Susan Bickford is only describing a basic human functions that occur in every society in the world - even the third world countries. Humans tend to separate and divide and exclude and isolate each other, we do it all day long in explicit and implicit ways. Susan is saying nothing new and she seems too nieve about the issues she brings up.
It will take a world wide cataclysmic epiphany before the USA or any country becomes a true democracy. We will get there somehow but the human condition is not truly ready to be loving enough to be inclusive at the level Susan wants.
Susan's is correct: we should be more equal with all peoples, our built environment should reflect a democratic nature or perhaps our public spaces should at least reflect the myth of our societal ideal but she does not point to the answer however impossible it may be, Susan only says, "it requires an inhuman amount of imagination to have a genuinely democratic public". Perhaps she should read some and insert those peoples suggestions for the remedy... I have one remedy... everything we see is the result of our thoughts, there is no exception to this fact so we must change our thinking.
We must start to promote altruism, courage, virtue, eternal values and reward those who are able to manipulate these notions into physical form. "We are the consequence of our mind-set and behaviors and of the institutions associated with it - the industrial society paradigm which brought great benefits in the past now create problems faster than it solves them. The world macro problem will be satisfactorily resolved only through fundamental change of that mind-set" (Willis Harman).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Although it's true that the United States is a republic in its form of government, I think that Bickford is using "democratic" in its social rather than structural sense -- that a democratic way of living would be one that offers opportunities to everyone regardless of their circumstances. And that's a lot to live up to, and one that we certainly don't achieve as fully as we might.
One of the most fundamental questions that will arise comes exactly from the way I just phrased democracy -- "that offers opportunities to everyone regardless of their circumstances." The issue is that some circumstances are seen as too great to overlook when offering opportunities. For some people, and at some points in our history, race was(is) a circumstance that excused unequal opportunity. For some people and at other points in our history, it was(is) gender. For some people, it's economics, or language, or immigration status, or attitude, or any number of other characteristics. The point is that there will be differences between who you and I and others will point to and say "That person deserves exactly the same opportunities that I have."
In a perfectly free-market world, our opportunites would be driven exactly and only by our economic resources, which we believe mostly rest on our own shoulders but clearly do not -- our parents (and their parents) provide us with differing levels of financial or emotional or intellectual resources that we invest throughout the rest of our lives. In a perfectly socialist world, our opportunities would be exactly the same as those for all of our contemporaries, regardless of their abilities or motivation. But we live in neither of those two platonic ideals. Instead, we're somewhere in the muddy middle, arguing (as everyone always has) about the right way to treat people.
Bickford is to some extent making an argument about the right way to treat people. She's also providing the service of showing us some things we may not have seen or thought carefully about.
Yes I thought she could have meant the slightly alternate meaning of the work "democratic", she should clarify her intent here, and we as readers should not have to second guess the authors word/meanings so I took her more literally.
Yes, we are all equal in our differences and we should choose love instead of fear, and reality is a silly illusion made on mans ill freewill. I too am a closet Plato patriot - my favorite story of all time is his work "The Cave".
I believe as you do, Susan is simply saying we should follow and build on - or truly build - our ideals as set in our countries bylaws but she took too long a time saying so and it was too lethargic or Byzantine in its way of saying it.
I agree with Herb when he mentions that Bickford my use “democratic” as a representation of the ideal common accomplishment , and the ultimate purpose of Bickford(I think) is to “fulfill” her responsibility (according to her theory) to make aware others of this issue and consequently contribute to the process and the “democratization” of the city – citizens.
I think Amr, I am with you on the fact that this is “human nature” and happens everywhere (not just in the US and in the “infamous” PDU’s) and happens among rich and among poor, so share with you that his is not a really an economical issue but more like you mention: a values issue!
Gus
I think you have hit on the point of segregation, that it is a world wide occurance. That no matter where you go, peoples of like views and or means are going to congregate together and try to exclude others who do not fit within their defined norms. So this is not just cultural phenomena, but perhaps a deep rooted craving in the human psyche world wide.
Does that make it any better, no. But, instead of trying to create a homogenius society within any given culture, or world wide, maybe what we need to concentrate on is creating paths of understanding between the different groups. Hopefully, as the understanding between the groups grows,the willingness to work together will grow as well. But, at the same time allow them to maintain their outlooks that makes them different.
Post a Comment