Bowling Alone? Think Again

Catalysts for social change often come from the unlikeliest of places.  This adage is once again proven by “Still Bowling Alone?  The Post 9/11 Split” by Robert Sander.  With the attack upon the World Trade Center, there was a new motivation for social engagement by what he calls the “9-11 Generation.” Within this generation (as in those under twenty or so) there has been an upsurge in social engagement which was simply not seen within the previous generation. 

                This is not to say that the terrorist attack upon The World Trade Centers itself encouraged social engagement per se, but rather, that people who saw this in their formative years (i.e. in elementary school, middle school, high school or college) had their perceptions of civic duty shaped by it.  It was not the end, but rather the means of encouraging interaction within the civic realm.  It again demonstrates a trend; when times of patriotic feeling are high- that is to say, times when there is an threat that permeates the existence of the U.S. (The Great Depression, World War I or II) - there is a greater emphasis to fight for American values and the “American Way of Life.”

                At the time of Putnam’s article, there was no great threat that loomed over American life. It was a generation which was raised by the common perception that the U.S. was doing okay, and that civic engagement simply was not important.  However, with the attack,  the standards of the U.S. have once again become in flux, and the fear of the threat has united many people to better engage the world. 

                This article really emphasized the new forms of communication that go along with new standards of engagement.  With a rise in using Facebook or Twitter, engagements take different forms which are influenced by a new age of globalization.

Eating Alone, Eating Lonely

As of writing this, I have never eaten a meal alone on campus.  I’m not sure if many people can make that claim, or if practically no one can; but, every meal I have partaken in has included at least one other person.  These meals were mostly a social gathering as opposed to a time for sustenance.

                This is in stark contrast to my meals at home, which were usually eaten by alone.  Maybe once a week, my family would gather around our dining room table and eat the “family dinner” together.  These, however, were of a marked contrast to being at school, because not talking, and to that extent, avoiding eye contact, was the main theme.  We nourished our bodies, and then we left.  That is not to say that my family was antisocial, but rather, because dinner had a propensity to turn into a “lively” debate that we figured it was better not to talk, rather than creating a large argument.

                Another factor in why we often didn’t eat together was due to the fact that we were all busy.  If my brother wasn’t home, he was at football practice.  If my sister wasn’t there, it was due to a basketball game or confirmation meetings.  My younger sister was at soccer, and I honestly can’t keep track of all the times I ate dinner at eleven p.m. because I had been at school from seven that morning, and was not in the mood for talking.

                Putnam’s article seemed to be rather dated, in the sense that it does not factor in different forms of communication or what constitutes something as hanging out.  Sometimes, people communicate in different ways.  While at St. Olaf, I have received more texts in a given month than I did for the entirety of my high school career.  These texts are sometimes a casual “hey, what’s up?” but oftentimes they’re something along the lines of “Do you want to grab dinner tonight?”

                It feels as though Putnam’s focus upon people not being in regulated organizations (weekly poker nights, bowling leagues) does not mesh with his argument that we’re less engaged as a whole. Perhaps people are less organized nowadays, but I don’t think we’re looking actively to go “bowling alone” as if it were.  There is a definite push for being social and joining things, but on people’s own terms.  There are still weekly movie nights for people, just as Wednesdays in Minnesota seem to be inevitably reserved for religion.  His focus upon a lack of communication amongst the American public seems flawed in the age of Twitter, Facebook and unlimited texting.  As the younger demographic in the American public, I must say that I feel incredibly in touch with every one whether within an organization or within a group of friends.

Vanilla

The other day I heard someone described as "boring.  You know, she's sort of a vanilla."
Lay off vanilla.  Okay?  It did nothing to you whatsoever.  It's a good solid flavor with good solid potential!
I mean, I hear this so many times a day.  Vanilla is boring, only boring people appreciate vanilla.   You know what I think?  Vanilla is more willing to work with a wide variety of things than anything else in this world, and that's a rare and beautiful quality.  I mean, look at your rich, decadent, beautiful chocolates of the world.  Sure, they may be full bodied and go great with caramels, but have you seen them when you add gummi bears or strawberry syrup.  It's Chaos.  Sheer chaos!  It's this disgusting mass of sad gelatin lumps and broken dreams.  Too sweet, too different.  Too much.
Vanilla, good old reliable vanilla, is able to work with whatever your palate may appreciate, but it's also a standalone item.  If I'm feeling up for a chocolate coated masterpiece, do you know who I turn to for my foundation?  Vanilla.  Chocolate is great, but overloads of chocolate can ruin your night.  Chocolate decadence?  More like chocolate despair and ruin.
Or on the broader spectrum.  If I want fruity delights to grace my taste buds, do you think that I'm going with strawberry as my starter flavor?  Do you make your umbrellas out of paper? No.  Do you know why?  Well, in umbrellas, it makes everything super soggy and leaves you with a bunch of pulp and sorrow.  Now, trying to transfer that metaphor would just be idiotic, but here I go.  Too much strawberry, with those great hunks of artificial something that dares you to not call it fruit, leads to a bowl full of melted ice cream and disappointment.  Much like my paper umbrella, I'm left with nothing to see but my own lack of planning.
So, let's hear it for all the vanillas of the world. They may call us boring, they may call us bland; but in the end, everyone's life could use a little more vanilla.

de Tocqueville-Part 1

Associations and Democracy

                Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America has often been lauded as one of the greatest political tomes of our time.  And there is no denying that on a philosophical basis, he has accomplished an admirable demonstration of the core values of a democratic society.  De Tocqueville summarizes his beliefs with the idea that “The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal; but it also depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness.” (De Tocqueville 880).  With this sentence, he illustrates his idealistic faith in the possibility of a utopian society, one of complete equality, but also his strong pragmatic convictions that a utopian society can easily turn into a dystopian one.  In understanding what de Tocqueville was attempting to accomplish with his political treatise on democracy; it is undoubtedly just as important to understand his motivations for such an undertaking.

            Alexis de Tocqueville lived when France was still reeling from the aftermath of the French Revolution. Despite France’s search for complete equality in its politics, he had a passionate interest in the idea of a democratic government and in 1831; he went to the U.S. to study its penal system.  Whilst there, he became even more fascinated by the idea of American Democracy.   He traveled to over a dozen states, and in 1835, he published his four volume work, Democracy in America.  (De Tocqueville 1)

            With the idea of American Democracy, de Tocqueville saw infinite possibilities for the betterment of mankind. He went as far as to say that “Aristocratic nations are naturally too apt to narrow the scope of human perfectibility; democratic nation to expand it beyond compass.”  (De Tocqueville 545) However, that is not to say that he was blind to the dangers of democracy. Rather, he warned against democracy leading to a tyranny of the majority.  He also was fearful of the dangers of a democracy leading everyone to be mediocre in their equality.

            De Tocqueville’s admiration of American Democracy was not limited to the political realm.  He also saw its impact upon other aspects of life; permeating art, literature and social movements.  There is a rather large section in Democracy in America which is devoted to the importance of the “voluntary association” or club.   He compares the voluntary associations of England and the United States by saying “The English often perform great things singly, whereas the Americans form associations for the smallest undertakings.  It is evident that the former people consider association as a powerful means of action but the latter seem to regard it as the only means they have of acting.” (de Tocqueville 629).

            This idea is demonstrated within the formation of Temperance societies.  Temperance societies in the early parts of the 19^th century focused upon “moderation in drinking, specifically by abstinence from spirits…employing education and good example to encourage reform.”  (Farmington).  These associations were rapidly increasing in popularity, with over 1.5 million members in more than 8000 locations by 1835.  Their main agenda, in de Tocqueville’s time period, was not to prohibit the consumption of alcohol, but rather, to limit its quantity.  Another important factor was the emphasis upon voluntary membership.  At this point in the history of the temperance movement, coercion was not tolerated.

It is vital to note that these societies were entirely voluntary because much of de Toqueville’s argument about the power of American Democracy relies upon the idea that voluntary associations help to maintain democracy.  These associations cause people to feel as though they have power to act and to be heard.  They use these associations in order to be heard; it is their “only means of acting.”(de Tocqueville 629). 

Then De Tocqueville remarks upon his astonishment at the formation of these societies, stating that “the first time I heard [of temperance societies] it appeared to me more like a joke than a serious engagement…” (de Tocqueville 632).  The idea of forming a society based upon moderately consuming alcohol confuses him; he says at one point “I did not at once perceive why these temperate citizens could not content themselves with drinking water by their own firesides.” (de Tocqueville 632).

This is really the crux of de Tocqueville’s argument.  American Democracy works because there is a united front, a spirit of camaraderie and unity that is-pardon the pun-foreign to de Tocqueville.  Without a unity, or an opportunity to unite, there is no real hope for any democracy.  The reason that he delves into associations is because within those voluntary organizations, things that we find incredibly common, within those are the true keys to democracy: a feeling of unity, and the ability to be heard.  In turn, these feelings of unity give a democracy the ability to become something that can lead to “…wretchedness or prosperity.”(de Tocqueville 880).

This is hard! (Sheen or Gaddafi)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsiYvcn8oZw
But seriously, this is much more difficult than it should be, and he makes a good point.  We hear more about celebrities because that's what we act like we're more interested in.  So, play the game...perhaps feel bad about your priorities, and learn something!

Chimeras...

"I do not think that it is possible to combine several principles in the same government, so as at the same time to maintain freedom, and really to oppose them to one another.  The form of government which is usually termed as mixed has always appeared to me to be a mere chimera."

Alexis de Tocqueville...is an interesting guy, it must be said.  The idea of calling mixed government to be a delusional, grotesque fantasy is something that really strikes a chord in me.  I dunno, I guess I can see what he's saying about the whole idea of mixing forms of government and opposing freedoms against one another, but it's a bit of a tough pill to swallow.
I feel as though it is possible to have opposing freedoms.  Mayhaps not on a federal level, but honestly, with the different interpretations on our freedoms, is that not nearly the same thing?  We have an opposing value system and while not perfect, it's not delusional and grotesque.  It's a very clear reality.  Again, this addresses the fact that Democracy in America, at least from my cultural context, has not aged very well.  It's good with some themes, but it is not the definitive tome.