All of the theories that we came up with had one common feature: they talked about us and them.
This is the way we usually think about politics. We assume that there is this group, and this group has goals and objectives. The group makes choices about the best way to achieve its goals. The group is affected by the world. “We” are so powerful that we ignore the world, or “they” have a religion that commands them to sacrifice themselves in freeing “their” land from infidels.
Now, as Michael recognized in his comment about our interventions into foreign civil wars, “they” are not always as homogeneous, as unified, as we might assume. But in general, we think of large groups as if they were individuals writ large. A group has feelings, like envy and anger, and the group makes decisions about the best way to achieve its goals. It has a mind that can be distracted and not pay attention to things like how much anger and envy it might have excited.
All of this is perfectly normal. It falls under the first of our 5 principles of politics—rationality. When we assume that the decisions and actions of a group can be explained by the group’s purposes and goals, we are assuming that there is a unified group, that the group is a sort of individual writ large.
We can often explain a lot by thinking in this way. There are many cases where a group of people are so unified (such as a democracy that has just been attacked) or they are under a such a tight system of command (such as a nation under a totalitarian dictatorship) that we can think of the nation or the group as one thing with goals and intentions. And we can explain the group’s behavior, whether that group is a country or members of a religion, as deriving from the group’s goals and choices about how to meet those goals.
But often we can’t. In fact, quite often we can’t. There may be some goal that all the members of the group agree on but that they can’t work together achieve because of communication difficulties or not having a way to structure incentives effectively. We call these Collective Action Problems. They may mostly agree on a policy but their decision making procedures lead to a minority’s views getting undue weight in the decision making process. Such phenomena fall under the Policy Principle. They may have formed a mental habit that they don’t re-examine critically in light of new information, leading them to get blind-sided by new developments. Or, they may have delegated a task to a sub-group, an organization, that, overtime, becomes like a living being itself with its own goals and interests, and its own distinctive way of looking at the word. This is a Principle-Agent problem. These sorts of accounts also fall under what political scientists often call the Institutional Principle. Finally, they a group may not evaluate all the options open to it because some event or choice they made in the past has closed off some options or made others more prominent than they should be on the rationality principle. We group these under the rubric or Path Dependency or, as our book calls it, History Matters.
The point of throwing all these new words at you is to help you start to explore new possibilities for explaining the actions of groups, whether they are nations, religions or loose associations of the like-minded. Over the next week we will go over what these terms mean in detail. The goal is to help you build a mental check-list, a set of possible explanations that you can bring to any new situation that you are trying to explain. None of these ideas are really new to you, but by describing them with abstract, technical terms we will help you to apply these ideas to wider sets of phenomena.
Before we do that I would like us to read two short pieces of writing by George Orwell. I have emailed you links to these articles.
In the first, Orwell talks about problems in the way the English language is used in politics and what to do about it. See if you can find one of our principles of politics in his account.
In the second he talks about Mahatma Gandhi, and in particular discusses Gandhi’s recommendation for how his principle of non-violence might have applied to the Jews of Germany in the period leading up to WWII. Would you consider his advice Rational?
18 comments:
Michael McGehee
PolSci 1000
Reflections on readings:
Politics and truth. Excuse me while I laugh for a moment. Orwell’s point about political speech being about hiding lies and camouflaging murder is interesting. I have a hard time finding where that does not apply. I am still laughing at the point being made that “intellectual” or pretentious writers will often use a majority of words in constructing a sentence that are not even based in the language being written in. That is not to say that I am unduly making false accusations or perpetrating injustices of the most extraneous kind (lol). Orwell is an interesting thinker. He expresses himself eloquently and the connection between his words and his thoughts appears to be solid. His thoughts on Ghandi bore me. He spends half of the article discussing that he never really put much focus on him or his beliefs, then the other half focusing on him and his beliefs. Contradiction of the most blatant type. His suggestions for writing I will try and remember. Better yet, I will attempt to implement. To that end, I think it would not be prudent to continue this reflection any further as I have exhausted my ideas. Any attempt to add volume to this would merely be expressing in 500 words what I can express in 300. Give or take of course.
Orwell's first essay on the English language was particularly interesting to me because it is an issue that has come up within one of my IDST classes. Orwell is not the first person to notice that our language does have some problems within it. The most prominent problem I believe is with word precision. The same word can have many different meanings and interpretations to it. This problem with word precision can cause misunderstandings and other dilemmas when looking at other peoples’ work. For instance, when I write something, I have a particular meaning to what I am writing which only I know. However, when someone else reads my work, they may interpret what I say to be totally different from what I was really trying to emphasize. This causes an interpretation problem with our language. Another underlying factor to this problem is that today most people write lazily. We do not take the time to make sure the reader can understand what we are trying to say. Instead we just write what we have to say and be done with it. This way usually is the type of work where people have problems with interpreting the work. In addition to word precision, today we also use unneeded words a lot in our writing. Orwell covers this topic also within his essay. He states that we should use the least number of words as possible. Also many times, we add meaningless words. For instance, growing up within the public school system I was encouraged to use new and longer words within my writings. While this does seem like a great idea at first, it made absolutely no sense at all. I didn’t know what the words really meant. I just took the longest word and placed within my work to make it look more intellectual. Orwell says that we should use the least number of words possible and the smaller the word the better. I agree with this philosophy.
I believe one reason the English language has started to collapse is because most people are bad listeners. Some of these statements appear to be written by people who do not know what they are talking about and therefore they speak in a vague manner. If we begin to listen to other people's beliefs and ideas then we can have a broader knowledge of what we write about. Many people are so close minded that they will only listen to what they want to hear and only write about what they believe. If everyone took the time to become better listeners then our writing would not lack the precision that Orwell claims these statements are missing.
Reflection on Orwell
Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language,” states that the people of higher ranking are beginning to write and speak in a different manner. He feels as though these people are speaking in a way they think sounds more intelligent, especially when using the Greek and Ancient words. According to Orwell, the English language has grown more boring and has lost its key element of imagery. Orwell feels that people are writing just along their party line and not what they actually consider true. He says that one writes better if they believe in what they are writing. He also comments that poor political writing has all come from defending the indefensible such as killing innocent, etc.
Based on the “Reflections on Gandhi,” I was surprised to discover the darker side of this well-known pacifist. I used to believe that he was nothing but a genuine caring figure. From what I have learned about him, he helped free India from the control of the British Empire through none violent tactics. On the other hand, George Orwell states that Gandhi would have willingly sacrificed his own wife and child for his cause. Also, Orwell speaks of Gandhi’s views of how the Jews, “ought to commit collective suicide.” Gandhi’s view demonstrates a complete disregard and coldness towards the Jews that suffered Hitler’s genocide. So I am not sure that I still consider Gandhi a “noble saint.”
In conclusion, Orwell explains in both excerpts how politicians try to sugarcoat everything instead of stating the real facts. People such as Gandhi say what people want to hear in public but sing a completely different tune behind closed doors. So, he uses speech to his advantage to get people to like and agree with him.
Reflections on Orwell's essays: The readings fascinated me in the fact that even though he wrote these essays nearly 65 years ago, they still apply to today. His ideas that the English language, in a since, can be so distorted with jargon and foreign phrases that the main point somehow can be lost. This is so very true. The political leaders of today have their speeches written with phrases and terms that the common man just cannot understand. Well these common men are their constituents. We as the citizens of a democratic nation have the right to know what is going on in our country and what the governing bodies are doing about these issues. I cannot count the numerous times that I have watched or listened to a speech given by a president or congressmen and did not have a clue what they were talking about. I really liked Orwell's list of rules to use in not only speeches but in everyday articles or reports. "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." This rule expresses the overall point that I am trying to make with my reflection and the overall point Orwell was trying to make with his essay. Orwell's essay on Ghandi was somewhat interesting. Though Orwell did not actually like Ghandi all that much, he did respect him for what he did. He makes the point that Ghandi had certian beliefs and tried his very best to live by his beliefs. On the other hand, Orwell seems to try and change the image of Ghandi that we all know. He tries to show us that Ghandi was not always like we invision him to be. There was a point in Ghandi's life that he tried to accept the British and even tried to learn that ways of the Europe so that he was better fit into its society. When Ghandi decided that he wanted to gain independence for India, he decided that things we hold dear, like family, were not important and could be exposed of for the greater cause. In the end, Orwell shows that though Ghandi did do a great thing for the country of India, he was not exactly the saintly character that the media and history itself teaches us he was.
Michael Moore
Polsci 1000
Reflections on readings:
I would have to agree with Orwell on his views. Most of the time politicians do use big words to camoflage or hide the truth. If you were to look around the audience during a presidential address or during any political speech not very people are paying attention. However in order to get them to pay attention you would have to use language that the audience would understand, therefore leading to the truth. Which as in past or recent years has not always been the case. The problem with our language is not that the words are huge or phrases are missed its that not everyone know how to use them correctly. If people were to listen and learn what these thing mean then our language would again begin to broaden instead of collapse. The reading on Ghandi like Michael Mcgehee also began to bore me because it had nothing to do with politics and language. Ghandi made many addresses, however, he did most of his talking through demonstrations. So by that statement he cannot be compared to other politicians. The fact that he was willing to sacrfice his family for his cause did strike me as odd though, because he has always been shown as a person who would want to preserve life rather than sacrafice it. Well that is my two- ents on these readings. I believe Orwell had valid points on the collasping of our language but was the Ghandi reading really necessary. I guess it was to show the difference in how some politicians "speak" persay. All in all i agree.
Orwell's essay on the English language was rather interesting to me. I've never really thought about how our language can have so many issues, such as words that lack in meaning. I think that we all get so coaught up in assuming we know what people are trying to say, that we look past the fact that some of the words they are useing are seriously lacking in meaning. I found it interesting when he said that thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. It makes you wonder how powerful language can really be to corrupt thought and like wise. I think that people often don't realize this because they don't consentrate on listening as much. People don't listen closely enough to the language and what they are saying. Maybe if people listened a bit more than the language wouldn't have so many problems. I think that the social environments that people grow up in have a lot to do with the language problems that people clame that our language has. Growing up in New Orleans and learning to talk using a lot of slang and traveling to other places and going to college out of state has shown me this. People react differently to the different ways people talk as I have noticed some people react very differntly to me since I talk with a hard souther New Orleans accent.
Orwell's essay on the English language was rather interesting to me. I've never really thought about how our language can have so many issues, such as words that lack in meaning. I think that we all get so coaught up in assuming we know what people are trying to say, that we look past the fact that some of the words they are useing are seriously lacking in meaning. I found it interesting when he said that thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. It makes you wonder how powerful language can really be to corrupt thought and like wise. I think that people often don't realize this because they don't consentrate on listening as much. People don't listen closely enough to the language and what they are saying. Maybe if people listened a bit more than the language wouldn't have so many problems. I think that the social environments that people grow up in have a lot to do with the language problems that people clame that our language has. Growing up in New Orleans and learning to talk using a lot of slang and traveling to other places and going to college out of state has shown me this. People react differently to the different ways people talk as I have noticed some people react very differntly to me since I talk with a hard souther New Orleans accent.
Hanna Olivier
Political Science 1000
I agree with a lot of what Orwell says in his critique of the English language. I feel everyone has trouble truly speaking their mind, and that is why they use a lot of abstract phrases and ideas. I think the reason for this might not be what Mr. Orwell thinks. He is right in saying that most people cannot handle the truth when it is graphic or obscene, but people quickly take offense to any direct thought or comment. It is easier to use abstract ideas and not offend anyone than deal with the repercussions of your actions.
I did not appreciate his comment comparing politicians speeches to people reciting prayers in church. It takes great effort to fully and completely focus on what you are saying. Even though the prayers are memorized, it doesn't mean that they are not meditated and thought about. It is wrong to mock one of our country's sources of faith when our country is slowly losing the moral principles in which it was founded.
The Ghandi passage was interesting in the fact tht it talked about his personal life and his politics. I do not like the beginning of the passage when it talks about how much Ghandhi compromised his beliefs to be a political figure. I think that that is the problem with politics. No one believes that you can be a virtuous politician anymore. I think our political systems are flawed because we have corrupt men and women in office, but if Ghandi truly was a man of his word and was not affected by the temptations of the world, we should all learn from his example.
Orwell's article on the Reflections of Gandhi really made me think. I like the way Gandhi demonstrated and proved his points and believes more by his actions then his words. I think more people should let their actions talk more then their words. Just the fact that he helped free India from the control of britain through his actions that required no violence of any kind is some what very astonishing and amazing. Though I did not think that Orwell's work on Gandhi was not as interesting to me as his work on the english language. I was surprised by the part where Gandhi said that he didnt have friends because loyalty to close friends can cause you to do wrong doings. Which i guess i can see where he is coming from with that in that you may go out of your way to help a friend out even when you know it is wrong because you care about them.
John Holleman
I greatly enjoyed George Orwell’s essay on “Politics and the English language”. I found it very ironic that before reading about how the language can be distorted with unfamiliar terms and is often done so by many politicians that I read something for a speech class about people listening skills and it brought up the point that people who use both vague language and words that the average person cannot understand usually have something to hide. I believe that this is true and many politicians do this to get the votes of the uneducated or the people who are easily influenced by the way something is more than what is being said.
While reading the “Reflection on Gandhi” by George Orwell I found it interesting that he had once said that Jews should commit a collective suicide. This brings out a side of Gandhi that I never thought I would hear about. He also spoke out in urged people not to use violence against the Japanese invasion. In both of these cases there is going to be a loss of life but he was such a huge believer in not using violence to solve problems that this was the stance he took. I also found it very interesting that while he valued life so much that he would not give his wife or child the animal food prescription if they needed it to live. It also went to say that he would not take any help as well because there must be a limit to what we must do to stay alive. I think Gandhi is a very honest man and I respect him for standing by his guns at certain times when he could have very easily said what everyone either wanted or expected him to say.
Orwell's first essay on political speech was very interesting because Orwell points out that writers use words and phrases that people cannot understand as a to "hide" the truth. I found this very interesting because you see this all of the time when you read something in the newspaper or while watching television. Orwell also points out that most of the writers use words that are not even apart of the language that they are writing in, such as Greek or Latin. I have never really thought that way about political writings or speeches, I knew they were hard to understand but I have never thought that perhaps they are hiding something from us by using certain words or phrases. I don't like to think that my government or fellow Americans would shield the truth from me by using "fancy" words, but Orwell's thought on this subject is very interesting. I will think of this now everytime I watch television or read an article in the newspaper. Orwell's second essay on Gandhi was interesting also because I have never really thought about Gandhi either. Gandhi's thoughts on certain things seem like they would be the best solution but in reality they aren't. I like what he thinks but there is no way to avoid war. War is inevitable. I believe one should defend themself no matter the cost and if that means war then so be it. But in Gandhi's defense I admire that he stood by what he believed and he was not going to back down from it. I think that this is a great characteristic and I wish that more people had this characteristic including myself at times. It is an amazing feeling to believe in something with your whole mind body and soul and that is what Gandhi did and that is why he stood behind the things he believed.
The article on Gandhi is an analysis of how saintly the man is, while bringing up facts, opinions, and associations made about Gandhi. The analysis is approached in the same way that was suggested in class. It uses hindsight, and describes Gandhi in relation to the events that were surrounding him at the time. For example, when the writer related Gandhi to the British, he stated that to the British Gandhi was a benefit. As a Nationalist, he was naturally an enemy to the British. But, due to his nonviolent policies he offered advantages. The author cites that the British only became upset with him when he turned his nonviolent focus on another “conqueror”. In the same spirit of claming what was beneficial at the time, the author cites that the anarchist also claimed Gandhi for his opposition to strong central government.
The author continues to analyze Gandhi situation by situation with hindsight that is relative to the situation and not the man on a whole. He speaks of Ghandi’s relation to his wife and children and tries to evaluate on the terms of right and wrong, good and bad, which as the writer states is a fine line that has many ambiguities. The author moves on to larger ideas of other extremist such as Hitler, who were violent. He asks if they were correct and sane according to their situation. Can whole cultures be wrong when viewed by outside cultures, will this be our detriment?
The author of the second article on language has two main complaints directed towards the bad examples of English he offers. Both of the complaints are legitimate. In the posting of my opinion, I will more than likely, along with everyone else in the class, make both of the mistakes mentioned. There is a lot of bad writing due to lack of precision and clarity of meaning. I do think, even though this writing is lacking in these areas, that the lack sometimes creates a gain in style and personality. It provides an effect that the reader might not receive if it was precise and clear. Without rambling, and the use of phrases and sentence structure that stop to make you read twice, you might have missed the true meaning, and the thought process of the writer. This might not be so important with legal documents and such, but I know although it makes us look ignorant to outsiders, a lot of southerners are proud of our dialect and use it to express ourselves in writing too.
If the reader cannot understand the writing, it was probably not written for them to read. If you don’t understand the language, you will probably misinterpret the meaning. I do not believe that it will be the detriment of language. Business, not so great; Pleasure, makes it all the better and impressionable. Of course the author does make it clear at the very end that he is not speaking in literary terms, so shape up formal English writers! For the sake of clarity and expression of your meaning!
Orwell’s thoughts on the English language are by no means outdated. Today, people (and of course, politicians!) manage to inflate their writing with many fancy words that choke the details out of the story. I found his sample translation of the passage from Ecclesiastes particularly humorous. Even though it is exaggerated, it is not that far off the mark. Politicians’ language is most practiced, automatic style of English I’ve ever read or heard. When outlining a policy or platform, they cleverly manage to sell themselves to the voters while avoiding the root issue at hand. After reading this article, I’d have to agree with Orwell when he claims that thought corrupts language, vice versa.
His thoughts on Gandhi were puzzling. On one hand, he admitted to not thinking much of the spiritual leader, but on the other hand he was supporting his work or the effects of his work. He had respect for Gandhi, but he made sure to point out the few sins Gandhi had committed (going to 2 brothels, but not “doing anything”). It almost seems like he’s trying not to be skeptical of Gandhi. Keeping the rational principle in mind, I read Mr. Fischer’s account of Gandhi’s answer about the Jews. I would consider his advice rational in the sense of “one group, one outlook.” It seems like he has assumed that all Jews would be able to commit collective suicide in order to grab attention, when in fact that wasn’t the case at all.
Gandhi was a man that obviously was not mesmerized by the material objects that our society revolves around. In the essay Orwell states that there is a picture of Gandhi's possessions when he died, and the picture contained his outfit and a couple other small items. He did not obsess over money, power, new clothes, etc. He focused completely on his beliefs.
I also find it very interesting how he was a vegitarian and did not eat anything that came from animals. He did not drink or use tobacco, use spices or condiments. I think I would never be able to have that much self control to give up the things I enjoy doing.
One of the quotes that has really stayed with me since reading the essay is, "Close friendships are dangerous because 'friends react on one another' and through loyalty to a friend one can be led into wrong-doing." The quote applies to anybody that has friends. Everybody wants to trust their friends and by being loyal you will do things you would never do with a complete stranger.
Alicia Mercier
PLSC-1000
Reflections on Orwell's essay about Ghandi:
I was extremely appalled to learn that Ghandi was speaking in favor of violence because from all the things I have read about him. He was portrayed as a peacekeeper and he always took a nonviolent approach towards dealing with situations.
As I read these particular words caught my attention, Ghandi said Close friendships are dangerous, because "friends react on one another." I believe this is true because if that close friend of yours decides to do something wrong you may feel compel to go along with that friend because you trust them and you believe that they wouldn't steer you wrong.
In Orwell's essay it stated that ghandi had commented that the Jews should just commit a massive act of collective suicide.
That is contradicting every thing he stood for or spoke out against in his life.
Also in Orwell's essay he states that Ghandi was without doubt willing to sacrifice his family's well being for his beliefs and his purpose.
Politically speaking, Ghandi was rational in what he said about the Jews committing suicide, because Ghandi viewed as not being an act of violence, but an act of significance. Ghandi believed that since the Jews were being exterminated that they should go ahead a kill themselves so that they could let the world see how awful a person Hitler was and so that the people could make a move to stop Hitler and put and end to his reign of terror. He said this because he saw it as a way to open the public's eyes to his horrific schemes.
I still believe that Ghandi was a peacekeeper and that he was a very virtuous man. In my opinion Ghandi spoke only about what he believed in and he spoke that honest truth. Most people can't handle the truth because it is so raw and not sugar coated. Today's society facts are constantly being sugar coated for our own well being. For example when President Bush sent troops to Iraq. He said we were there for Weapons of Mass Destruction, but were also there to help Iraq establish a democractic government.
Katie Gray
MWF 9:00
It is a sad truth that the everyday use of language has fallen into a state which makes high-school English teachers cringe. It is quite true that this is a result of our "decadent" society, or more aptly the laziness inherent in a decadent society. The over-use of e-mail and text messaging has replaced the traditional face-to-face dialogue and the reliable pen and paper. I strongly disagree, however, with Orwell's view that this is the result of "political and economic causes." Political speech has always been vastly different from common language usage. This is what sets the politician apart from the other people in the crowd; not that he has vision, but that he can put that vision into words that inspire others. This is the sign of a strong leader. Societies will choose a strong leader even when the do not understand the specifics of his plans over a weak leader who tells the truth. Take President Bush's poor use of the English language as an example. Because he is not a powerful speaker, he has been viewed as weak. I would love to hear what Orwell would have to say about any one of our President's speeches!
I found Orwell essay in “Politics and the English language” very interesting. It’s ok to have a good understand of language, but not everyone is on the same page. The use of big words is not always necessary to get your point across. For example, when doctors, scientist, or politicians are using big words and long sentences, it’s not always needed. They say all this when they could simply say it in terms that everyone can understand. People tend to always asks what does that mean, and could you break that down in simpler terms so that they can understand. Sometimes the society that you grown up in determine a great part of the language you learn. The people in our house hold and the ones that you grow up around, you tend to learn off them. Some picking up a type of language, that when they talk to different people it’s hard to understand what they are talking about.
Post a Comment