My topic concerns homoeroticism in Plato’s writings. Many modern readers of Plato become uncomfortable at the use of homoerotic examples of love in Symposium and Phaedrus and the uneasiness creates an intellectual barrier. I will proceed to give examples of the types of imagery he used, reasons why he used them, and the reasons why they were appropriate. Next, I will describe Plato’s ideas about the highest type of love. I will discuss the weakness in writing that is made evident with a change of audience and the importance of looking past the specific details to discover the underlying principles. Finally, I will conclude that the homoerotic elements used by Plato to describe his ideas about love were essential to the achievement of understanding with his pupils.
Plato used imagery of sexual as well as non-sexual relationships between males. He also referenced a specific type of relationship called pederasty - a relationship between an older man and a young boy outside the man’s immediate family that was an aristocratic means of educational and moral instruction. Plato offers examples of how lovers treat each other, usually in the lover/beloved pederast relationship of his culture. He used these images because the practice was common among his aristocratic pupils and he knew that they were familiar with it. I believe Plato used this teaching technique of relating an abstract concept to something familiar to the pupil because it is highly effective and it serves as a reference point as the pupil studies the concept in depth.
To the Ancient Greeks, males were esteemed to be of higher value to society than females. They had more civil rights and political power. They displayed a higher proportion of reason to emotion thus were considered higher souls and the closest to the gods. Relationships between men and women were inferior to the relationships between men on every level. Women were not seen as having anything of any importance to offer a man except a means to increasing his wealth, status or property, or in her performance of an inferior role such as cooking, cleaning, raising children and managing the affairs of the home. These contributions of women were inferior because they did not increase knowledge and philosophical understanding; instead they centered on inferior pleasures and bodily necessities. Men and women entered into sexual relationships only for the sake of continuing the race by conceiving children. Relationships between males (including, but not limited to sexual relationships alone) were of supreme importance in Greek society. They were more likely to result in philosophical discussion and inquiry which would lead to the elevation of the soul toward the divine. Plato described situations using these male relationships because men approach the divine as they reason together, learn about the world and revel in the Bacchic frenzy of philosophy.
Relationships between older adult males and young boys were the norm in Greek society. Young boys were desired for their beauty and were pursued by older men. The relationship was complex and included role modeling, nurturing, mentoring, teaching, and initiating into manhood. The older man showed loving patience to his beloved boy. They shared a passionate love for each other, but that passion was not always expressed sexually. It was the elements of loving patience, passion, teaching and concern for the welfare of the soul that Plato was drawing upon in the use of this imagery.
Plato seems to think that sexual desire and gratification play a key role, both as the initial launching platform for a journey that leads to knowledge of the Form of the Beautiful, and as an aid to communicating the intensity of the force involved in the pursuit of philosophical truth. In Symposium, Socrates explains how sexual desire and gratification may become the starting point in a process that enables man to progress from bodily gratifications to the contemplation and ultimately the understanding of universal truths. (Annas 46) I agree with Plato’s view that once desires and passions have been addressed, then those desires and passions no longer cause pain to the soul and progress can be made toward knowledge and reasoning. Sexual desire and gratification were useful illustrations for the intensity of the drive toward philosophy because they are similar in nature. “The drive to do philosophy has to come within you, and be genuine…it comes from within you in a way that cannot be deliberately produced, and, like love, it drives you to focus all your efforts to achieve an aim which you feel you cannot live without, however impossible attainment may seem.” (Annas 46) The yearning, longing, and the desire for completeness and wholeness that accompanies love are powerful images to draw upon in describing the ideal feelings and motivations toward knowledge and truth. Sexual imagery was also a key in communicating the importance of mutual benefit through argument and discussion and equal participation in philosophical activity. If only one partner gets the pleasure and participates fully, then exploitation becomes an issue both sexually and philosophically. This exploitation was not considered beneficial to the soul, and therefore not a worthwhile pursuit.
It now becomes clear that the Greek custom of pederasty contains within it all of the key elements Plato needed to achieve a common reference point for his pupils. The superiority of the male to the female, the importance of physical beauty, the mentoring of a loving, passionate guide, and the experience of sexual drives and desires were all demonstrated in this practice. Since erotic love is a concept central to understanding Beauty, it is important to establish definitions. The speeches on love contained in Symposium as well as Phaedrus attempt to include descriptions of Eros from different perspectives. Alcinous (pp 45 lines 26-32) clarifies the concept of erotic love further by breaking it into three classifications, based on their aims. The baser form of erotic love is directed only toward the body, dominated by pleasure and considered bestial in character. The highest form of erotic love is directed only at the soul itself for promoting virtue. The median role combines body and soul by being attracted to the body, but directed toward the beauty of the soul. Plato used these definitions of Eros to help his pupils to comprehend how to rise above the base desires of the body and to desire a love centered in truth and reason, which would lead to knowledge of the Forms.
In Symposium, Socrates shares with his friends the teaching of the priestess Diotima. It is from Diotima that Socrates learns how the rites of love, when followed correctly, lead to understanding the goal of Loving. Those who are pregnant in soul are those who have within themselves wisdom and virtue from a young age. At the appropriate age, these pregnant souls desire to give birth to the wisdom and virtue within them, and they are initially attracted to beauty because of the beauty within themselves. First they are drawn to beautiful bodies, and if they are lucky they are also attracted to beautiful, noble and well-formed (well-proportioned) souls. Led by these beautiful bodies containing well-proportioned souls, the virtuous youth learns that “wild gaping after just one body is a small thing and despise it” (Symposium 210b) and becomes a lover of all beautiful bodies. The next step in his progression is to learn that “the beauty of people’s souls is more valuable than the beauty of their bodies” (Symposium 210c) and the beauty of bodies as unimportant. He instead finds contentment in seeking to make young men better. From beautiful souls he learns about beautiful laws, activities, and customs. These particular beautiful things help him to understand the beauty of knowledge, and “he is turned to the great sea of beauty, and gazing upon this, he gives birth to many gloriously beautiful ideas and theories, in unstinting love of wisdom” (Symposium 210e) – he learns of Beauty itself. But these glorious ideas and theories are only images of virtue. Through love, he has come to understand Beauty itself, and while learning of Beauty, he catches a glimpse of the Form of the Beautiful. Only after knowing the Form of the Beautiful, can the virtuous youth give birth to true virtue. Then, as he nourishes true virtue, he will have the love of the gods and become immortal, which, according to Diotima, is the goal of Loving.
In Phaedrus, Plato, through Socrates, exposes his Achilles heel concerning writing. These weaknesses are clearly evident when discussing his writings on love. He asserts that written words are impotent for writing on the soul because discourse, questioning and clarification of ideas are impossible. A writer cannot control who becomes his audience. A different audience is likely to have different points of reference, customs, and values than the author’s original. The focus of the new audience becomes misdirected from the original intent when common reference points disappear. This is a major problem with works like Symposium and Phaedrus. Readers who cannot get past the homoerotic elements end up denying themselves the opportunity for philosophical insight. When the homosexual and pedophilic elements are removed, the general principles remain and can be used to communicate Plato’s ideas about beauty, philosophy, love, the soul and the Forms.
In my reading of Symposium and Phaedrus, I discovered that the best kind of Erotic love requires good souls with a proper proportion of reason and emotion. Physical attraction is initially important to the souls, but its emphasis decreases over time. Sexual desire and gratification can be a tool for lovers to recognize the drive toward increasing knowledge and reason through philosophy. The qualities of loving patience, teaching and humility are essential for love to rise above its basest form. Deep friendship can be created when lovers look beyond the physical pleasures and discuss with each other how they can live a good life together. Between lovers, the highest value should be placed on the soul, not the body of their beloved. Philosophical discussion benefits and enlarges the souls of lovers and enables them to approach the divine. I agree with all of these ideas, and my experience in my marriage of 25 years confirms them.
Plato and I come from very different times and cultures, so we part ways concerning homosexual relationships, the value of women in a society, the use of pedophilia to initiate boys into adulthood. It seems for him that the ends - immortality, or even the knowledge of the Forms - justified the means. In my time and culture, and with my religious values, immortality and approaching the divine are obtainable without homosexuality, pedophilia, and the subjection of more than half the population. In his romanticizing of homoerotic love, Plato does not address the instability it brings into a society. Neither does he address homosexuality’s tendency to remain in its basest form by emphasizing gender blurring and superficial beauty. While Plato was philosophizing about the silver lining in pedophilia, he missed the destructive elements perpetuated by the rank and file of lesser ideals who were exploiting young boys and damaging the self-esteem of those considered ugly. While women in Greece had civil rights, they were judged by the standards of men. They were not valued for doing what women do better than men; they were praised when they came close to being like a man. I guess women who were rational, wise, just and virtuous were as rare in Greece as men who could look beyond superficial beauty and concern themselves only with the soul.
Even though we have different values, with effort I was still able to come away from my readings of Symposium and Phaedrus enlightened, entertained and enriched. But they weren’t written for me. They were lessons intended to teach his pupils 2000 years ago. The homoerotic elements used by Plato to describe his ideas about love, though problematic and uncomfortable for the modern reader to read, were essential to the achievement of understanding with his pupils. He needed to give them a common ground on which to build an abstract, complex idea. The foundation he put in place enabled his students to relate what he was teaching them to something familiar in their life – something they all had experience with. They transposed those feelings and ideas onto abstract philosophical ideas that are difficult to conjure even for the most learned men. There are beautiful ideas concerning the timeless subject of love in Plato’s writings. Understanding his customs and his choice of examples, even though we don’t agree with them, is the first step toward understanding those beautiful ideas. (Works Cited Available on Request)
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Agents and Powers
Which do you trust more, your gut feeling or a well though out conclusion? Deep down inside themselves, men feel that they have the ability to make decisions that direct the course of their life; and these decisions can be changed at any point without constraint exterior to themselves. Philosophers have attempted to reason through the idea of personal autonomy and their explanations are problematic either metaphysically or ethically. I will present the explanations of both John Locke and David Hume concerning freedom and liberty. I will criticize their explanations with the help of insights from Sarah Buss, Brian Garrett, and Nicholas Jolley. I will conclude with the idea that in the end we are still left with the choice between our gut feeling and rational explanations that fall short of our personal experience in the area of liberty.
Both Locke and Hume agree on the following definitions of will and freedom (for Locke) or liberty (for Hume):
· Will is the power to choose one course of action over another from the alternatives physically available to us (we cannot will to breathe water, or fly).
· Freedom / Liberty is the power to do or refrain from doing any particular action selected by the will
A free action for Locke is one in which “A subject S is free to do action x at time t just in case: (1) if S wills to do x at t (2) S is physically able to do x at t AND (3) if S wills not to do x at t, he is physically able not to do x. The ability not to act or the ability to do otherwise is a key point for Locke. He believes the power to choose not to act is connected to our personal moral responsibility. He holds to this idea because he believes that the idea of divine justice cannot be separated from human freedom – it is a necessary condition. In other words, if there is no human freedom there cannot be divine justice. God could not justly punish us for sins we could not avoid. Locke also claims that this type of freedom (a necessary component of moral responsibility) is consistent with the thesis of determinism because it does not require the power of willing in a causally determined fashion. Since Locke thinks that determinism and free will are compatible doctrines, he is classified as a compatibilist.
David Hume is a compatibilist also, but for an entirely different reason. Hume is insistent on the existence of a law-governed causal explanation for what happens in the natural world. He believes that there are also law-governed causes for human nature, and just as natural science explains the natural world, a science that explains human nature is possible. His ideas about necessity, like other ideas related to determinism, seem to be at odds with the concept of free will. If Hume is right, man is not free, and no better than animals. He attempts to reconcile the seemingly opposing ideas by differentiating between liberty of spontaneity and liberty of indifference. He claims that everyone except a prisoner in chains has liberty of spontaneity and if they choose to perform an action A, and they can, then A was done freely. The absence of hindrances to our volition is all that matters for Hume when it comes to free will. Liberty of indifference, claims Hume, is a freedom we think we have, but we do not have. He thinks that Locke’s “ability to do otherwise” would deny that all actions and events have causes, and he cannot abide contemplating such a heresy to his philosophy. Our liberty of indifference is mistaken and our liberty of spontaneity makes liberty compatible with determinism.
Separating things into the categories of agents and powers helps us in our discussion about freedom. According to the definitions agreed upon by Hume and Locke, freedom/liberty and will are both powers. These powers belong to or are attributed to some agent in order to be utilized. This separation into the “Agent team” and the “Power team” is the litmus test for coherence in an argument concerning free will. According to Locke
... whether the will has freedom, is to ask, whether one power has another power, one ability another ability; a question at first sight too grossly absurd to make a dispute, or need an answer. For who is it that sees not, that powers belong only to agents, and are attributes only of substances, and not of powers themselves? (E 2.21.16)
He believes the agent of the will is the mind, attacking the Scholastics who have sought to avoid predicating freedom to another power by elevating mental faculties, including the will, into agents within the agent of the mind. Hume, on the other hand, turns the whole thing upside down and puts the agent (the mind) in a subservient position to the power of the will, which is in turn subservient to the power of the passions. Hume emasculates the will by claiming “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.” At this point, Locke seems to have failed the litmus test because his definition of freedom subjects it to the will, both of them powers. Hume fails too because he subjects the agent to a power.
Another criticism of Locke, according to Jolley, is his inconsistency in his definition of freedom in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding when Locke states:
“we have a power to suspend the prosecution of this or that desire, as everyone daily may experiment in himself. This seems to me the source of all liberty; in this seems to consist that, which is (as I think improperly) called free will” (E2.21.47)
This appears to be inconsistent with his earlier position that liberty concerns not the will; it pertains to overt acts of behavior. Others suggest that Lock is merely noting an exception to his previous position, as if responding to an objection he received while writing the Essay. The ability to control our desires or postpone the fulfillment of them seems to resonate with Locke as an area of the will that cannot be constrained or hindered.
Compatibilists like Locke and Hume maintain that free will does not exist when constraints (of various kinds) are present. For example, Hume’s definition of liberty of spontaneity – the only liberty non-imprisoned men have- is the absence of hindrances to acting and the absence of obstacles to the choice of the will. What constitutes a hindrance or obstacle? Locke uses the example of a sleeping man brought into a room with his friend. After being locked inside the room, the man awakens and upon seeing his friend, chooses to remain in the room for a visit. Locke maintains that his choice to remain was not free because the man was not able to leave the room, even though he did not know that leaving was impossible. Is it physical hindrances alone such as chains, and locked doors that keep us from acting? After determining what counts as an obstacle, then we must ask if the obstacle affects the agent, the action or the power. Locke argues that if we are not in chains we are free, our acts of volition (the actions of our will) may not be free and our will is not free. For him, freedom of the individual is undisputed; freedom of the will is semantically a nonsensical expression, and freedom of acts of volition need to be checked for hindrances and the ability to do otherwise in order to determine whether they are free. Ideas about constraints upon acts of volition bring us to question what is causing the constraint or what is causing the agent to choose.
The attempt to draw a distinction between determining causes (causes compatible with free will) and constraining causes (causes incompatible with free will) doesn’t seem to fortify the strength of Locke’s argument. Garrett aptly points out that the agent subject to either kind of cause could not have done otherwise, so why make the distinction between the two? It appears that our attempts to rationalize determinism keep taking us farther and farther from the issue of freedom. I think Locke saw this happening and decided to take the Empirical stance of sticking to what can be known. He comes to the conclusion that we cannot possible tell from observation and reason alone if we are metaphysically free; he assumes that we must be free in some sense because God has promised to judge us justly and cannot do so if we are not free. The knowledge that God will judge us justly cannot be known empirically, but that does not seem to be a problem for Locke. The other ideas he stirs up in the discussion on freedom are more interesting, so most just overlook that inconsistency.
I leave the discussions of necessity and causes with the question “Does the cause that necessitates choice really have any effect on the agent’s freedom to do what is willed? I am not convinced that it does, and I am beginning to question the idea of determinism. Since determinism is only a problem for free will if it is true, then I feel the need to explore it in more detail. Sarah Buss clarifies the dilemma we face when we try to properly order agents and forces.
The puzzle at the heart of these questions is a puzzle about the relationship between the agent’s power and the power of the forces that move her. And it is a puzzle about the relationship between the agent’s authority and the status of these motivating forces. What distinguishes motives whose power is attributable to the agent herself from motives whose power is external to the agent’s? What distinguishes motives on which the agent has conferred her authority from motives whose power has reduced her authorization to a mere formality? When the governing agent and the agent she governs are the very same self, we cannot answer either of these questions without answering the other, This is why it is so difficult to produce a satisfactory account of personal autonomy.
I don’t think either Locke or Hume is completely right on the issue of freedom. They begin with interesting ideas that make some sense, but when they are developed further, they seem to get further and further from the issue and neither confirm or deny what I feel about my own personal freedom. Their reasoned accounts do not consistently match my experiences concerning my freedom of self, action and will and so I rely on my gut, which is right where I began.
(Works Cited Available on Request)
Both Locke and Hume agree on the following definitions of will and freedom (for Locke) or liberty (for Hume):
· Will is the power to choose one course of action over another from the alternatives physically available to us (we cannot will to breathe water, or fly).
· Freedom / Liberty is the power to do or refrain from doing any particular action selected by the will
A free action for Locke is one in which “A subject S is free to do action x at time t just in case: (1) if S wills to do x at t (2) S is physically able to do x at t AND (3) if S wills not to do x at t, he is physically able not to do x. The ability not to act or the ability to do otherwise is a key point for Locke. He believes the power to choose not to act is connected to our personal moral responsibility. He holds to this idea because he believes that the idea of divine justice cannot be separated from human freedom – it is a necessary condition. In other words, if there is no human freedom there cannot be divine justice. God could not justly punish us for sins we could not avoid. Locke also claims that this type of freedom (a necessary component of moral responsibility) is consistent with the thesis of determinism because it does not require the power of willing in a causally determined fashion. Since Locke thinks that determinism and free will are compatible doctrines, he is classified as a compatibilist.
David Hume is a compatibilist also, but for an entirely different reason. Hume is insistent on the existence of a law-governed causal explanation for what happens in the natural world. He believes that there are also law-governed causes for human nature, and just as natural science explains the natural world, a science that explains human nature is possible. His ideas about necessity, like other ideas related to determinism, seem to be at odds with the concept of free will. If Hume is right, man is not free, and no better than animals. He attempts to reconcile the seemingly opposing ideas by differentiating between liberty of spontaneity and liberty of indifference. He claims that everyone except a prisoner in chains has liberty of spontaneity and if they choose to perform an action A, and they can, then A was done freely. The absence of hindrances to our volition is all that matters for Hume when it comes to free will. Liberty of indifference, claims Hume, is a freedom we think we have, but we do not have. He thinks that Locke’s “ability to do otherwise” would deny that all actions and events have causes, and he cannot abide contemplating such a heresy to his philosophy. Our liberty of indifference is mistaken and our liberty of spontaneity makes liberty compatible with determinism.
Separating things into the categories of agents and powers helps us in our discussion about freedom. According to the definitions agreed upon by Hume and Locke, freedom/liberty and will are both powers. These powers belong to or are attributed to some agent in order to be utilized. This separation into the “Agent team” and the “Power team” is the litmus test for coherence in an argument concerning free will. According to Locke
... whether the will has freedom, is to ask, whether one power has another power, one ability another ability; a question at first sight too grossly absurd to make a dispute, or need an answer. For who is it that sees not, that powers belong only to agents, and are attributes only of substances, and not of powers themselves? (E 2.21.16)
He believes the agent of the will is the mind, attacking the Scholastics who have sought to avoid predicating freedom to another power by elevating mental faculties, including the will, into agents within the agent of the mind. Hume, on the other hand, turns the whole thing upside down and puts the agent (the mind) in a subservient position to the power of the will, which is in turn subservient to the power of the passions. Hume emasculates the will by claiming “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.” At this point, Locke seems to have failed the litmus test because his definition of freedom subjects it to the will, both of them powers. Hume fails too because he subjects the agent to a power.
Another criticism of Locke, according to Jolley, is his inconsistency in his definition of freedom in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding when Locke states:
“we have a power to suspend the prosecution of this or that desire, as everyone daily may experiment in himself. This seems to me the source of all liberty; in this seems to consist that, which is (as I think improperly) called free will” (E2.21.47)
This appears to be inconsistent with his earlier position that liberty concerns not the will; it pertains to overt acts of behavior. Others suggest that Lock is merely noting an exception to his previous position, as if responding to an objection he received while writing the Essay. The ability to control our desires or postpone the fulfillment of them seems to resonate with Locke as an area of the will that cannot be constrained or hindered.
Compatibilists like Locke and Hume maintain that free will does not exist when constraints (of various kinds) are present. For example, Hume’s definition of liberty of spontaneity – the only liberty non-imprisoned men have- is the absence of hindrances to acting and the absence of obstacles to the choice of the will. What constitutes a hindrance or obstacle? Locke uses the example of a sleeping man brought into a room with his friend. After being locked inside the room, the man awakens and upon seeing his friend, chooses to remain in the room for a visit. Locke maintains that his choice to remain was not free because the man was not able to leave the room, even though he did not know that leaving was impossible. Is it physical hindrances alone such as chains, and locked doors that keep us from acting? After determining what counts as an obstacle, then we must ask if the obstacle affects the agent, the action or the power. Locke argues that if we are not in chains we are free, our acts of volition (the actions of our will) may not be free and our will is not free. For him, freedom of the individual is undisputed; freedom of the will is semantically a nonsensical expression, and freedom of acts of volition need to be checked for hindrances and the ability to do otherwise in order to determine whether they are free. Ideas about constraints upon acts of volition bring us to question what is causing the constraint or what is causing the agent to choose.
The attempt to draw a distinction between determining causes (causes compatible with free will) and constraining causes (causes incompatible with free will) doesn’t seem to fortify the strength of Locke’s argument. Garrett aptly points out that the agent subject to either kind of cause could not have done otherwise, so why make the distinction between the two? It appears that our attempts to rationalize determinism keep taking us farther and farther from the issue of freedom. I think Locke saw this happening and decided to take the Empirical stance of sticking to what can be known. He comes to the conclusion that we cannot possible tell from observation and reason alone if we are metaphysically free; he assumes that we must be free in some sense because God has promised to judge us justly and cannot do so if we are not free. The knowledge that God will judge us justly cannot be known empirically, but that does not seem to be a problem for Locke. The other ideas he stirs up in the discussion on freedom are more interesting, so most just overlook that inconsistency.
I leave the discussions of necessity and causes with the question “Does the cause that necessitates choice really have any effect on the agent’s freedom to do what is willed? I am not convinced that it does, and I am beginning to question the idea of determinism. Since determinism is only a problem for free will if it is true, then I feel the need to explore it in more detail. Sarah Buss clarifies the dilemma we face when we try to properly order agents and forces.
The puzzle at the heart of these questions is a puzzle about the relationship between the agent’s power and the power of the forces that move her. And it is a puzzle about the relationship between the agent’s authority and the status of these motivating forces. What distinguishes motives whose power is attributable to the agent herself from motives whose power is external to the agent’s? What distinguishes motives on which the agent has conferred her authority from motives whose power has reduced her authorization to a mere formality? When the governing agent and the agent she governs are the very same self, we cannot answer either of these questions without answering the other, This is why it is so difficult to produce a satisfactory account of personal autonomy.
I don’t think either Locke or Hume is completely right on the issue of freedom. They begin with interesting ideas that make some sense, but when they are developed further, they seem to get further and further from the issue and neither confirm or deny what I feel about my own personal freedom. Their reasoned accounts do not consistently match my experiences concerning my freedom of self, action and will and so I rely on my gut, which is right where I began.
(Works Cited Available on Request)
Napoleonic Reforms - A Two-Edged Sword
Political stability and orderly government are worthy goals for a country caught in the wake of a reign of terror and led by a weak and ineffective government. A leader offering means to these goals is sure to find support from the masses who had been frequent victims of prior injustices. In 1799 that leader was Napoleon Bonaparte, and the country was France. Napoleon was able to reform the government of France and accomplish the goals of political stability and orderly government, but not without a cost. The means used by Napoleon to reform France were strategically maneuvered to ensure his reign as an enlightened despot and paved the way for future dictators around the world. He once said that he loved power as a musician loves his violin, and he was determined never to lose it (Perry 267).
Napoleon, like the dictators that would follow him, was able to rise to power because he was in the right place at the right time in history. The conditions in which he found himself were perfect. The French were trying to organize themselves after the Revolution, jumping around from ideology to ideology attempting to solve the problems before them as a state. The army, infused with drafted soldiers from Jacobin conscription laws, was dispersed in the Mediterranean and central Europe defending la patrie and soaking in the glories of war. The established order was in a shambles and groups were fighting for the inclusion of their ideals into the new republic. Insurrections in Paris by sans-culottes maddened by hunger and a hatred of the rich, and royalists seeking to restore the monarchy, plagued France’s ruling body, the Directory, since 1795 (Perry 267). There was political divisiveness between Catholics and Huguenots over who would hold the distinction as the official religion of the state. The stage was set for a leader with a plan for governing that would include France’s diverse groups while carrying on the aspirations of the Revolution; a strong leader who could bring order where there was only anarchy and chaos. Napoleon fit the job description and had an army to back him up.
Napoleon’s legal and economic reforms were a mixture of reforms of the National Assembly following the Revolution, reforms designed to placate the sans-culottes, Jacobin reforms, and reforms intended to support his absolute power as an enlightened despot. Let’s briefly discuss these reforms, who initiated them, what influenced them, the means that Napoleon employed to achieve the reforms, and the end result of the reforms.
The Enlightenment ideas of liberty and equality inspired revolutionary France and in 1789, the National Assembly initiated reforms that began to tear down the structure of the Old Regime. These reforms included the abolition of manorial payments and the abolition of the guilds, which caused medieval economic systems to dissolve. The abolition of special privileges of the nobility and clergy, including the abolition of the courts of nobility and the clergy in favor of a standardized system of courts, began the decline of the social order and ended the legal order of the Old Regime. The bourgeoisie aspired to erase the stigma of common birth and demanded equality through the abolition of serfdom, while “the Sans-culottes, according to French historian Albert Soboul, began to realize that a privilege of wealth was taking the place of a privilege of birth. They foresaw that the bourgeoisie would succeed the fallen aristocracy as the ruling class.” They insisted that the government had a duty to guarantee them the “right of existence” (Perry 261). Napoleon endeared himself to the peasants by failing to reinstate the privileges of the aristocracy of the Old Regime when he assumed power. Napoleon demonstrated the enlightened view of Hobbes that “only absolute rule could provide a secure environment for people to pursue individual interests” (Perry 235) by concentrating ruling power into his hands alone. He achieved absolute rule through the suppression of individual political liberty. The result was political stability, strengthening of the state, and orderly government.
Napoleon’s strong central government was run by an effective civil service, “an army of officials, subject to the emperor’s will…linking together the entire nation” (Perry 268). The emperor’s will was circulated through newspapers printed by those willing to swear an oath to him. In his obsession to shape public opinion about himself and his policies, Napoleon ended the liberty of the press, silencing those who opposed his rule. From 1793-5 the Jacobins imposed dictatorial rule and justified, as well as legalized, the use of terror. Napoleon took it even further by wielding instruments of the police state such as secret agents, arbitrary arrest, summary trials and executions to suppress irreconcilable opponents (Perry 268). Being a brilliant military leader, Napoleon saw to it that his armies kept busy. He used war, conquest and military expansion to master the European continent. He fostered commerce by building or repairing the Empire’s roads, bridges and canals. This also had a serendipitous effect of quickly getting his troops where he wanted them. This vast European empire was now under French rule. They needed new, enlightened laws that reflected the reforms of the Revolution while keeping a strong, unified central government. The Code Napoleon, initiated by his officials, was established throughout the empire and began a social revolution that weakened the Old Regime of Europe beyond repair.
Some reforms were concessions given by Napoleon in order to extract support from various political groups. Tariffs on imports and state loans, reforms initiated by Napoleon to retain the favor of the bourgeoisie, stimulated the economy and aided industry. He also continued to support the sans-culotte and Jacobin initiated reforms of increased wages, the law of the maxim, and employment for the poor. Napoleon was no fool; he knew that large masses of peasants who are fed, are happy and do not threaten one’s position with revolution. In 1789, influenced by the desire of the philophes to understand nature and society through reason alone, the National Assembly initiated reforms that moved France toward a secular state. Jacobin rule reversed that trend, and Napoleon made an attempt at a compromise by making an agreement with the Pope. The Concordat of 1801 broadened his appeal with Catholics, peasants and the bourgeoisie. The peasants and bourgeoisie were allowed to keep former Church lands that they had purchased, which allowed them to gain social prestige by owning land. Although the agreement did not designate an official state religion, which was the desire of the Pope, it recognized Catholicism as the religion of the great majority of the French and eased the fears of the country’s Catholics. Napoleon saw no harm to his position by granting these groups their desires, because it solved immediate political problems and he knew that as an absolute ruler he had the power to change it at any time. Over a century later, Lenin used this tactic when the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia (Pipes 44).
Many of the means used by Napoleon became patterns used by dictators to obtain and maintain power. Military expansion, transformation of a free press into a propaganda machine, elimination of critics, suppression of opposing views, political disenfranchisement, creation of offices with no accountability and consolidation of power to one individual are actions that should send up signals of alarm whenever they rear their ugly head to freedom-loving people. And just as in Napoleon’s day, there are those waiting for the right combination of circumstances to unfold that will enable them to seize power over a politically fragmented and economically stressed people.
Napoleon’s reforms were numerous and touched every aspect of the lives of his subjects. Most reforms were initiated by others, so he scores low in originality. Those that he personally initiated served only him and his need to retain absolute power. When it is all said and done, the question remains: Was France better off after Napoleon’s reforms? It appears that most political groups and economic classes were better off. They had better roads, bridges and canals on which to travel, higher wages, more food, better education and healthcare, and greater opportunity. However, there were some reforms that turned off into paths that would set the stage for totalitarian regimes and world wars over one hundred years later. So, was Machiavelli right – did the end justify the means? I do not believe they did. The means used, made for faster results, to be sure. Sadly, the ideals of liberty and equality influenced by the Enlightenment and initiated by the National Assembly following the Revolution were sacrificed for expediency in this case. I hold the belief that human beings have the capacity to learn from the lessons of the past. Our lesson concerns the fertile conditions for the emergence of those who seek to destroy our freedom. The ever-present danger is that “here and now” becomes more important to people in times of stress, and they are willing to barter their birthright of equality and liberty for a bowl of stew as did Esau five thousand years ago in the book of Genesis. “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again” (Angelou).
(Works Cited Available on Request)
Napoleon, like the dictators that would follow him, was able to rise to power because he was in the right place at the right time in history. The conditions in which he found himself were perfect. The French were trying to organize themselves after the Revolution, jumping around from ideology to ideology attempting to solve the problems before them as a state. The army, infused with drafted soldiers from Jacobin conscription laws, was dispersed in the Mediterranean and central Europe defending la patrie and soaking in the glories of war. The established order was in a shambles and groups were fighting for the inclusion of their ideals into the new republic. Insurrections in Paris by sans-culottes maddened by hunger and a hatred of the rich, and royalists seeking to restore the monarchy, plagued France’s ruling body, the Directory, since 1795 (Perry 267). There was political divisiveness between Catholics and Huguenots over who would hold the distinction as the official religion of the state. The stage was set for a leader with a plan for governing that would include France’s diverse groups while carrying on the aspirations of the Revolution; a strong leader who could bring order where there was only anarchy and chaos. Napoleon fit the job description and had an army to back him up.
Napoleon’s legal and economic reforms were a mixture of reforms of the National Assembly following the Revolution, reforms designed to placate the sans-culottes, Jacobin reforms, and reforms intended to support his absolute power as an enlightened despot. Let’s briefly discuss these reforms, who initiated them, what influenced them, the means that Napoleon employed to achieve the reforms, and the end result of the reforms.
The Enlightenment ideas of liberty and equality inspired revolutionary France and in 1789, the National Assembly initiated reforms that began to tear down the structure of the Old Regime. These reforms included the abolition of manorial payments and the abolition of the guilds, which caused medieval economic systems to dissolve. The abolition of special privileges of the nobility and clergy, including the abolition of the courts of nobility and the clergy in favor of a standardized system of courts, began the decline of the social order and ended the legal order of the Old Regime. The bourgeoisie aspired to erase the stigma of common birth and demanded equality through the abolition of serfdom, while “the Sans-culottes, according to French historian Albert Soboul, began to realize that a privilege of wealth was taking the place of a privilege of birth. They foresaw that the bourgeoisie would succeed the fallen aristocracy as the ruling class.” They insisted that the government had a duty to guarantee them the “right of existence” (Perry 261). Napoleon endeared himself to the peasants by failing to reinstate the privileges of the aristocracy of the Old Regime when he assumed power. Napoleon demonstrated the enlightened view of Hobbes that “only absolute rule could provide a secure environment for people to pursue individual interests” (Perry 235) by concentrating ruling power into his hands alone. He achieved absolute rule through the suppression of individual political liberty. The result was political stability, strengthening of the state, and orderly government.
Napoleon’s strong central government was run by an effective civil service, “an army of officials, subject to the emperor’s will…linking together the entire nation” (Perry 268). The emperor’s will was circulated through newspapers printed by those willing to swear an oath to him. In his obsession to shape public opinion about himself and his policies, Napoleon ended the liberty of the press, silencing those who opposed his rule. From 1793-5 the Jacobins imposed dictatorial rule and justified, as well as legalized, the use of terror. Napoleon took it even further by wielding instruments of the police state such as secret agents, arbitrary arrest, summary trials and executions to suppress irreconcilable opponents (Perry 268). Being a brilliant military leader, Napoleon saw to it that his armies kept busy. He used war, conquest and military expansion to master the European continent. He fostered commerce by building or repairing the Empire’s roads, bridges and canals. This also had a serendipitous effect of quickly getting his troops where he wanted them. This vast European empire was now under French rule. They needed new, enlightened laws that reflected the reforms of the Revolution while keeping a strong, unified central government. The Code Napoleon, initiated by his officials, was established throughout the empire and began a social revolution that weakened the Old Regime of Europe beyond repair.
Some reforms were concessions given by Napoleon in order to extract support from various political groups. Tariffs on imports and state loans, reforms initiated by Napoleon to retain the favor of the bourgeoisie, stimulated the economy and aided industry. He also continued to support the sans-culotte and Jacobin initiated reforms of increased wages, the law of the maxim, and employment for the poor. Napoleon was no fool; he knew that large masses of peasants who are fed, are happy and do not threaten one’s position with revolution. In 1789, influenced by the desire of the philophes to understand nature and society through reason alone, the National Assembly initiated reforms that moved France toward a secular state. Jacobin rule reversed that trend, and Napoleon made an attempt at a compromise by making an agreement with the Pope. The Concordat of 1801 broadened his appeal with Catholics, peasants and the bourgeoisie. The peasants and bourgeoisie were allowed to keep former Church lands that they had purchased, which allowed them to gain social prestige by owning land. Although the agreement did not designate an official state religion, which was the desire of the Pope, it recognized Catholicism as the religion of the great majority of the French and eased the fears of the country’s Catholics. Napoleon saw no harm to his position by granting these groups their desires, because it solved immediate political problems and he knew that as an absolute ruler he had the power to change it at any time. Over a century later, Lenin used this tactic when the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia (Pipes 44).
Many of the means used by Napoleon became patterns used by dictators to obtain and maintain power. Military expansion, transformation of a free press into a propaganda machine, elimination of critics, suppression of opposing views, political disenfranchisement, creation of offices with no accountability and consolidation of power to one individual are actions that should send up signals of alarm whenever they rear their ugly head to freedom-loving people. And just as in Napoleon’s day, there are those waiting for the right combination of circumstances to unfold that will enable them to seize power over a politically fragmented and economically stressed people.
Napoleon’s reforms were numerous and touched every aspect of the lives of his subjects. Most reforms were initiated by others, so he scores low in originality. Those that he personally initiated served only him and his need to retain absolute power. When it is all said and done, the question remains: Was France better off after Napoleon’s reforms? It appears that most political groups and economic classes were better off. They had better roads, bridges and canals on which to travel, higher wages, more food, better education and healthcare, and greater opportunity. However, there were some reforms that turned off into paths that would set the stage for totalitarian regimes and world wars over one hundred years later. So, was Machiavelli right – did the end justify the means? I do not believe they did. The means used, made for faster results, to be sure. Sadly, the ideals of liberty and equality influenced by the Enlightenment and initiated by the National Assembly following the Revolution were sacrificed for expediency in this case. I hold the belief that human beings have the capacity to learn from the lessons of the past. Our lesson concerns the fertile conditions for the emergence of those who seek to destroy our freedom. The ever-present danger is that “here and now” becomes more important to people in times of stress, and they are willing to barter their birthright of equality and liberty for a bowl of stew as did Esau five thousand years ago in the book of Genesis. “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again” (Angelou).
(Works Cited Available on Request)
Stem Cell Research
Stem Cells are smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, but they are the object of political, economic, scientific, religious and philosophical discussion. Stem cell research holds great promise in treating diseases that affect millions of people in the world today. It should continue and be encouraged, but the discussion begins to get heated when you ask how it should continue and what form of encouragement is desired. They say the devil is in the details, and stem cell research is no exception. The use of embryonic cells, the cost, political control of stem cell lines, and therapeutic cloning are issues that create conflict. In the end, one is faced with the timeless question: Do the ends justify the means? The inability of interest groups to compromise and build upon common ground concerning stem cell research is an obstacle to progress toward the development of life-saving treatment for millions.
“All cells in the human body ultimately descend from stem cells, through the processes of mitosis and differentiation.” (Sheir, Butler, and Lewis 97) About thirty hours following fertilization, the egg begins the process of mitosis and divides into two stem cells. This mitosis process continues so quickly that the stem cells do not have time to grow and the cells get smaller and smaller. These totipotent stem cells are “totally potent" or totally capable of forming all cells of the body, and if allowed to grow in a proper environment each single cell would develop into a human being. (qtd. In United States). Approximately a week after fertilization, a hollow ball of stem cells begins implanting in the womb and the primary germ layer of the primordial embryo is formed. The middle layer (mesoderm) contains pluripotent stem cells. Each cell could not develop into a human being because pluripotent stem cells are more "committed" than totipotent stem cells. The pluripotent cells specialize into the blood, bone, nerve, muscle and skin cells that make up the organs and systems of the body. Stem cells of developed humans (adult stem cells) are multipotent and can develop into more than one cell type.
Stem cells show tremendous possibilities for the future of medicine. They are self-renewing meaning that they can continually duplicate themselves. They can be used to produce tissues that would not be rejected.
“Pluripotent stem cells stimulated to develop into specialized cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissue to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. There is almost no realm of medicine that might not be touched by this innovation.” (qtd. in United States)
Further research is necessary in order for scientists to understand the events that happen on a cellular level to cause differentiation. One big piece of the puzzle that is missing is the knowledge of how to manipulate specific changes in the stem cells. “We know that turning genes on and off is central to this process, but we do not know much about these "decision-making" genes or what turns them on or off.” (qtd. in United States) Until these mysteries are solved, these possibilities are just dreams. Embryonic stem cells are needed in order to begin to find the answers because of their totipotent and pluripotent characteristics.
The ethical questions that arise because of the use of embryonic cells have been a major obstacle. Various religious groups and pro-life activists take issue with their use, because they view the embryo that is destroyed in the process of harvesting the stem cells as a human life. The destruction of the embryo, even though the embryo was “leftover” from in-vitro fertilization treatments, is viewed as murder of an innocent life. They even protest the use of stem cells from embryos that have stopped developing naturally. They argue that there is no way to prove that the development would have ceased outside the lab environment, so lab conditions could have halted their growth. (Associated Press) The next logical step for stem cells research to take, after stem cell “switches” have been found, is called somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning. This procedure would enable scientists to use stem cells to engineer organs and tissues for transplantation that would not have immune rejection complications. The ethical issue becomes whether life should be allowed to develop in order to produce parts. The biggest ethical dilemma to face with this issue is whether the ends justify the means – should “unwanted” potential life be sacrificed in order to provide the cells necessary to understand a process that will end or reduce the suffering of millions. Is the gain worth the cost?
Possibilities do exists that can reduce or remove some ethical issues. One is the replication of existing stem cell lines. Embryonic stem cells can reproduce quickly and indefinitely without losing any of their pluripotent qualities, unlike adult stem cells that lose it over time. While this ensures an inexhaustible supply of cells, it still does not resolve the objection to the destruction of the embryo. Another option is to use donated embryonic cells from parents. If a pregnancy is terminated the cells could be harvested; or parents using in-vitro fertilization could donate their unused embryos “to scientific research” for the development of new lines. This is viewed by most as the moral equivalent of donating organs when someone dies.
Finally, there is the issue of the cost of all of this research. Currently in the United States there are federal prohibitions and restrictions in place regarding stem cell research. In 2004, California passed legislation appropriating billions of tax payer dollars to fund this research and avoid the federal red tape ever-present with government grants. The states of Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey have also passed laws offering state-level financial support, but there is concern that it will not be enough. Some philanthropists and corporations have stepped forward to help fund research over the past five years. They bring the benefit of freedom from government regulation and political baggage. All of this support in dollars pales in comparison to the funding ability of the National Institute of Health (NYU 5), which continues to reduce their financial commitment.The unanswered questions of this multi-faceted issue will never disappear completely and no one is likely to have all the decisions fall in their favor. The discussion will continue, but iron wills fixed on agendas should not let much needed progress in this research stagnate. (Works Cited available on request)
“All cells in the human body ultimately descend from stem cells, through the processes of mitosis and differentiation.” (Sheir, Butler, and Lewis 97) About thirty hours following fertilization, the egg begins the process of mitosis and divides into two stem cells. This mitosis process continues so quickly that the stem cells do not have time to grow and the cells get smaller and smaller. These totipotent stem cells are “totally potent" or totally capable of forming all cells of the body, and if allowed to grow in a proper environment each single cell would develop into a human being. (qtd. In United States). Approximately a week after fertilization, a hollow ball of stem cells begins implanting in the womb and the primary germ layer of the primordial embryo is formed. The middle layer (mesoderm) contains pluripotent stem cells. Each cell could not develop into a human being because pluripotent stem cells are more "committed" than totipotent stem cells. The pluripotent cells specialize into the blood, bone, nerve, muscle and skin cells that make up the organs and systems of the body. Stem cells of developed humans (adult stem cells) are multipotent and can develop into more than one cell type.
Stem cells show tremendous possibilities for the future of medicine. They are self-renewing meaning that they can continually duplicate themselves. They can be used to produce tissues that would not be rejected.
“Pluripotent stem cells stimulated to develop into specialized cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissue to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. There is almost no realm of medicine that might not be touched by this innovation.” (qtd. in United States)
Further research is necessary in order for scientists to understand the events that happen on a cellular level to cause differentiation. One big piece of the puzzle that is missing is the knowledge of how to manipulate specific changes in the stem cells. “We know that turning genes on and off is central to this process, but we do not know much about these "decision-making" genes or what turns them on or off.” (qtd. in United States) Until these mysteries are solved, these possibilities are just dreams. Embryonic stem cells are needed in order to begin to find the answers because of their totipotent and pluripotent characteristics.
The ethical questions that arise because of the use of embryonic cells have been a major obstacle. Various religious groups and pro-life activists take issue with their use, because they view the embryo that is destroyed in the process of harvesting the stem cells as a human life. The destruction of the embryo, even though the embryo was “leftover” from in-vitro fertilization treatments, is viewed as murder of an innocent life. They even protest the use of stem cells from embryos that have stopped developing naturally. They argue that there is no way to prove that the development would have ceased outside the lab environment, so lab conditions could have halted their growth. (Associated Press) The next logical step for stem cells research to take, after stem cell “switches” have been found, is called somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning. This procedure would enable scientists to use stem cells to engineer organs and tissues for transplantation that would not have immune rejection complications. The ethical issue becomes whether life should be allowed to develop in order to produce parts. The biggest ethical dilemma to face with this issue is whether the ends justify the means – should “unwanted” potential life be sacrificed in order to provide the cells necessary to understand a process that will end or reduce the suffering of millions. Is the gain worth the cost?
Possibilities do exists that can reduce or remove some ethical issues. One is the replication of existing stem cell lines. Embryonic stem cells can reproduce quickly and indefinitely without losing any of their pluripotent qualities, unlike adult stem cells that lose it over time. While this ensures an inexhaustible supply of cells, it still does not resolve the objection to the destruction of the embryo. Another option is to use donated embryonic cells from parents. If a pregnancy is terminated the cells could be harvested; or parents using in-vitro fertilization could donate their unused embryos “to scientific research” for the development of new lines. This is viewed by most as the moral equivalent of donating organs when someone dies.
Finally, there is the issue of the cost of all of this research. Currently in the United States there are federal prohibitions and restrictions in place regarding stem cell research. In 2004, California passed legislation appropriating billions of tax payer dollars to fund this research and avoid the federal red tape ever-present with government grants. The states of Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey have also passed laws offering state-level financial support, but there is concern that it will not be enough. Some philanthropists and corporations have stepped forward to help fund research over the past five years. They bring the benefit of freedom from government regulation and political baggage. All of this support in dollars pales in comparison to the funding ability of the National Institute of Health (NYU 5), which continues to reduce their financial commitment.The unanswered questions of this multi-faceted issue will never disappear completely and no one is likely to have all the decisions fall in their favor. The discussion will continue, but iron wills fixed on agendas should not let much needed progress in this research stagnate. (Works Cited available on request)
Space Exploration
Since the lunar landing of Apollo 11 in 1969, taxpayer support for space exploration and development has dwindled. The issue is not the goals of the space program, because most of them are worthwhile and can have a great impact on mankind. The issue is the cost. American taxpayers prefer to have their money spent addressing domestic concerns. Reduction in government funding necessitates finding “a new, more cost effective approach to funding space projects.” (Boenig ¶3) Business has the greatest motivation to create a solution because it stands to make the most profit. Businesses desiring to profit through space projects and programs are the logical candidates to pay for further expansion in space.
There are three ways in which businesses can succeed where governments fall short. First, and most importantly, private businesses would not be dependent on government funding. Entrepreneurs have the innate ability to make decisions faster and create wealth faster than sluggish government bureaucracies. The flights of SpaceShipOne in 2004 demonstrated that space flight can be privately funded and succeed. Competition would create new technologies or improve on old ones, for example, Scaled Composite’s use of laughing gas as an oxidizer and rubber as the fuel for SpaceShipOne. In a presentation at a Scientist’s Hearing on Space Policy in the U.S. Senate in 1990, Carl Sagan stated “that with alternative technologies and more lenient bureaucratic restrictions, quick, dirty, and incredibly cheap missions of humans to the Moon and Mars are possible.” (Sagan ¶17)
Secondly, private businesses would not be hampered by the shifting political support that has plagued NASA since its inception. The restrictions inflicted by politicians wanting to shield themselves from criticism would be removed. Transferring non-military applications from government hands into private hands will “increase the institutional efficiency, minimize delays, and increase the chances of completion. Therefore, a new self-sustaining industry could develop, the revitalized economy could provide jobs, and the space project could escape the possibility of a premature political death.” (Boenig ¶12)
Finally, through business, the future funding of space programs and projects may become a global endeavor that will fairly distribute the financial burden. Pat Dasch, Executive Director of the National Space Society, anticipated in an article written in 2000, that “Future human missions likely will have major commercial components – vehicles owned or managed by private operators and laboratories provided by multinational concerns.” (Dasch ¶13) International cooperation has been successful in the past with scientists on MIR and with Japanese, European, Russian and American space agencies working on the International Space Station. Cooperation will be integral to future successful space endeavors. Carl Sagan admitted that “the only way for the United States to go [to Mars] is to do it cooperatively. Without such cooperation, the program may remain wholly infeasible.”(Sagan ¶18) Mankind will be presented with limitless opportunities for the nations of the world to unite for something other than a war.
The future of space exploration and development is before us. It has been predicted that “in another decade [approximately 2008] the projected commercial launch capability will grow to the point where trips to the Moon can be purchased competitively…even if no publicly-funded, government-managed exploration program is initiated” (Mendell). Businesses and entrepreneurs are lining up to be a part of that future. What do we have to lose by giving them a chance to put their money where their mouth is? (Works cited available on request)
There are three ways in which businesses can succeed where governments fall short. First, and most importantly, private businesses would not be dependent on government funding. Entrepreneurs have the innate ability to make decisions faster and create wealth faster than sluggish government bureaucracies. The flights of SpaceShipOne in 2004 demonstrated that space flight can be privately funded and succeed. Competition would create new technologies or improve on old ones, for example, Scaled Composite’s use of laughing gas as an oxidizer and rubber as the fuel for SpaceShipOne. In a presentation at a Scientist’s Hearing on Space Policy in the U.S. Senate in 1990, Carl Sagan stated “that with alternative technologies and more lenient bureaucratic restrictions, quick, dirty, and incredibly cheap missions of humans to the Moon and Mars are possible.” (Sagan ¶17)
Secondly, private businesses would not be hampered by the shifting political support that has plagued NASA since its inception. The restrictions inflicted by politicians wanting to shield themselves from criticism would be removed. Transferring non-military applications from government hands into private hands will “increase the institutional efficiency, minimize delays, and increase the chances of completion. Therefore, a new self-sustaining industry could develop, the revitalized economy could provide jobs, and the space project could escape the possibility of a premature political death.” (Boenig ¶12)
Finally, through business, the future funding of space programs and projects may become a global endeavor that will fairly distribute the financial burden. Pat Dasch, Executive Director of the National Space Society, anticipated in an article written in 2000, that “Future human missions likely will have major commercial components – vehicles owned or managed by private operators and laboratories provided by multinational concerns.” (Dasch ¶13) International cooperation has been successful in the past with scientists on MIR and with Japanese, European, Russian and American space agencies working on the International Space Station. Cooperation will be integral to future successful space endeavors. Carl Sagan admitted that “the only way for the United States to go [to Mars] is to do it cooperatively. Without such cooperation, the program may remain wholly infeasible.”(Sagan ¶18) Mankind will be presented with limitless opportunities for the nations of the world to unite for something other than a war.
The future of space exploration and development is before us. It has been predicted that “in another decade [approximately 2008] the projected commercial launch capability will grow to the point where trips to the Moon can be purchased competitively…even if no publicly-funded, government-managed exploration program is initiated” (Mendell). Businesses and entrepreneurs are lining up to be a part of that future. What do we have to lose by giving them a chance to put their money where their mouth is? (Works cited available on request)
Standardized Testing
Standardized testing has been a part of American academics for generations. They are currently being used by school districts, state boards of education, colleges, universities, businesses and professions. The mobility of American society created the need for a measure that can be utilized anywhere a child might move during their school years. Sounds like a great idea, but unfortunately, standardized tests are being used to gauge things not intended in their design. “People keep believing that to show you’re tough or to raise standards means you increase test score requirements, when in fact, you’re doing neither. You’re increasing the potency of severely flawed assessments.” (Sacks ¶45) Standardized tests ineffectively measure a student’s academic success, placement and progress. Incorrectly using these tests increases academic inequality, misdirects education policy priorities of elected representatives, and results in the poor use of education resources by administrators.
As a young student, my I.Q. score (originally designed to serve as a guide for identifying students who could benefit from extra help in school) was used for academic level placement in grades 1-12 and as a qualifying criterion for gifted and talented programs of study. As a college student, my ACT score was used to determine eligibility for admission, placement in English and Math classes, and eligibility for scholarships. Colleges continue to use standardized tests to decide admission even though “researchers consistently find that adding test scores to the admissions equation results in fewer women and minorities being accepted than if their academic records alone are considered.” (Sacks ¶16). Even athletic eligibility is being determined by standardized test scores.
“Despite strong opposition from FairTest and other groups, the NCAA recently raised the standardized test scores required for athletic eligibility. The NCAA changed its policy contrary to compelling evidence that the real effect of the new rules would be to exclude many minorities from scholarships who nevertheless would have succeeded in college.” (Sacks ¶44)
As an elected school board trustee, I witnessed firsthand the effect that test scores had on education policy. No Child Left Behind and School Finance Reform were big issues in the state of Texas. Test scores fueled the battle over the three R’s – resources, representation and reputation. The battle is still waging even though almost fifteen years ago the U.S. Office of Technological Assessment concluded “It now appears the use of these tests misled policymakers and the public about the progress of students, and in many places hindered the implementation of genuine school reforms.” (Sacks ¶30) The need for reform is self-evident, but using test scores to decide where “[elected officials and educators] ought to direct resources and efforts” (Gerstner ¶4) is entirely outside the scope of their design. They are an easy statistic to manipulate.
As a college student who plans on a career in administration, I am learning to see situations through an administrator’s perspective. I understand the attractiveness of standardized testing; it is easily affordable, it is easy to administer, and it is easy to grade. But life has also taught me that what is easier in the short run is usually worse in the long run. Alternative methods of assessment are out there, like this one from a college student from Santa Clara University;
“By having skilled teachers assess student academic performance over time through portfolios, projects, and exhibitions, not one-shot tests, we can achieve genuine accountability and improve student learning.” (Takasugi, ¶9)
These methods are impractical to administer (Where will these teachers come from? Will they teach in a classroom also? How do you justify the expense of a teacher who does not teach?) and they require someone with specialty training in assessment. These obstacles are annoying for large, metropolitan districts, but the same obstacles present a Herculean task for small, rural districts. There are plenty of people out there telling administrators how to do their job better, but the fixes are mostly short-term and designed to make everyone feel better right now with disregard for their future consequences.
Standardized tests have their place. According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children:
“The purpose of testing must be to improve services for children and ensure that children benefit from their educational experiences. Decisions about testing and assessment instruments must be based on the usefulness of the assessment procedure for improving services to children and improving outcomes for children” (NAEYC, ¶2)When these tests are used inappropriately, it causes system-wide problems in the education system. Eliminating the tests completely is not the solution, but steps can be taken by schools, governments and by the public to put the tests and their scores into proper perspective. By doing our part, we can improve education for all students. (Works cited available on request)
As a young student, my I.Q. score (originally designed to serve as a guide for identifying students who could benefit from extra help in school) was used for academic level placement in grades 1-12 and as a qualifying criterion for gifted and talented programs of study. As a college student, my ACT score was used to determine eligibility for admission, placement in English and Math classes, and eligibility for scholarships. Colleges continue to use standardized tests to decide admission even though “researchers consistently find that adding test scores to the admissions equation results in fewer women and minorities being accepted than if their academic records alone are considered.” (Sacks ¶16). Even athletic eligibility is being determined by standardized test scores.
“Despite strong opposition from FairTest and other groups, the NCAA recently raised the standardized test scores required for athletic eligibility. The NCAA changed its policy contrary to compelling evidence that the real effect of the new rules would be to exclude many minorities from scholarships who nevertheless would have succeeded in college.” (Sacks ¶44)
As an elected school board trustee, I witnessed firsthand the effect that test scores had on education policy. No Child Left Behind and School Finance Reform were big issues in the state of Texas. Test scores fueled the battle over the three R’s – resources, representation and reputation. The battle is still waging even though almost fifteen years ago the U.S. Office of Technological Assessment concluded “It now appears the use of these tests misled policymakers and the public about the progress of students, and in many places hindered the implementation of genuine school reforms.” (Sacks ¶30) The need for reform is self-evident, but using test scores to decide where “[elected officials and educators] ought to direct resources and efforts” (Gerstner ¶4) is entirely outside the scope of their design. They are an easy statistic to manipulate.
As a college student who plans on a career in administration, I am learning to see situations through an administrator’s perspective. I understand the attractiveness of standardized testing; it is easily affordable, it is easy to administer, and it is easy to grade. But life has also taught me that what is easier in the short run is usually worse in the long run. Alternative methods of assessment are out there, like this one from a college student from Santa Clara University;
“By having skilled teachers assess student academic performance over time through portfolios, projects, and exhibitions, not one-shot tests, we can achieve genuine accountability and improve student learning.” (Takasugi, ¶9)
These methods are impractical to administer (Where will these teachers come from? Will they teach in a classroom also? How do you justify the expense of a teacher who does not teach?) and they require someone with specialty training in assessment. These obstacles are annoying for large, metropolitan districts, but the same obstacles present a Herculean task for small, rural districts. There are plenty of people out there telling administrators how to do their job better, but the fixes are mostly short-term and designed to make everyone feel better right now with disregard for their future consequences.
Standardized tests have their place. According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children:
“The purpose of testing must be to improve services for children and ensure that children benefit from their educational experiences. Decisions about testing and assessment instruments must be based on the usefulness of the assessment procedure for improving services to children and improving outcomes for children” (NAEYC, ¶2)When these tests are used inappropriately, it causes system-wide problems in the education system. Eliminating the tests completely is not the solution, but steps can be taken by schools, governments and by the public to put the tests and their scores into proper perspective. By doing our part, we can improve education for all students. (Works cited available on request)
Music Downloading - A Missed Opportunity
Our lives are saturated with music. To be removed from it takes a conscious effort on our part. The recording industry has a reliable product to sell and an inexhaustible demand for it, so why are they up in arms over the illegal downloading of music on the internet? The record companies, a de facto monopoly, want to provide music on their terms. Compact discs offer excellent sound quality in a compact medium. Consumers pay up to twenty dollars to own a disc containing two or three songs they want, and six or more that they have never heard. Digital music players have created a market for downloaded music. These new technologies have made it possible for consumers to pay only for the individual songs they want and exclude the songs they do not want. By turning a deaf ear to their customers, record companies are losing business to illegal downloading instead of creating a market for legally downloaded music. Their claims regarding intellectual property rights are valid, but they have chosen to ignore a business opportunity by downplaying the emergence of the internet as a marketing tool and distribution apparatus for their product.
The failure of record companies to embrace the internet is bad business. Consumers drive the market in business, and the market adapts to their changing needs. These are the basic realities of business. Music consumers are no different. Young adults, the largest consumers of music, are technologically savvy. They use computers regularly and navigate the internet with ease. They are aware of new technologies and eager to use them to customize their environment. Dating, studying, communicating, and shopping are activities that take place online. If record companies want to continue to provide a product to these customers, they must listen to their industry analysts and “must give music fans more ways to buy their music online” (Evangelista ¶4). Many people feel sympathetic with Bill Thompson who emphatically states “I’m not going to buy any more CDs until there’s a decent online music service that lets me get the music I want” (Thompson ¶11). These customers have made it clear that they want music in a downloadable format. Record companies would be wise to rake in the profits by making it available on their websites. Instead, they are forcing customers to find a different supplier or an illegal alternative.
Record companies have historically been slow to embrace new technology. According to Janice Ian;
The music industry had exactly the same response to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidisks, VHS, BETA, music videos (”Why buy the record when you can tape it?”), MTV, and a host of other technological advances designed to make the consumer’s life easier and better. I know because I was there. (Ian ¶19).
Downloaded music eliminates shipping, storage, and distribution costs. “The cross-marketing opportunities are unbelievable. It’s instantaneous, costs are minimal, shipping non-existent…a staggering vehicle for higher earnings and lower costs.” (Ian ¶42). Music is stored on a computer instead of warehouses and stockrooms. Record companies would receive immediate payment with no middle man. They would also have a clear picture of what their customers enjoy. Consumers would be able to have the quality music they want at a more reasonable price. This sounds like a business no-brainer, but the record companies still fight downloading because they cannot control it.
The internet is the instrument of the information revolution. It is an incredible tool. It cannot be ignored. It is not going away. The internet is too porous to be contained or policed effectively. Its nature forces individuals, businesses and governments to examine issues heretofore unnecessary. It has changed the way we communicate, the way we socialize, the way we get information and the way we shop. It has changed the way companies do business. The record companies must decide whether they are in business to make a profit, or to make a point about intellectual property. If they continue to focus only on prosecuting illegal downloaders, they might win the battle, but they will lose the war. If they accept online music downloading as the future of their industry, they can begin to take positive steps toward larger profits and a larger market share. And that is good business. (Works Cited available on request)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
