I really love this class... I'm pleased how engaged your are with this Kluger book even though it's getting sandwiched in with so many other assignments.
Reminder: Mammoth review session Wednesday afternoon, from 1:00-whenever. Most of you will be around after class from 2:00-4:00, so that might be the best time to come. I'll announce the location in class... most likely in the park so we can all sit and have pizza or some such. Bring questions.
Post: your Kluger vs. X vs. Y dialogue on the question of "what causes historical/social change?"
Reminder: I need a status update from all four of the Projects on Wednesday. Meaning that I'll ask you about it in class. Progress of your planning, and/or your vision of how I should assess your grade.
Proposal: an alternative end-of-quarter Project available only to up to two defectors from the veterans' hospital team and up to four defectors from the beach team. You could go to the Museum of Tolerance in LA and write some kind of response that compared it to Kluger's theory of museums. This would work for either version of the exam.
New Polls: answer on the right
Random: article about a staging of Mel Brooks' The Producers in Germany... can Germans laugh at "Springtime for Hitler"? Should they?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kluger vs. Gandhi vs. Hegel
ReplyDeleteHegel: You know, the great events in our world, whether good or bad, are not simply the product of special individuals who took it upon themselves to make things happen. Everything progresses in a cycle, essentially repeating itself over and over again.
Gandhi: I completely disagree with you. I believe that individuals all have the power to do something about their situation, and should in fact start at that level, as it is something everyone has the power to change. It may be difficult to start a monumental change, but betterment of the individual eventually leads to overall historical progress.
Kluger: I’m sorry, Hegel, but I cannot agree with you either. While my experience with events in history is negative, as I am a survivor of the Holocaust, I do not want you to pity me, and I do not want the tragic nature of this event to draw this conversation to a halt. That said, I do not agree that everything in history is cyclical, as nothing can really compare to the Holocaust. Of course, there are other events that are equally terrible, there is no doubt about that. They were just begun for different reasons.
Hegel: You may think that these events began for different reasons, but that is just on the surface of the event. The individuals involved are really just representatives of the same underlying ideals, and therefore cannot be said to be original or different from anyone else in history.
Gandhi: You sound like Savarkar, with his idea that historians get everything wrong and so to right this wrong, you need to address the real problem. I also support this, but he is too violent. Historical change happens when people do something about these similar underlying ideals, but there needs to be someone strong enough to being the movement. I believe everyone has this potential, and this can be exhibited through self-improvement.
Kluger: I do not think that all underlying ideals for historical changes are similar. There are closely related ideals, of course, but some change over time. The Holocaust may have happened because of excessive expression of manhood and dominance over lesser peoples. This grew over history before something large happened.
Hegel: Exactly – as these themes start to grow in intensity as they do throughout the cyclic years of history, something must happen. It is this something that produces change, and it is very predictable. The same types of things produce conflicts, which produce change.
Gandhi: This cannot be the entire story, as modernity keeps pressing culture forward, and there is never a look to the past. There should be, as the past was a better time, but people just keep progressing. How do you explain this?
Kluger: True, but wouldn’t you say that the Holocaust was a regression to times past when other cultures and races were systematically exterminated? Similar ideas of dominance, yes, but different people to begin each cycle.
Hegel: Well, I didn’t say that everything had to remain the same, just that the sequence of events is predictable. Advancements happen based on these similar ideas that resurface in different contexts. This produces change, not regression, though sometimes it may seem to repeat past events. History repeats itself, didn’t you know?
Gandhi: I guess, but self-improvement could help move people toward a better society where modernity cannot infect it.
Kluger: I agree. And tolerance could help the cycles take a less violent and dramatic turn.
Kluger: It is in my experience that historical/social change occurs through the people and individuals.
ReplyDeleteGhandi: That is a good answer, but can you expand on that.
Kluger: Well, I have seen and observed from my own experiences that groups of people create historical change through an individual. Change comes first from an individual, who has the capacity to change other people who in turn create historical/social change.
Ghandi: Interesting, but I don’t necessarily think in that degree. True, change comes from the individual. However, only when each individual changes, can true change occur.
Hegel: What is this non-sense? Individuals and people make change? Well, it is the means of how change can occur, but historical change occurs naturally. Time moves in a way that events are bound to happen.
Kluger: So you believe that things just occur naturally? Events are bound to happen?
Ghandi: Surely, Hegel, you are mistaken. You believe that things just happen because it is fate?
Hegel: I am not mistaken in what I believe. Time flows in a cycle, where things eventually repeat itself. Events are bound to happen.
Kluger: So you are saying that the Holocaust was a bound to happen?
Hegel: Yes, think about history. There was mass genocide of the Aztecs by the conquistadors and the American Indians by the Americans. There is strong evidence from before of all the prejudice and hatred received by Jews even before the Holocaust. Along the way, the Holocaust was bound to happen.
Ghandi: No, Hegel, you are wrong. The hatred of people from modern civilization has made it so. Ideas of modern civilization created the evil act of the Holocaust and past actions against the Jews. The idea of inferiority was made from modern civilization. The people of so called modern civilization made the act. The people of Germany have all changed themselves to think this way and have brought destruction.
Kluger: It seems as if Hegel is saying that hatred and prejudice will forever cycle.
What causes hist./soc. change?
ReplyDeleteKluger v. Savarkar (through Chaturvedi) v. Hegel
Chaturvedi: I notice that you, Kluger, begin a chapter talking about your interest in your name and it’s biblical origins. I myself bare the name of a notable figure. Vinayak Savarkar, whose ideas of change involved force and revolution, are carried on through each child with his name. This doesn’t mean that every Vinayak is fated to be a revolutionary, but the memory and history his name offers is certainly an attempt by his supporters of preserving/continuing Savarkar’s move towards changing India.
Hegel: Appropriately, Savarkar turns to history, mentioning the Italian, French, and 1957 Indian revolutions to structure his own. These could well be described as the points of conflict in my spiraled model of the developing world, however, I can’t say how different his result would be considering that after these moments of contradiction, follows nothing completely new. Rather what remains is just a new version of what we had before. It’s a cyclic spiral, so I’m afraid new “Vinayaks” aren’t going to change much.
Kluger: Cyclical? No. “Our societies come to resemble roulette tables” not spirals. It all becomes more unpredictable as time progresses. An infinite set of decisions, possible at any given time can lead to completely different things. Any idea crazy enough, can break down taboos to become world altering. Science for example brought enlightenment, an age of modernity and intelligence to the world. In my childhood however, it was turned into a tool for victimization that justified racism and genocide. I refuse to think of events in history as just “points of conflict” in a repeating model.
Kluger: Chaturvedi. The Holocaust and Savarkar’s proposed revolution are reversed in that Savarkar fought against British rule in the name of his god, whereas Jews were persecuted and nearly wiped out because of theirs. Despite the differing situations in which they occur, I think you’ll agree the most with my opinion that change comes from the very decisions people themselves make. The inevitable spontaneity, just like that of the woman who convinced me to lie to save my life, that is what preserves freedom (and I value freedom).
Chaturvedi: I do relish in the idea of having the ability to choose/make events happen. Savarkar stood for that very idea as well. The opportunity for a peasant revolution was always there it just needed the right motivation (what more motivation than liberating the nation do you need) and goals (swaraj and swadharma). History is a tool/instument to be used to ignite change. Savarkar would say that hence his extensive references to past revolutions and I as an example, with his name prove how history maintains his ideas whether I agree or not. To you Hegel, I say the world’s history cannot then be a stagnant pattern of conflicts resulting similar societies.
Hegel: It’s an inevitable sequence of events you will see. Whether historical or social, the change you think has been caused by decisions or free will always mirror that of some history, just as Savarkar’s revolution does. Is a reflection really a change then?
Kluger v. Aristotle v. Kleist
ReplyDeleteKluger, Aristotle and Kleist are walking the streets of Vienna and listening to Kluger rant and rave about museums.
KLUGER: I suppose I can understand why people would want to go to those memorials and museums about the Holocaust but I disagree that it will make any real difference. I mean, let's think about what the goals behind them are--to help people remember the past? To have some kind of a preventative measure so that it is never repeated? There are good people and there are bad people. It has been this way since the dawn of time and it will be this way for eternity. Historical change can come for technology, maybe an evolution in government, but people will always just be people.
KLEIST: How can you say that?! (aghast) The reason that you were forced to go through the horrible pain that you went through was because no one had the guts to step in and fight. If the Americans had only gotten there sooner it could have all been prevented. Historical change occurs in people when they realize that a wrong is being done. So many people were silent during that time, maybe with these museums, people will finally realize that they need to speak up when wrong is being done.
ARISTOTLE: I agree with Kleist that historical change derives from individuals, however, it is not necessarily with weapons. When we are all trying to achieve our own best self, our telos, we will realize that there is no good in harming others. Everything has a purpose and that includes those museums.
KLUGER: And what was the telos of the Holocaust?
ARISTOTLE: Let us hope that its telos was to serve as a sacrificial warning so that nothing like it ever occurs again. The problem derived from the extreme nature of the Nazi party. When things veer to any extreme, trouble ensues.
KLEIST: But what about extreme good? If one is fighting for good instead of evil, perhaps extremes would be acceptable!
ARISTOTLE: Good is by nature, moderate.
KLUGER: Perhaps this is so. But asking people to monitor themselves will never work out, Aristotle. And besides, I feel that moderate and immoderate are both irrelevant in some cases like with truth. Truth is truth. We should not try to moderate it or sensitize it but leave it the way it is.
This blog post is getting too long so here it ends....
What causes historical/social change?
ReplyDeleteKluger: Do you feel that what causes change effects both the historical and social aspects of all situations of both individuals and groups?
Savakar: You need to elaborate what causes of change you are talking about.
Kluger: I mean that, what you do creates a change within the individuals you are targeting.
Savakar: In my own honest opinion, I think change happens when you reach out to the masses. I have spent many countless hours in the city of England, giving speeches in a park, advocating independence from the English influence! Our literature and works are copies of English authors, and Indians continue to do so to please the English. But I say to hell with that! Lets us start a revolution! Lets us go back and take back the Indian rule and put it back into our hands!
Kolhass: I like the way you think. If you are dissatisfied, you should go out and act until you get your justice you feel you deserve. You feel as though you and your Motherland has been violated by the English. I too, feel your distress. In my nation I was not treated justly, and I went out and began my incendiary route to change! I acted out until I got what I wanted, the Elector that has treated me so unjustly. The ends justified the means for me, that’s a fact.
Savakar: Really? An incendiary route? Interesting, mine was more of a literary approach. My book was the rolling stone to my change. It has been distributed amongst the Indian nations under falser covers, and false bottoms. My doing has sparked public debates against the Britain interference with religion, culture, and language. Because of all of this, it has been for the in betterment for my nation. no longer shall the British have a strong hold on my people because we are speaking out as a nation.
Kluger: But in my situation, the change was not better for my country or my people. The Austrians were brainwashed by the Germans, as you are doing to the Indians Savakar! You are advocating a relentless war that only brings about more blood. Unnecessary and unnatural deaths are not what any humans deserve. The Holocaust was an awful change. We can use it as an example where no nation would ever support such actions again, but it is all lies. Still there are genocides, yet nothing is done about it (in fact I don’t even mention them in my writings either). Nations or leaders who act upon their elitist views caused all the death counts in my life growing up as a child.
Kohlhaas: Hmmm, here you are talking about an individual experience you had yourself. And what you experienced is definitely a social change within your country.
Kluger v. Savarkar v. Gandhi
ReplyDeleteA HumCore student goes to Prof. Kluger’s office hours to ask her to explain what causes historical change. However, the professor talks about her dream. It was the eve of Halloween and Kluger imagined that Savarkar’s and Gandhi’s ghosts had come “trick or treat[ing]” at her door. Having taught humcore, she invites them in her house where they discuss many topics, including the cause of historical change. Here is the what she remembers about that specific topic:
K: Gentlemen, you have no idea how fond I am of learning about you through my colleague at UC Irvine (Chaturvedi). It is so intriguing to me that two people who have the same motive (change in India) can take such different paths to achieve it.
G: Contrary to my friend Savarkar’s belief, I think that like charity, change also begins at home. Not even at home, but with an individual. Historical change can only be brought about in step-by-step fashion. It simply makes sense to “be the change you want to see in the world.”
S: You are right! I don’t agree in wasting time. Change can only be achieved through action. One must implement the ideas of change sooner than later and with extra efforts, in order to achieve the goal. If one simply tries to change himself, how can he be sure that he has changed enough? When will he know what the result of the change is? It is necessary to convince others that the idea is a good one and change oneself through action.
K: I agree with Savarkar, in a way. I don’t think that one person can cause a long-lasting or effective change. In this world everyone is too different. In order to make change, it is necessary that a huge group of people believe in the cause. For example, if Hitler was the only one that believed Jews are a degenerate and sinful people, it would have been hard for him to create the change in Germany. It is due to the fact that there was pre-existing racism and general dislike for Jews in the minds of many, that Hitler was able to kindle the fire of anti-Semitism.
G: We all have the right to our opinion. I will not try to convince you that I am right. I will show it through my actions
S: Ah! See, that is what I am talking about. Action is the key to change.
K: But that action has to be on a large scale and performed by many. Only then would it cause lasting, historical change.
Ahaha this is really long. Please tell me if I missed the point.
ReplyDelete______________________ BEGIN __________________
Kluger v. Sophocles v. Descartes
SOPHOCLES: It's time to start a revolution, my friends!
DESCARTES: What do you mean?
SOPHOCLES: It's time to get up, and instigate a social/historical change!
DESCARTES: How?
KLUGER: Why?
SOPHOCLES: For the sake of doing, of course! We need to stand up for our beliefs, regardless of the cost! We need to get out there and make sure our voices are heard! We need people to recognize that we are people too, and we deserve respect!
KLUGER: What are you even talking about? You're not making sense. You don't even sound like you have a cause.
SOPHOCLES: They're going to tear down the theater! The precious theatre where my first play was once performed :(
KLUGER: Ah, so you're trying to use us for your own selfish means?
SOPHOCLES: The theatre is for everyone!
DESCARTES: Well, maybe they can replace it with a room used for philosophical discussions.
SOPHOCLES: No! You don't understand! It's not the theatre per se, it's the MEANING behind it. It's the government disregarding our rights! I have written numberous letters, petitioned many times, and for nothing! It's time we take matters into our own hands.
KLUGER: No, there's no point. You can't change people's mind if all they want to hear is themselves. Besides, what are you planning on doing?
SOPHOCLES: We're going to break down the bulldozers.
KLUGER: Too much work. And they can always get new ones.
DESCARTES: (They may not even be real, anyway.)
SOPHOCLES: Then we'll hijack the bulldozers and set them on people!
KLUGER: What?? You want to attack innocent people?
SOPHOCLES: Sometimes, things can't be settled with words. You need ACTION. YOu need the physical threat of death in order to be heard!
DESCARTES: Technically, death isn't really a punishment. The mind is separate from the body, and really, the only punishment that can really be seen as punishment would be the inablility to think. For without thought, what are we?
SOPHOCLES: Thoughs are just the fuel for actions. One must think of what to do, and then do it.
DESCARTES: Aha. But who is to say we are real? Or if anything is real? Our mind controls our perceptions, meaning we aren't even aware if we're being miseld. It's better to incite the people with a change of mind.
SOPHOCLES: We can change their minds when we run them over!
ReplyDeleteDESCARTES: I suppose fear does affect one’s mindset.
KLUGER: NO! That’s terrible. Really? Violent means? People will think how they want to think regardless of what you say or do. Suffering does not make one “grow.” There is nothing to learn from it. You can’t change people by making them unhappy.
SOPHOCLES: You can change people by making them change! Make them regret! Make them see their errors! People may be blind, but once things are put in front of them – once you FORCE sight, changes happen! One person can start a revolution! We three can show our community, nay, our world, that it’s not about the numbers. It’s about the people behind those numbers. Once they see our passion, we WILL triumph!
DESCARTES: I believe an argument can serve just as well. Who can ignore logic? If A leads to B, and B cannot be C or D, and the rules state to follow in alphabetical order, then the next letter must be E. Once people can see how any other choice is not possible, then they are left with the right, logical answer. It must be accepted. Otherwise, the other person is just ignorant.
KLUGER: Yes, changes can be elicited through a number of ways. The Holocaust, for example, was a change made by one person who believed that his race was better than another. And in turn, he got many others to believe. It doesn’t matter whether an idea is logical, or illogical, it IS the numbers that matter. The number of people who agree with you, that is.
DESCARTES: But the truth will always prevail.
KLUGER: No, it won’t. A convincing personality, a way to manipulate others, a twisted sense of what is “owed” to us – this is what will prevail. And if you continue with your plan, Sophocles, you are no different than Hitler himself.
____________________________END________________
Ahahahah omg this was so long. I am so sorry. It actually needed two posts. Woww.
Kluger vs Plato vs Savarkar
ReplyDeleteKluger: Each historical/social change has its own unique beginning and I don’t believe that you can just find one source to what causes all historical or social change, it just seems unnatural
Plato: perhaps, but I believe that what causes historical and/or social change relies on the truth that is revealed to the rest of the world. It is the rate at which people try to understand each other, and once they understand what is true and correct, they try to change for the better; and if they don’t try to change for the better, then those who do seek the truth are going to be the ones changing the world.
Savarkar: why would you want to wait around for the change to happen when you, yourself can take action to make things change?
Plato: You cannot simply change something if you want to you, you can only change something by seeking the truth in it first; then you can learn what’s really wrong, or why change is for the better
Kluger: I agree with you both to some extent, but I believe it is up to the individual to decide whether or not to follow through. You shouldn’t have to do things you don’t want to, you don’t have to seek and reveal information if you don’t want to you, and you definitely shouldn’t be looking in places for the truth if it’s not your place to be doing so.
Savarkar: You cannot simply just choose not to do anything, it’s not right, you will never get anything accomplished by just waiting for other people or things to come around to get where you want to get.
Plato: Well, I don’t necessarily believe that you should just wait for people to come around and decide whether or not they should be choosing to change; but I do understand what you’re trying to say Kluger. You just want for people to feel comfortable with what they’re doing to get the most out of them, rather than forcing them, which might get you nowhere.
Kluger: That’s what I’ve been trying to say, If we force everyone to change, then what stays constant? What do we have to compare the change to, it would be wrong to force people and expect to get something good out of it, when we can just wait for them to come around.
Savarkar: I do not agree with you Kluger, but I do somewhat agree with you Plato, because it’s good that you are trying to figure out why you’re trying to change something.
Kluger, Gandhi, Gladwell
ReplyDeleteGladwell: Kluger, Gandhi, did you see that guy wearing those nike shoes? That is the product of people wanting to constantly be "cool". No one was wearing those one year ago, talk about change huh?
Gandhi: That change is miniscuel when you are talking about the change that should be brought about in India.
Gladwell: I don't see why its not the same thing. People look to each other for change, and not to other things.
Kulger: It is true people can cause change but it is when they are rallied behind something, like anti-semitism, can change truly occur.
Gladwell: are you sure? well i guess wanting to be "cool" can be it...but what about the people who want to go against it? Thats not exactly being supportive of change.
Gandhi: That is why you must be the example for people to follow. Be the change you want to see in the world, and it is though this self-improvement people can see the error in their progressive ways that we can see true change.
Kulger: Self improvement might be overrated Gandhi. I mean the Germans wished to "improve" society and that did not turn out so well for Jews.
Gandhi: I never said that the change was good or bad or even if it had significance, yes it would be nice that change is always good but the British form of government and colonialism was not the best idea.
Gladwell:True change does not have to be all good, I mean now people want to dress nicely, unlike lets say 1000 years ago, and now prices are expensive. I mean tokidoki fanny packs go for over $100. No one really even wears those.
Gandhi: Well if you just spun your own clothes then you would not have this problem.
Kluger: Well there are more important things than clothes, but these things are interesting thing that people use to define or use for change. But in the end it is always people that will decide what change they will follow be it self-improvement, wearing Nike shoes, or anti-semitism.
What causes historical/social change?
ReplyDeleteKluger: In order to prevent events like the Holocaust from happening, we need memorials that bring forth knowledge about the past.
Antigone: This is true. But why not stand up and fight for your beliefs? We must pursue what is right, despite the fear of death. This is the only way to produce real change.
Jacobs: I believe that change must occur not through acts of defiance or rememberance, but rather, through the strategic placement of a community in order to bring about social exchange of ideas.
Antigone: Why waste time trying to reason with others? People are too scared to act against authority and the people in authority are blinded by power.
Kluger: However, when an entire group of people have been outcasted and surpressed by Germans and the soldiers, it is hard to rebel in acts of violence. Instead, defiance can be internal, like when one embraces their identity, instead of pretending to be something there not.
Antigone: But in order to bring about historical change, we must openly stand up for our beliefs. The laws of the gods are on our side so we must set examples for our fellow countrymen to fight for your own blood.
Kluger: Just because someone shares the same blood as you doesn't mean they are worthy of being defended till death. Society favors males, and therefore, a young jewish girl is disliked, even by their blood relatives.
Jacobs: Interaction among people of all different backgrounds is necessary. Diversity is necessary for the exchange of ideas.
Kluger: Huh??
Jacobs: All I'm saying is that you must be open to all different kinds of personalities and people; that's what brings about new ideas and eventually brings about change. But this will only occur if a city's organization allows for the informal exchange of ideas through parks and sidewalks.
Kluger: In order to bring about historical change, memorials must also be incorporated into communities, where the people can come to gather and learn from the past. However, memorials are flawed in that they do not present reality. Rather they serve the wrong purpose by making people sentimental.
Antigone: Emotions and sentimentality are qualities not to ashamed of. They allow us to be inspired and they let us act in accordance with our will.
Your Kluger vs. Savarkar vs. Alberti dialogue on the question of "what causes historical/social change?"
ReplyDeleteSavarkar: Understanding history and learning from the events of the past is critical to causing social change. By using history as a tool, we can create a certain consciousness in people. It is history that causes us to strategize for future revolutions.
Kluger: I agree with you that we, as individuals must have an awareness of the past in order to reconcile our present. It is only by understanding the past that we are able to amend mistakes and not possibly learn from them. In order for any change to occur, an individual must first change himself. Historical books simply state the facts of what happened in the past, whereas museums and memorials sentimentalize the occurrences and taint our knowledge. In order to find the intermediate between these extremes, we must try to relate our memory and our personal experience (without the affects) in order to fully comprehend the past.
Alberti: I too would like to add to Ms. Kluger’s remarks and state that having a personal connection with one’s subject is essential in not only creating change, but actually making that change more impactful and powerful. In the art of painting, the power of gesture, expression, and physical movement are the key elements that enliven past events and make those events more meaningful.
Savarkar: No, no. I feel you have misinterpreted my views on history and change. You see, I use history to inspire future revolutions against those who stand in power. The change I seek is freedom, which can be seen through my use of swaraj, which I define as purely political. Everything for me starts and ends at politics. This is infact what causes change! As Indians, or better yet, Hindustanis, we the people of Hindustan have a common history that unites us. By using history as a means unite people and turn them against the British is the only way through which we can become free. In order to achieve political success, we must use violent means. Otherwise, our opponents will consider us weak. We must all be politically engaged show our resistance to the British empire by getting rid of it once in for all!
ReplyDeleteKluger: Savarkar, your opinions remind me of the Nazi’s “final solution” to all their problems, which was the extermination of the whole Jewish race! You are a Hitler in disguise! First of all, rather than making your fight purely political, you have crossed the boundaries by getting race involved. Why is it that you think only Hindus who are oppressed? What about the whole Indian nation, which is comprised of dozens of different religious and cultural affiliations, maybe even of some Jews like me? Do I not deserve to have personal freedom and do not always have to wear a yellow star to constantly remind me of the minority I am. Do I not deserve to watch my favorite Disney movies without the fear of being arrested? Change is inevitable, and it is important to realize that nothing stays the same as time goes on. These changes mold us into the people we become, and after a certain time, we just become indifferent to all that remains in the past. Do not take me wrong. I do not ask for your sympathy here. I just have a story to share with the rest of the world, and I do that through my writing.
Alberti: While you both have a similar argument because writing as a means of doing inspires change, I believe the most prominent social change occurs through artwork. It is through the arts that we are able to reach broader audiences in spite of their particular religious or cultural affiliations. Infact, art is one of the highest and most regarded disciplines because it is all-encompassing. The artwork and its “istoria will move the soul of the beholder when each man painted there clearly shows the movement of his own soul. ... [he will] weep with the weeping, laugh with the laughing, and grieve with the grieving.” (p. 77)
Kluger and Savarkar: Wait, so why did you write On Painting?
Alberti: We should bring up that matter some other time. For now, we should all just try to absorb what each of us has to say about historical and social change.
What causes historical/social change?
ReplyDeleteKluger v. Antigone v. Morrison
Kluger: I’m glad to be having such a conversation with very inspirational women. What do you think causes historical or social change, Antigone?
Antigone: First off, I think change can only happen if and when there is oppression.
Kluger: what do you mean?
Antigone: With my situation, I couldn’t bury my brother because I had to obey some absurd rule set by my uncle, another human being. He did have rank but I disobeyed him anyway because I felt that the “rules” of the Gods were more important.
Morrison: What I think you’re trying to say is that when you believe God has another plan for you, no matter the consequence, God is the first [person] you must dedicate yourself to. So continuing on about your point, when there is oppression, does the individual or a group of individuals that causes the change?
Antigone: I think Kluger would agree with me that the individual would cause the change; you would too agree, correct?
Morrison: Yes, I would say so; but to a certain extent. If an individual can identify that there must be a change, for example, why do blue eyes and white skin have to be the most sought for features? When one does not possess those features; one must hope and pray but can it ever be attained? No, (maybe in one’s mind), one needs to assert that the ‘norm’ isn’t the norm, blue eyes and white skin isn’t for everyone, and also society must change its views.
Kluger: Morrison is right. I can write all I want about the Holocaust but society must change with me in order to get anything done. It is why I propose a different perspective on the Holocaust; the norm is too sentimental and it brainwashes readers into thinking that that’s the only way of feeling about it. I can say that I, myself, am trying to change a social view on the Holocaust but what good is it if no one else is affected by it?
Antigone: I think you’re right as well. I tried my hardest to make it known to my people that my king isn’t always right and I defied him to make a statement.
Kluger: I feel like we’ve touched upon great points but there is more to be discussed…until next time.
Kluger vs. Hegel vs. Kleist
ReplyDeleteKluger: Don’t you think it’s weird that people keep thinking they can keep changing other people or changing what happens?
Hegel: Well, I think it’s great seeing how different things have changed throughout time. And they all had to change for different reasons.
Kleist: I definitely think a lot of change happens in history. What do you think causes these?
Kluger: Well, I don’t think everything always happens because the same thing causes it. I don’t even think it is important to understand what causes everything.
Hegel: Well it has to be important because then you’ll know that things change when people discover new other things in the future and they just keep progressing.
Kleist: History can only change if an individual steps away from an ongoing thing that seems wrong to them so they choose to act differently in response. That’s what makes history. Like the peasants got angry so they decided that they needed change so they all revolted and they changed history.
Kluger: I don’t even think it’s appropriate or possible to explain specific causes of why every event in history like that could happen. They just keep happening because there are so many different people and you can’t change all of them. There are always going to be people that act out behind every event and keep things not progressing. It’s just natural.
Hegel: But when these things happen, new things come out of them. And they will just be better than before. Or else why would you even change them?
Kleist: We can try to do all we want and change what we want for what we think is history so we make it. But really, we don’t even know for sure if things that happen are true or not.
Kluger: But I’m saying even if there’s a certain outcome that some people think is “good”, there are still going to be problems that arise later on about maybe something different that play out just as bad. My history didn’t need the Holocaust to “progress” it.
Hegel: But those that were trying to change history probably felt that what they did was progress for their cause. And it could’ve affected people in beneficial ways that you don’t even know about
Kleist: In the end, how would we even know if it really had a good outcome? We can’t even determine real truth!
What causes historical/social change?
ReplyDeleteGhandi: Change is only able to occur once the self is disciplined and you have achieved swaraj. Therefore it is individuals who implement change and can only be achieved collectively if this discipline is maintained.
Kluger: I agree, male egotism and dominance is a movement of individuals which is the driving factor of individuals.
Hegel: I think that events are inevitable. If you look at history everything is a similar version of what was previous. When something new comes along and creates a conflict with the old the two meld and there is symmetry between the two.
Ghandi: Well, I see that there are problems with both modern and ancient, for example, civilizations. But to disagree with you there is nothing good that comes from modern civilization. But I do agree that there should be some type of symmetry because the negative/primitive aspects of the ancient civilization which can be erased or eradicated in a modified version of the past.
Kluger: This cannot be true. Take the Holocaust for example, what was the old and new version of this event? Do you hypothesize that it is a world phenomenon rather than specific to regions/nations/communities?
I’m stuck….. Kluger is very confusing to me HELPPPP
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHegel/Gandhi/Kluger (Annie)... this is very good, except as I explained at the study session yesterday, Hegel doesn't believe history is cyclical. He believes it progresses forward and really changes, except that some stages of history do somewhat resemble previous stages. (Repetition with difference.) Don't forget that any of the Communist thinkers would make a good comparison to Hegel. They have the same vision of historical development, but they put it in economic terms.
ReplyDeleteHegel/Gandhi/Kluger pt. II (Christine)... I like how a particular example comes up in this one (genocide), and the different characters argue about it
Kluger/Chaturvedi/Hegel (Roselaine)... this one really does well to emphasize Kluger's belief in free will... but again, I want to insist that Hegel doesn't think that history is just an endlessly repeating circle. That's what Aristotle would think. No "modern" thinker would think that.
Kleist/Aristotle/Kluger (Stepanie)... I think it would be more appropriate for the points that Kleist says here to use Kohlhaas instead of Kleist, unless you want to have Kleist make some sort of statement like, just like my character Kohlhaas, I believe that... Kluger saying truth has nothing to do with moderation is great... for Aristotle, I'd point out again that he might not believe in history in our sense of progression at all; a universe in which each thing fulfills its telos is a cyclical one... only with Hegel, Marx etc. do you get the philosophical notion that history itself could have a telos
Savarkar/Kohlhaas/Kluger (Monique)... I guess a volcano is even more incendiary than a fire... although actually it's different because a volcano is something where the pressure has been building up for hundreds of years and must have some sort of natural vent... Kohlhaas' fire is artificial, a practical or ad hoc response, unless you believe his avenging archangel stuff... and yes it's OK to have a last word if you want, like Kluger does here
ReplyDeleteKluger/Savarkar/Gandhi (Ankita)... that's a good narrative frame for the dialogue... this one has an interesting focus on rhetoric, what it takes for a change motive to spread from one individual to many... there are lots of other comparisons that that opens up
Sophocles/Kluger/Descartes (Aubrey)... the Greek theater isn't for everyone, it's for male property-holders... Sophocles here sounds more like Antigone than himself... I like what you did with Descartes here... as for Kluger, I don't think she would find Hitler uniquely culpable for the Holocaust... she seems to believe in collective guilt there
Kluger/Plato/Savarkar (Lorena)... Savarkar and Kluger are well done here... I would just say for Plato that he believes that in the "real" philosophical world nothing changes... or he might say that change is the development of one's own mind toward truth... or he might say that only certain people who have that truth are trustworthy to produce change
Kluger/Gandhi/Gladwell (Marko)... I like how Kluger tells Gandhi that self-improvement is overrated... I'd like to see Gandhi engage Gladwell more directly on the fact that it's modern society or capitalism that produces these trivial novelties or changes in cool that he's describing (I don't actually think Gladwell is this dumb, but you might as well make him the representative of modern life like you do)
ReplyDeleteAntigone/Kluger/Jacobs (Steve)... "defiance can be internal" is a great line... you had some trouble working in Jacobs though... perhaps she could talk to Kluger about architecture, cities, places etc... actually all three of them could talk about cities on the community question
Kluger/Savarkar/Alberti (Priya)... the disagreement about history in terms of history books or historical writing is a good one... also how Kluger criticizes Savarkar for the racial component of his nationalism (indeed some Hindu nationalists made strategic alliances with the Nazis during WW2)... I don't know if Alberti fits though... he doesn't ever say much about social change through art, maybe the development of one's virtue, etc... I'm not sure, I'd have to go back and look
Kluger/Antigone/Morrison (Yen)... this one isn't very well developed yet, but the notion of norms, or the way that sentimentality reinforces norms, is indeed something that all three of these share
ReplyDeleteKluger/Hegel/Kleist (Elim)... the all German edition... I like how Kluger questions the need or possibility of assigning causes... Kleist doesn't get to say much, but he does find a point of agreement because of his skepticism (belief that it's difficult or impossible to know something)
Gandhi/Kluger/Hegel (Kiyomi)... I think the individual statements are fine, but you've got them talking past each other and not really picking up on what the other one is saying
Note to these last two... don't forget that one of your three for the exam should be from a previous quarter.
Good luck... you're all farther along with this than you think.
What causes historical/social change?
ReplyDeleteKluger: I have found based on my experiences that only the collection of many different kinds of action can bring about any true kind of historical or social change. Unfortunately, many people use the wrong sort of means in order to create change.
Savarkar: You are absolutely right! Too many people these days are using passive approaches to dealing with the world's problems. A frontal assault at the problem is the only way to bring about the change that we want.
Kluger: That's not exactly what I meant...
Ghandi: Oh Savarkar, must you be so brutish? You and I both know that the best approach is to find a common ground so that all parties present might be happy.
Kluger: Well, something like that...
Savarkar: Ghandi, the problem with your approach is that you simply refuse to take the appropriate action necessary for any kind of change. If a person refuses to comply with your beliefs, then they must be forced to see things your way.
oops, I realized I spelled Gandhi's name wrong! Sorry!
ReplyDeleteKluger v. Hegel v. Gandhi
ReplyDeleteKluger: I do not have a progressive view of history - it just repeats itslef. Any historical change occurs because men make it occur; men are violent and create war due to their gender.
Hegel: Well, I see things as repeating themselves. History won't repeat itself exactly, but a similar sense. In other words, there will be a problem, then a resolution will arise. Later on, a similar problem will occur and the resolution will be simliar.
Gandhi: Woah, lady! Take it easy. Manliness isn't about weilding guns, it's more about courage - facing your fears. Any coward can hide behind a gun, but it takes a real man (or strong courageous person) to stand unarmed in front of a cannon. Those who make REAL change are those who break away from the Hegel cycle. Savarkarians will just repeat the same Hegel cycle.
Hegel: Well, I still think it would be inevitable. Something in the future will happen: India will be invaded again, or a religious conflict with those in power may happen, and there will be a similar problem, and the resolution will involve pacifism, or war (whichever means worked the first time will work the second time).
Kluger: Yes, but what happens will happen because we make it happen. Like the Holocaust for example - theres no reason for that to have happened, and I wont take any attempted explanation for it. It was an abnormal event. I won't even call it historical. And there's no way the Holocaust woulda been resolved by peaceful means, sorry Gandhi.