Blessed Are the Organized

"The first is the way we connect the experience of people with big ideas. The second is the way we function as learning organization. The third is the fact that we don't depend on a single strong individual."
Even though this is only a conversation between Stout and Cortes in the airport, I think it is very crucial to what we are talking about right now in class: the connection between people and how this connection works and increases social capital, and finally we should all work as a collective group rather than single unrelated individuals. I think these three things are really important for the" network of citizens",  especially the third one. I feel that right now people are living in a community with many other people, and we think that since this is such a big community that has this many great people, if I don't participate or do anything, someone else will, someone who is maybe even better than I am. In psychology there is a study called bystander effect. It refers to "cases where  individuals do not offer any means of help in an emergency situation to the victim when other people are present." I think participation can be related to "offer means of help" to our social capital and civic engagement. A collective group of individuals: individuals make up the group. Without everyone's engagement the collective group won't even exist.  

Does it matter that we are bowling alone?

I found this article by Mark Chaves called "Are we bowling alone? And does it matter?" Of course it matters- we know it even before reading it. This article summaries the idea that Putnam suggests both in his original essay and his book in response to the response he received. I found it interesting because Chaves mentions the difference between "change" and "decline". Maybe the phenomenon we are having right now is just a change in society and maybe it is not necessarily bad. Technology like internet and TV maybe hinders the face to face interaction between people, but it also connects people from all over the world. It is impossible to have face to face relationship with someone who is thousands and thousands miles away, but at least with the internet we can get some form of communication and bonding. I found out that someone from Australia was reading my blog. You can never do that without technology. Also, Chaves said that Bowling Alone is an optimistic book despite Putnam's worries about the collapse of social capitals in the United States. It alarms us about the social trend right us, but it also "shows that our current situation is not without parallel". I think that the associations we have right now are either the ones that developed from the old association or newly formed followed the old ones. So even though the numbers and participation are declining, it is good that they exist still.

On another note, I read Enich's post about movies and I just realized how true it is that we spend way too much time together just to watch a movie. I mean I enjoy watching movies a lot, but at the same time I know that watching movies seems to be the easiest way to hang out with people without trying to figure out other things to do or engaging conversations. It is good that we don't have cable in our dorm otherwise we will probably be watching worthless TV together all the time.

Paying attention

The sense of individualism is always here in America. Bellah talks about how Americas are losing attention and getting distracted. Democracy comes from people paying attention to civic engagement. One of the topic we talked about in class was the distinction between obsession and attention. I just want to response to it that I agree that we can't really identify an worthy object to get a large collective people to pay attention to, but I feel that it is important to some how unite a group of people to care about a significance event or a cause. And yes, following celebrities is very significant for some people. But I don't think following celebrities is creating any social capital.The author is hoping that we can use our institutions to create democracy, and in the culture of focusing on individual and individualism, it is not that easy. We need to go out of the individualistic wall and learn to pay attention to what we are dependent on and responsible for.

Bowling Alone

In Putnam's essay he points how that Americans have been increasingly disconnected from our families, neighbors, friends, and our social structures. Based on his examples of people leaving the voting booth, not participating in religious services, and disconnecting from their neighbors, civic engagement for Americans is decreasing, the opposite of what de Tocqueville predicted. I think it is very interesting for him to points out the idea of social capital. He states that ""social capital" refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. " It sounds like social capital is the voluntary association we talked about since they both focuses the coordination and cooperation. But I feel that social capital has a larger broader. In the essay, Putnam regards volunteering associations as the prime sources for social trust, social networks, and civic engagement, and I think all of these are the social capitals. Moreover, participating in he associations contributes in social capitals. I agree with him that it is the experiences of communicating and interacting with people that brings people together. Especially in today's situation, we have people from different backgrounds that need to be brought together as an united whole to solve some of the common problems we faced. We learn to trust each other more not from watching TV or other types of advanced technology but through conversation and the process of get to one another. The voluntary association represents one of the main platforms for interaction of this certain type.

March 4

For de Tocqueville, the problem is whether we should pursue equality in freedom or the equality in sovereignty. There is different kinds of equalities and I feel that even today it is still a huge problem. De Tocqueville when he is talking about equality he is more addressing rights and powers. For example right now in the central government, we are passing lots of civil laws and acts. It is good that we are trying to make the country better by making more legislation but at the same time the central government is getting more power over states. I feel that the central government is getting too big, and maybe a third party should step in the bicameral system. I feel that there should be a change because right now the numbers are too close and not enough reforms are talking place. 

Legislation

De Tocqueville talks about the"defective and incomplete" legal system and law making in America. He says "American democracy if often clumsy, but the general tendency of its law is advantageous." I wonder what the general tendency of law is. It seems that he is suggesting that Americans can afford to make laws that are bad laws in order to maintain democracy because those are all "retrievable mistakes". I feel that a legislation system should be the most important system in any country because it is most directly influential to a county's citizens - both the majority and the minority have to obey the law. Passing "bad" laws just to make sure everyone is happy seems not efficient at all. However, even though aristocracy has the benefit of having a more skillful legislation, we obviously do not choose it over democracy. What is a bad law then? A law that is noticeably wrong? From who's point of view? Or should a bad law be a piece of useless and defective writing for the perfunctorily purpose of reinforcing the status of the government. A democracy is hard to maintain just like de Tocqueville mention because it is hard when it comes to counting every single person. But because everybody is involved, the decision people made is the best decision. So I guess laws that were made by the people, no matter good or bad, are always beneficial since democracy is practiced?