Since, despite all my better judgments about keeping my blog a neutral space, I've already
begun to show my political colors a bit, I am going to venture out on a limb and share some of the thoughts I've been thinking about this past month or so. As Jane Austen once disclaimed, take these as the thoughts of "a partial, prejudiced and ignorant historian."
Much of what's influenced my thinking is that my Rhetoric class these days is decidedly not a politically neutral zone. This week we dive into analyzing political language (I admit my grateful indebtedness to
Hugh Rank's materials on the subject), and talk about nationalism, patriotism, propaganda, and language. If you think these are theoretical subjects, I dare you to have these conversations in rooms with students, some of whose grandparents were deported to Siberia by the Soviets, sitting next to other students whose grandparents were the deport-ers, but who now constitute a scorned under-class. Students who are passionately pro-West Ukrainians sitting next to their own countrymen who'd rather see Ukraine maintain close ties to Russia. This is the environment in which it is
really interesting to ask, "what is the difference between having a healthy sense of national pride and ethnic identification, and crossing the line into propagandistic rhetoric?"
Like 21st century citizens everywhere, most of these students are already entrenched in cynicism toward elected officials. (And I can't fault them, given the levels of corruption and mismanagement that many of their home countries have endured). However, I'm not sure if it's a logical outgrowth of this cynicism, but this same group of students also tend to approach social problems with the argument that "the government should..." (fill in the blank). Maybe it's an outgrowth of our continually globalizing culture, but the answer to most of the issues they are currently writing about (global warming, evil plastic surgery, the death penalty, euthanasia. Sigh.) is that ALL people EVERYwhere should DO something. This means "the government should..." (fix everything!).
I have been trying to get them to think about what problems are actually LOCAL, and perhaps even solvable/approachable without waiting for national or transnational governmental agencies (the almighty EU) to intervene. In short, I want them to see themselves as full-fledged political agents. As
citizens.
This is old, old fashioned thinking. This is belief in self-determinism and self-governance. It is not something that has not been in the vocabulary or mindset of people in this part of the world for very long. Heck, I think it's probably not much in the mindset of folks in large federal representative republics (*ahem*). Wendell Berry puts it this way:
"Properly speaking, global thinking is not possible. Those who have 'thought globally' (and among them the most successful have been imperial governments and multinational corporations) have done so by means of simplifications too extreme and oppressive to merit the name of though. Global thinkers have been and will be dangerous people... Global thinking can only be statistical. Its shallowness is exposed by the least intention to do something. Unless one is willing to be destructive on a very large scale, one cannot do something expect locally, in a small place. " ("Out of your car, Off your horse" in his book Sex, Economy, Freedom, & Community)
Whenever I am tempted to get cynical about American politics (and talk radio can get one there fairly quickly), I remember that this concept of self-determinism (not the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" individualistic notion, but the collective will of communities working together) IS still remembered and occasionally practiced in American society. It is a very simple idea that, if something is wrong and we don't like it, we can either elect different people to do the job or simply take care of it ourselves, make change, and evolve.
So, in the end, my current attraction to a certain candidate running for president right now grows out of this old fashioned value. A
good essay I read about it recently puts it this way:
"[Obama] is engaged in something not seen on the national stage for a very long time. Yet it is also a deeply familiar endeavour that most Americans would find recognisable from school history lessons. Obama emerges directly from a powerful radical tradition in US politics which is embedded in its founding ideology - classical republicanism....
The core of republican philosophy is an appreciation of the need to constantly restore and return the locus of sovereignty, of power, to the people themselves, away from those institutions and interests that capture and hold it, and thereby keep the body politic, and freedom, alive.
This, the very essence of democracy, is not secured by elections but by the activities and associations through which citizens engage in the public sphere. If citizens wish to live as a free people, the struggle to obtain (or simply maintain) political freedoms must be engaged on anew by each generation"
And if you don't think that "the locus of sovereignty, of power" NEEDS to be returned to the people (and the Congress itself), I challenge you not to listen to
this broadcast and not feel the hairs on your neck rise up in defense of "separation of powers" and "the rule of law."
Both politically and spiritually speaking, I want my students to learn what it is to live as "free people." And inasmuch as I am congregational in my theology, I am anti-authoritarian in my politics. It's been fun to see these ideas cohering across conversations, readings and thoughts in the past few weeks. I'm hopeful that the result of all this, for myself and for my students, will be, regardless of elections and campaigns, lives that are more invested in the communities around us and dedication to serving the needs of our neighbors.
