Talk:A&HH6577/Assignment14

From Studyplace

Categories  Concepts Subjects People Essays Reviews Commons Courses Help	Pathways Concepts Subjects People Essays Reviews Commons Courses Help
Key tabs
article tab edit tab move tab	study tab history tab watch tab

Discussion reading for the week

• Richard Hofstadter. "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." In Hofstadter, Richard. The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays. New York: Knopf, 1965. pp. 3-40. [Online]

Queries

Editing Cheatsheet

Talk

There is a profound lesson to be learned in this article that should be noted by those on both sides of the political and social spectrum. Often individuals and groups on one side of an issue make the assumption that those on the other side are making their decisions according to some grand scheme that only they are aware of as it occurs. These types of assumptions are common to both liberals and conservatives. However, one must always note that it is far more common that a decision is made not on the basis of some grand conspiracy but on an individuals own judgement. Perhaps the greatest weakness of historical writing is that much of it overlooks the power that an individual person has in effecting the ebb and flow of major events throughout history.

Jab2210 (Jeff Bremick)

Carl Becker’s “The Education of Henry Adams” provided the springboard for our grappling with the notion of the great “question of the pedagogical problem.” As we finish this semester’s reading with Hofstadter’s “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” it seems to me that Adams’ views on educating oneself within a multifarious world have been present in each of our readings and provides a philosophical umbrella to each of our scholarly contributions. Through Becker’s examination, Adam’s seems to convey his constant struggle, and frustration, in his inability to analyze with clarity the challenges of knowing within the context of the whirlwinds of life -- to chart tangible points of reference as to the changes in our educational experiences (“educational” beyond the structure of the school house) – our ways of knowing and understanding the world around us. How can we seek to understand what we know, and how might what we know change? How might we resist the lure of latching onto the current day pedagogical trend in our eager effort to define it, but instead, strive to have the vision and tools to diagnose the problem by being able to consider the full, faceted context of history, current day factors, as well as future influences. Adams seems brooding in his quest and disappointed with his success.

While Adams was writing during a time of great scientific and philosophical discoveries, don’t we find ourselves in a similar place? As we in our current day try to understand ourselves and the meaningfulness of our individual contributions, don’t we also have to consider our place in our cosmic world?

In our journey through our various scholars’ contributions, each has grappled with a problem of our human experience and how we come to know and understand the world and our place in it. Individually we struggle to comprehend our purpose, to engage in that purpose in some manner that fits our perspectives and our perceived place in our “public” and, hopefully, to make our mark. These scholars have offered theories for us to interpret what influences out thinking? What motivates our actions? How, as students in higher education, might we analyze the forces at work that combine to direct our actions and how might we formulate a vision for a pedagogy that goes beyond our selves and reaches “us” as a part of a greater citizenry?

In reflecting on our different readings, it seems to me to beg an analysis that would invite, historical, philosophical, sociological, and anthropological factors, as well as political, economic, cultural, and educational influences – in short, a study that would seek to consider the full context of our challenges; a difficult assignment. Yet, it is to this point that a pedagogical objective should be to teach how to think, how we come to know, and how to use that knowledge to effect change in our society that becomes meaningful to its members. It is that constant tension between the whole and its parts, the esoteric and the familiar, the theoretical and the real. What is the ideal balance between learning of the wisdom of past scholarship through books and learning by doing, through practical engagement in life around us? Is it our obligation to own our knowledge and then develop it further in a practical application to better our world – knowledge for the sake of knowing versus knowledge for life (shades of Jane Addams)? Are we being swept into the habits of action, which lead to habits of mind (the voice of Veblen)? Who is our watchdog for the extremes of the inevitable philosophical pendulum – how do we balance what’s best for the group versus the individual, striving for excellence versus equity? How have we maintained our polity through the vicissitudes of time? Are we a consensus society or do we invite and encourage divergent thinking? Are these mutually exclusive? Is it a fear of alienation or loss of individual power that drives our interpretations of what is important for us to know? Are we buffeted by the extremists who present their paranoid positions wrapped in well evidenced arguments?

No doubt that individuals can effect significant actions and reactions. History has painted these past contributors in a range of styles, from a broad brush impressionist canvas, to a detailed artistic rendering, to a melding of colors that eventually blotted out any evidence of participation. As individuals, it is our charge to endeavor to fully realize the potential for our contributions and mightily strive for understanding the world which has come before us and which we find ourselves in today. As historians it is our obligation to invite these voices into our conversations today. (s.pierson)