In the novel by Steven Lukes, “The Curious enlightenment of Professor Caritat”, Professor Nicholas Caritat travels to different societies in order to find an ideal political society. Every society that he encounters has a different set of values on how to govern. Throughout his quest, Caritat steps upon four different societies: Utilitarian, Communitaria, Proletaria, and Libertarian. Each society has a set of principles that either benefits or damages how the society functions. In Communitaria, everything is about being part of a certain group and religion. However, what happens when the ideal group that you correspond does not satisfy your individual needs? When you no longer feel “secure in your identity, your personality, your selfhood” because it has all been …show more content…
taken away. In Communitaria government, how can two houses: the house of religion and the house of ethnicity, really take into account all the different groups' perspective and preserve their rights without harming a different fraction. From his time in Communitaria, Caritat views how a society that cares about the wellbeing of their citizens fails by limiting their citizen’s individual rights.
Caritat also faced a series of dilemmas that required his knowledge in enlightenment to either preserve Communitaria or to challenge their beliefs. Using his knowledge of enlightenment, Caritat to help guide Jonny Cypselus against his communities: Malvolian and Stalactites, and to help The Revolutionary Club to find a way to gain the acceptance of mixed marriages. While at the same time professor Caritat must choose whether he will have abandoned his beliefs in the enlightenment theory to teach in Unidiversity. Thought out his experience in Communitaria, Caritat sees the corruption and limitations that surround the “ideal society” of Communitaria. When Caritat arrived to a communitarian, he is welcomed by Reverend Goddington Thwaite, whom with he will be staying with his visit. While at Goddington’s house, Caritat meets Jonny Cypselus, and discovers his dilemma with his communities that has made him go into hiding. While on an international tour, Jonny and his bandmates preformed a rock opera to tribute their communities: Malvolian and
Stalactite. However, after critics criticized their opera in a comedic way by calling it satire, their communities were enraged. The communities’ leaders demanded the opera to be banned in Communitaria and for the band to apologize to their communities. Jonny was “accused on television and in the papers of attacking the very foundation of Communitaria (132)”. Even though Jonny’s was found not guilty since he was not responsible for what communitarian’s thought satire meant. Malvolian and Stalactite leaders still were furious, so they decided to excommunicate Jonny. In Communitarian, communities have enough power to do as they please for their own benefit. Even though Jonny was found not guilty of betraying his communities, his communities did what they felt was better for them. None of the communities in communitarian want to be seem weak and powerless, creating a feud between communities toward which one is better. Malvolian and Stalactite do not want to accept Jonny’s innocents because they will seem powerless in front of other communities. This event shows how much power the communities have under their citizens. When Caritat visits Unidiversity, he meets the Rector which whom offers him a job as a professor. The Rector wants Caritat to teach philosophy in a course entitled “Did the enlightenment project have to fail? (147)”. However, Caritat objects the offer since his field has nothing to do with the department of ethnics studies and religious studies. Even so, Caritat agrees to the offer and is rushed to meet the other professors of that department. The professors tell Caritat that the reasons for their disbelief in enlightenment is because such philosophy is dangerous in Communitaria. Since enlightenment challenges the view of religion and how it opens the “…ambition…to escape from the worldwide of one’s community (149)” is what makes it so dangerous. In Communitaria, enlightenment is shown as the illusion “to dominance of one culture and body of knowledge over all others, disrupting and destroying traditional cultures in the name of universal reason and truth (151)”. The argument brought by the professors shows how limited and controlled communitarian beliefs are. While in Unidiversity, Caritat meets a group of college students that ask for his help. The students want Caritat to join their Revolutionary Club and help them through with the use of his philosophy. The main purpose for the club is to find a way to let members of different communities get married, because in Communitaria such acts are “discourage by virtually all communities (159)”. The students tell Caritat that mixed marriages is not the only problem that surrounds Communitaria. People that fake being part of different communities, or reject their religion and /or ethnicity have difficulty surviving in communitarian. There are also groups that do not get equal representation in the house of religion and the house of ethnicity. Those groups of people are “unrecognized…perceived as a real threat by those on the list (160)” of religions and ethnicities. Citizens of Communitaria have limited human rights. Citizen of Communitaria are pressured to marry within their own communities and to never question their religion and ethnicity. professor Caritat sees that Communitaria is not as ideal as it is perceived to be and that not all communities are treated equally under the law. Those that do not approve with the ways Communitaria rules are shown as outcasts from Communitaria as a whole. To an outsider like Professor Caritat, Communitaria could be seen as an ideal society. However, within Communitaria citizens are afraid to challenge the beliefs of the Communitarian society. Coming from a monarchy society, citizens are afraid that their new found freedom will be taken away. The new freedom brought by Communitaria has its limitations and problems that affect individual’s human rights. Due to the decentralization of political, Jonny Cypselus’s communities have all the power to do as they please in order to not be criticizes and distrusted between different groups. This shows the corruption between the House of religion and the house of ethnicity. Also, those that question the centralize belief of Communitaria are seen as a threat and outsiders to the society. There is potential for communitarian to becoming an ideal society, but the distribution of powers exposes the limitations and problems that forms a society where everything is about power.
The novel, Farewell to Manzanar, by Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, tells her family’s true story of how they struggled to not only survive, but thrive in forced detention during World War II. She was seven years old when the war started with the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1942. Her life dramatically changed when her and her family were taken from their home and sent to live at the Manzanar internment camp. Along with ten thousand other Japanese Americans, they had to adjust to their new life living behind barbed wire. Obviously, as a young child, Jeanne did not fully understand why they had to move, and she was not fully aware of the events happening outside the camp. However, in the beginning, every Japanese American had questions. They wondered why they had to leave. Now, as an adult, she recounts the three years she spent at Manzanar and shares how her family attempted to survive. The conflict of ethnicities affected Jeanne and her family’s life to a great extent.
Larger groups hold a selfish and egoistical nature and do not care about others. “Societies, he argues, effectively gather up only individuals’ selfish impulses, not their capacities for unselfish consideration toward others.” (Imsong,1999, “Reinhold”, para. 9)
Throughout a series of books, and now movies known as Divergent they hit a lot of points as to what is believed as a “good society”. In the series, Divergent all must conform and fall into a certain category Dauntless, Abnegation, Erudite, Candor, or Amity . If one fails to do so, and falls into all of the categories they are known as “Divergent," and must be killed for failing to conform to traditional society standards and rules. This relates to Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, because he talks about humans not needing a form of structure set by a hierarchy, such as a government. A good society according to Thoreau, is one with little to no government involvement, one that respects laws to a certain extent, and one that follows
Ayn Rand's classic story of one man's desire to become an individual in a nameless society presents a compelling refutation of collectivism in all forms. The hero, labeled "Equality 7-2521" by the State, chooses to challenge conventional authority as he learns the joys of experimentation and discovery, the ecstasy of human love, the challenge and fairness of liberty, and the happiness of self-interest. Equality 7-2521 writes three unique phrases in his journal: 1. "My happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to an end. It is the end.", 2. "We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it.", 3. "The word 'We' . . . must never be placed first within man's soul.". These phrases will be discussed individually in the remainder of this essay.
Willa Cather writes the story of The Joy of Nelly Deane, describing Nelly’s joy as “unquenchable,” especially, Nelly’s joy attracted all the Baptist ladies who admired the prettiest girl in Riverbend, Nebraska (Cather, p. 225). Nelly fluttered from one social event to another, parties, picnics and dances, and sings like a “prima-donna” in the Baptist Church choir, where she met Peggy, the narrator of the story.
The world is divided up into numerous things: Countries, states, cities, communities, etc. However, when looking at the big scope of things, one can group the vast amount of people into a society. This society is where the majority lie in the scheme of things - in other words, the common people. Individuals do exist in this society, but they are scarce in a world of conformism. Society’s standards demands an individual to conform, and if the individual refuses they are pushed down by society.
The word collectivism often makes people cringe. Overall, there is a general fear of not being able to make personal decisions in America. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, collectivism can be defined as; emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity (“Collectivism”). In Anthem, Ayn Rand describes an extreme collectivist society. Although Anthem’s society seems extremely surreal, aspects of its collectivist society closely mirror today’s society.
The first group is the person who does not find any differences in the principles of the theoretical society and of the present one he lives in. This person does not wish to make any changes to it. Usually this person is a blinded, conformed oppressor. Sometimes he is also innocently blind because of the influence of the masses. On the other hand, the second group is the person who is able to see differences in the two systems and wishes to change principles. Usually this person is either the oppressed who is familiar with the unjust laws, or a logical, equality-promoting person that belongs in the people who are unaffected by such differences. This team goes back and forth comparing the two principles of the theory with the laws in its society and fights for a
Individualism and collectivism are conflicting beliefs with the nature of humans, society, and the relationships between them, however, these ideologies are not diametrically opposing since both are essential towards balancing beliefs from becoming extremes. The first source represents the idea of collectivism and suggests that the society must focus on moving their viewpoint from ‘me’ into ‘we’ in the interest of survival and progression. This perspective presents the idea that the individual’s advantage belongs not only to the person, but to the group or society of which he or she is a part of, and that the individual’s values and goals are for the group’s “greater good.” Likewise, Karl Marx’s principle of communism emphasizes in the elimination
It is human nature to see those who are different and group them into distinct categories. The distinction of Individualism versus Collectivism is one that is currently being studied extensively. On one side, individualism sees individuals as the fundamental unit of a society. Individuals are supposed to be unique, independent, and most importantly, willing to put their own interests above all others. On the other hand, collectivism views the basic building block of society as social groups, stressing the interpersonal bonds between people. Collectivist values dictate that group goals and values have higher precedence than an individual’s. Due to the seemingly polar opposite nature of these ideologies, it is inevitable that they will be compared to see which is more beneficial to the country and its people. Some might point to the success of the US, an extremely individualistic country, in support of individualistic values. They will point to the freedom of choice and diversity that individualism boasts of. Others stress the flaws of the US in response, and while both sides do have their truths, the costs that come with individualistic values are too great to be ignored. Highly individualistic attitudes have caused many large scale problems which have long been identified as difficult to resolve issues. These problems include, but are not limited to, promoting aggressive acts, creating an obsession with social power, and allowing a system of injustice to be born.
The first basic issue confronting all societies is to define the nature of the relation between the individual and the group. This dimension is frequently labeled as individualism versus collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, 1991). In cultures at the Conservatism pole of the dimension, Schwartz (1994) noted that the person is viewed as embedded in a collectivity, finding meaning in life largely through social relationships, through identifying with the group and participating in its shared way of life. Schwartz (1999) noted that this value type emphasizes maintenance of the status quo, propriety, and restraint of actions or inclinations that might disrupt the solitary group or the traditional order. Exemplary specific values are social order, respect
Gregory Vlastos commented in his book Socrates: The Ironist and Moral Philosopher, “Such is his strangeness that you will search and search among those living now and among men of the past, and never come close to what he is himself and to the things he says.” (Vlastos). Gregory makes an important point; although studying Plato gives us a glimpse of Socrates, it only gives a glimpse of him through Plato’s eyes. We can study this text and others and never understand exactly who this man is. Even if we had writings of Socrates’s own hands it would be difficult to understand this complicated man. On the other hand the writings we do have, including the
“The only way to identify the requirements of justice is to see how each particular community understands the value of social goods”(Kymlicka 211). This is the approach to justice from the communitarian. Communitarianism in the last few decades has sparked in popularity among political philosophers. Communitarians believe that political theories, such as classic liberalism, leaves out the importance and significance of the community. The communitarian respects and upholds social practices and traditions as a way of governing, and as a way of justice. Because of the importance of the cultural aspect, this political current is thought of as a cultural relativist approach to justice. The communitarian does not accept the notion of being able to detach the self from roles of society. While communitarianism shows a great respect for cultural practices and tradition, it is an incomplete theory on the notion of being able to protect individual citizens from social institutions, like the community itself.
The inability to conform in society can lead to unhappiness and the feeling of inequality
This chapter began by introducing the concept of a civil society. Chirico (128) described it as people organising outside of government channels to meet social objectives. She pointed out that social movements in the past have focused on communities within nations while the current movements focus more on involving people from diverse parts of the world in order to promote human welfare regardless of where in the World they happen to be. Chirico shared a quote from Simmel (128) that really resonated with me and, in my opinion, captured such a complex concept into a short and simple sentence. He said that “Humanity is the collective life, the same people who from other perspective are organized into societies, polities economies, families, and so on”. I take this to mean that we are all, basically, the same; we are all humans who are trying to make it through whatever life we have been given to live. People are just people. I think the concept of civil society is one that I wish more people would understand and embrace instead of holding on to prejudice, judgement, and ignorance. According to Chirico (128), individuals who help do so out of a sense of shared experience by recognising that everyone is a victim of global problems and that anyone can help. There are endless ways to participate whether it be through a formal organisation such as NGO’s, The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and The Peace Corps, through non-profit organisations and advocacy, or more individually by making donations, sponsoring a child, mentoring, volunteering in their communities. These are regular people who volunteer, and sometimes risk their lives, to fight for equal rights and treatment for all.