancipatory and humanistic ideals of equality have only recently come to pass. There are plenty of indications that it is beginning to change, and it requires a second look at the way that societies and work organizations treat the way they operate. Equality for all has obviously not been achieved, but one could easily argue that we as a society have made more progress on this front than ever. It may be running it into the ground, but the election of a black president would have been completely impossible even twenty years ago. The fact that Americans not only let a black candidate become viable, but elected him over a traditional white candidate shows that we are on the path to at least racial equality.

I would caution against shifting too far in either direction however; a balance would be a better solution. Complete freedom, equality, and solidarity is a great ideology but isn’t practical given human nature. Humans are inherently selfish, and while there are no doubt exceptions to the rule it can often be an every man for himself type of world. Reason, rationality, and scientific thinking still have and always will have their place in the modern world. If the two work in tandem it would produce the best results, and truly end in a society that has little or no prejudices. Human rationality and reason would indicate that equality and freedom are good things, regardless of race, sex, etc. Societies and work organizations will adjust accordingly with the will of the people, so long as the people don’t remain under the thumb of said societies and work organizations. Worker’s rights have become an important debate, whereas before workplace safety and equality were oxymoronic terms. Now they are a reality. With time, our society will further shift towards the ideals of liberty and equality, but hopefully we will maintain some reason and rationality as well.

[Rachel Valentine]

I am always excited about any movements (social, political, philosophical, or cultural) that represent a counter-narrative to Enlightenment-inspired modernity, soaked as it is in the rhetoric of reason and rationality. It has always frustrated me that these ideals are considered the height of modern thinking. Reification of these values has led to the creation and imperial spread of the fundamentally flawed economic and political systems we now live under.
Before reading Freedoms and Solidarities I had considered the revolutionary spirit of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to be a counter-narrative to what I had learned were the Enlightenment advents of rationality, reason and scientific thinking. It is an epistemological gem to think of these revolutionary values as stemming from the same fount as the counter-revolutionary and hegemonic ones that rule us. The tension is a creative one.
Global-local movements like the ones involved in the WSF provide hope that the revolutionary ethos that was born alongside the values that inform our current system--that live as the chimeric twin of capitalist expansion, market fundamentalism, and representative "democracy"-- has not been demoralized into dormancy. The fact that there is a global movement to curb the decadence of global markets and expanding fascism is not surprising. What is surprising and exciting to me is that these movements are finding footing in segments of the United States-- in the belly of the beast.
I think that it’s entirely evident at this point to almost everyone else in the world that we cannot trust the basic tenets of capitalism: that the market will correct itself! Blau and Moncado reiterate the WSF (and other anti-globalization) platforms with the simple statement that "economies are for human societies, not the other way around" (Blau, J., Moncado, A., Freedoms and Solidarities, New York: Rowman and Littlelield, 2007. p. 112). What kinds of shifts would we have to make to be able to think about our economy in this way? At the most basic level, I think we'd have to understand that the guiding principle of economic growth through efficient production (efficiency being the bottom line) needs to be shifted to a guiding principle of security. If our economy is built with the end goal of human security in mind, an enormous amount of unthinkable crimes against humanity could be eradicated-- famine, homelessness, resource wars, preventable/treatable disease.

In an economy built for human security, most of the things that we consider necessary for freedom and security become collective goods. The administration of collective goods requires good governance. But we cannot rely on the government as is. Democracy must be responsive. Human rights—and economies and governments that work to secure them-- requires a direct democracy: if we all have these rights, then we all have the right to participate in the decisions that enforce and protect them. Without democracy, the promise of human rights is empty.

And democracy must extend beyond the central government—yes, the government is important in terms of administering systems that require specialization, but the social norms governing how we think things should be are created in relationships and in communities. The source of democratic thinking is in democratic living. Self governance, of course, requires dense and real time communication—technology makes this available for larger entities, but it is a model that has been used in smaller entities for many years. The concept and practice of democratic living-- which happens primarily at the local level-- makes Arendt’s notion of freedom so very important. The idea that all localities should be equal and the same is ludicrous. But the idea that communities embedded in a democratic framework of mutual responsibility are best able to creatively produce systems models of self-governance and interaction with other communities (economic, political, and cultural) makes sense. In fact, under the assumption that freedom, liberty, and solidarity should be the guiding principles of a fair economy and fair government, it is the only model that dos make sense.

[Molly Moyer]

Although business owners and politicians are continually being increasingly influenced by grass roots organizations, there is still a long way to go before these two entities meet a common ground. Currently there is too much corruption within both corporations and politics to see the community at work. However, this corruption is also providing the a growing strength to grassroots. As more people become disenchanted with the government and less motivated by the corporate world, the grass roots are finally starting to gain enough support to make a difference in the country. This became increasingly more obvious with this last election. People voted for change, but they did not vote for the normal November change, they voted for a change in ideologies. They voted for a change in the current system of big business and bought politicians.

I believe that the change will continue, but the situation has to get worse in order for the citizen’s input to be heard. Due to increasing technology and the “shrinking of the globe” as soon as the change begins, it will happen fast. There needs to be a strong motivator and a commonality amongst grass roots in order for the people to make a difference. The citizens need to accept both Sartre’s ideas of “I fight for your freedoms and you fight for mine,” and Ardent’s beliefs of uniqueness yielding human rights for a successful change to be made. As long as the grassroots are arguing for different changes, refusing to unify, and attacking business and politics from different angles no change will be made. I believe the time when the organizations all attack from one position, making a joint effort, is coming soon. I am looking forward to the change they will make, binding human rights with business and political ideals.

[Michael Burns]

As much as we would like to think so, the democracy that we live by in our country is not as good as it was written out to be. What I mean is that somethings like our voting system often do not voice the opinion of the people as much as we would like. There are two different polls that we follow. As everyone knows the popular vote does not mean anything. The politicians who decide the electoral is all that matters. There are so many other things that the government says we are allowed to do, yet they find ways to put restrictions on them. For example, the right to free press says that you may advertise anything you would like. But, in order to be able to pass out flyers at the Chapel Hill post office, you must first apply for a permit and go through the town. Without a permit it would be illegal to do so.

During the period of enlightenment, Human Rights started to improve greatly. So many previously set rules restricting humans from basic things were now being lifted. There have been some times in history that have almost brought back this grass roots enlightenment idea, like the accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King in the 60's.

It is interesting to think about this in todays time. We just elected an African American president who has the people in mind rather than the rest of the world. There are also much more organizations that are fighting for human rights as well as many other issues. By involving the youth, who will on day be the people that run this country, involved it is really increasing our chances for total solidarity, equality, freedom, and total acknowledgment of our Human Rights.

[Blair Milam]

Along with human growth came western development. Human expansion required more: more resources, more knowledge, more space, more everything. This relentless need for “more” conceptualized the ideals of and fueled the drive of the Western Enlightenment. Survival was equivalent to individual success through competition; a kin to the fundamentals of Darwinism “ survival of the fittest.” Reason, rationality and scientific fact / method, the foremost principles of the Enlightenment, paved the road to individual success for many. This pragmatic mentality, compounded over generations, ultimately left power in the hands of a few, feeding the institutionalization of unequal and hierarchical societal practices, which today are known as the “isms” – sexism, racism, capitalism, etc. These ideals that have torn gaps between individuals and continue to widen social and economic disparities among our citizens; have also, enabled our country to acquire the most success in terms of knowledge, wealth and power than any previous systematic attempt.
The latter principles of the Enlightenment (libratory and grassroots), which had difficulty expanding before, are now taking strong root. The idea / need of “more” has now shifted from an individual perspective to a communal level (collective good). Due to recent developmental and technological advancements, increasing accountability of personnel and accessibility to mass information has changed the role of power in our country. Today, wealth is no longer the supreme power; knowledge is superior. Twenty years ago big business conglomerates and hierarchal institutions were able to supersede the “small guy” due to limited resources and manpower. However, today that is not the case.
New libratory and grassroots endeavors are popping up and thriving more than ever, accredited to faster, newer and cheaper methods of mass communication via widespread supply and use of free internet. These movements, started by NGOs, have grown exponentially in the past five or so years. Ideals of freedom, equality, and solidarity, based in the Revolutionary Enlightenment era, have infiltrated into the foundations on which current hierarchal systems (political and business) are run. Increasing availability, retrieval, exchange and production of information has created new venues for pubic discourse. This infinite potential for open-communication no longer fosters the apprehension of natural selection, but facilitates interpersonal agenda setting. Free-flow of information creates an overall shift in societal and organizational structure – the importance of truth distinguished in responsibility and accountability. Conjunctively, these virtues harmonize humanity and characterized it through empathy and respect for all around the “world’s table” (Arendt). As the capacity changes, so must the archetype; therefore, it is essential we embrace the significance of our changing era as a collective people, but not allow principles from the enlightenment (that got us to where we are today) fade out completely – we must adjust. I am not sure any of us are certain what that adjustment entails, but it must be a united transformation from the bottom up to attain true democracy.

[Gavin Petracca]

1. Democracy can be explained by voters expressing their opinions for a particular candidate. This model is used most often in businesses (stockholders) and politics through elections. The goal of democracy is to give people a voice and allow them to be heard. As time goes on it seems that much of the peoples voices have been lost between the vote and the time the politician gets into office. As our technology is enhanced our methods of communication needs to be enhanced as it is trying to. There is still much more that can change in order to give people the best opportunity to voice their ideas.

In the world of politics many democracy is very prevalent from our voting, but in the world of economics democracy is sometimes skewed. Lately many stockholders have been looking out for their wallet instead of trying to make good decisions for the overall company. As time goes on we see many people saying that they are looking out for the average person and wanting to do something to change it. The working organizations need to unite against our capitalist society so that we can make change possible. If this were to happen we as citizens would have more control over our lives. I feel that the well known “Board of directors” should become a democratic process so that we can have a more well rounded panel who look out for the community instead of just themselves.

[Bart Wagner]

There has always been a hope for a country with economic and political equality, where political science will not stand in the way of a strong and healthy economy. However, we all know that we have seen politics take charge over economic democracy. For instance in recent years we have seen our economy decline, and the rich are becoming richer, as the lower class continues to sink. But I believe that we must continue to push.
For example, human rights has made an incredible change over the years. As much as we would like to see things change immediately, it is just not realistic. However, rights for all Americans has improved especially those whom were scrutinized in the past. Things continue to improve and one day America will truly be the land of the home and the free. But until the day that each and every person is completely equal we must understand the importance of maintaining the democracy which made this country what it is.

[Kate Lowe]

In the eighteenth century when Enlightenment occurred the world was not globalized as it is today. While the libratory and grassroots forces which represented democracy had a hard time materializing due to communication and transportation problems, today with technological advances these problems are becoming obsolete. Conventions like the one on Diversity Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions allow people to communicate their needs and their struggles with others. No longer are capitalist run businesses and production sites able to operate freely without the watchful eye of the consumer. Numerous corporate leaders acting unlawfully have been discovered and “dethroned” in the past few years as business practices undergo more speculation.
The importance of this possible shift from capitalism to democracy is that there will be less people slipping through the cracks. Unfair child labor and sweat shops in foreign countries will no longer remain off the radar. With improvements in communication and the continual shrinking of the globe, it will be more difficult for capitalistic industries that do not care about their employees to operate unfairly. Every individual deserves their right to freedom and in that freedom their Human Rights.

[Lauren Williford]

In an age of readily available and accessible information, we now have the means to move towards forms of participatory democracy where the common man’s voice is heard. We can now move away from the “practical” forms of democracy which advocate representation by politicians unconnected with society. And yet, we live in a society ingrained with capitalistic motivations and mindsets; a society driven by profit and individualistic achievements. As Dr. Blau clearly stated, in “our pursuit of autonomy we are losing our freedom.” Most people would agree that everyone has natural freedoms and inalienable rights. Yet, until our mindset is shifted from competition to collective efforts, we will continue to pursue autonomy, thinking that we have found freedom.

However, on the horizon we now see glimpses of participatory democracy at the grassroots level. With the help of modern technology we have given voice to the common man; we are connecting the world through the internet and television. We are seeing an uprising of NGOs and collective efforts that are focused on the issues of the people. Giving voice to the “common man” helps produce societies and work organizations that are collectively working towards the greater good. These are societies and work organizations who appear without structure, but who are focused on negotiation, give-and-take, and collective interests. These societies are given more authority and responsibility at the local level, ensuring that decisions which directly affect the citizens are made by the citizens themselves, not a representative in the state or national government.

For the people, moving away from capitalism and towards the Enlightenment’s ideal of freedom and grassroots creates empowerment. Citizens at the local level feel empowered to advance and utilize their human rights. The people are focused not on competing with those around them, but with Sartre’s mindset they are fighting for each other’s rights.

[Mary Hooke]

If indeed the libratory and grassroots elements of the enlightenment have been limited in emerging because of communications and transportations problems, then it make sense that we are now, with the world becoming smaller and smaller, moving into an era in which these ideals-- liberty, equality, fraternity-- have the potential to flourish in ways that have not been possible in the past. I think the biggest obstacle however is still found embedded in our political and economic systems-- and not one any more than the other. Capitalism and heirarchical institutions have come to drive our representative democracy, limiting the voice of the people and creating a growing disparity between the haves and the have nots. However, perhaps now that this situation has driven the nation into an economic crisis, and given that the language of human rights is beginning to infiltrate the political sphere and enter the radar of local leaders-- not simply looking outwardly toward the international sphere, but at the inequalities in our own communities-- people will be encouraged, if not forced, to look beyond their assumed privileges to recognize just how problematic our political and economic systems have become, and raise their voices in new and creative ways to demand change. Movements like the campaign to make Chapel Hill a Human Rights City should take place in every city and will be essential to seeing real change on any widespread or global level-- if there is one lesson I will take away from this course it is the importance of recognizing that it starts with individuals at the local level. Grassroots democracy and community responsibility for neighbors is the key to sustainable change.