Habermas

"Democratic governance rests on the capacity of and opportunity for citizens to engage in enlightened debate". Such engagement needs to happen in an open forum, i.e. a public sphere where the voices of everybody in a democracy can be heard. It is these voices that will ultimately determine how society is driven, how new leadership is elected and how democracy progresses.

I find this to be a fair, though somewhat utopian sentiment. If one observes general elections in India, I would conclude (as a lay person) that the debates about the direction of the country and the world's largest democracy are carried out in the popular (read, cable) media and newspapers, which are read by and participated in by the nation's educated classes. Somehow, the nation's largest section of population that largely lives in the villages and depends on farming for sustenance have not been huge participants of the debate, except perhaps at the regional level. Their needs are not typically addressed in or out of the media, perhaps the reason why India has historically been a developing, rather than a developed country. And yet, the most recent general election was decided based on these marginalized people who live in the villages and countryside, rather than the educated middle classes you strayed from their responsibility to vote.

Some places make progress because of the principles of democratic participation and debate. Others apparently progress in spite of them.

One Dimensional Man

Its only since I've moved to New York that I have heard the word NEED used in more places and by more people than it really should be. I mean, how many people really NEED and iPod versus WANT an iPod. Sure, there are those of us straphangers, for example, who could do with some personal entertainment on the train. But let's face it, all of us have lived in times when an iPod (or even a WalkMan) wasn't exactly commonplace. And yet, for years and generations, people have continued to commute to and from work and class without complaining so much. Yes, I know, I rant sometimes. Companies continue to sell us the things they tell us we should be aspiring for. And the more we buy, the bigger and better the things we dream of owning...and the bigger the crater in our wallets.

For several years now, I have dreamed of being debt free for at least a day in my life (and I expect that day to arrive in the next couple of years), where I would dance in the streets (hey, its NY, who would notice?). I expect it is the closest I would get to Nirvana before the circle of debt begins all over again and I become a slave to the economy and its many upheavals once again.

Nostalgia

For me, the first half of the semester brought to the forefront many broad themes that I had thought about at different points in the past. The two readings that really stuck with me were The Bottom Billion and The Power Elite. Both these topics are very personal to me, in part because I have migrated from the land of (a good number of) the bottom billion , who often survive based on the decisions and whims of the power elite. The bottom billion are dispersed in different parts of the world and far removed (both literally and figuratively) from the far more unified power elite. And these relatively tiny numbers of elite have the power to make almost earth-shaking decisions for the remaining billions.

I know of friends back in my hometown who are likely to lose jobs with Bear Stearns directly or indirectly, because of a few powerful people in the Fed, JPMorgan and Bear who made important decisions about the state of the banking system and the overall global economy in a matter of hours. Many of these people have had to leave their lives and families in smaller towns of India and migrate to bigger cities like my hometown to make a better living and be a part of the global economy, else they would be left out in the cold because the prosperity of capitalism wasn't progressing fast enough to their corner of the world.

It is for this reason, that I wonder, like Appadurai, if capitalism and globalization is all its cracked up to be. If globalization is supposed to bring people together and build free close-knit community, then why does it tear people apart from their homes and force them to live in conditions where they may not be in complete control of their lives and destinies?

Polanyi's discussion of the market regulating itself is an interesting one. Again, I go back to Bear for this one. Personally, while I can see the Fed being sensitive about sending the wrong message about the state of the economy, I wonder how much sense it makes to help one giant corporation help buy another, to help build an even bigger conglomerate. It seems like the Fed just promoted the exact opposite of a free market to me.

More thoughts after class.....

Benjamin

Some days ago, I happened to visit the National Gallery of Art in DC. Its a huge place, with multiple floors spread across two wings. I only managed to finish the first floor of one of the wings, but hope to go back to see the rest. The sculptures and paintings I saw were primarily from the 15th-19th century, spanning central and southern European artifacts as well as vases and other priceless items from old Chinese dynasties.

I suppose I felt a little privileged to be able to see these things (even though most of the museums in DC are free. Museums still have a certain elitist aura about them, mostly perceived by people who for whatever reason, refuse to enter one. (Not) Oddly enough, reproductions of many of the paintings I saw there were available in the gallery gift shop as posters and postcards. And I must admit, that while it was cool to see such beautiful and unique works of art in the gallery, that taking a piece of it home in the form of a (relatively) cheap reproduction seemed to trivialize the experience and the artifacts a little bit. (In full disclosure, I did buy a couple of postcards of Van Gogh paintings).

Pictures of all the things that I saw could be posted online to make some sort of online virtual reality or just somebody's photo gallery on Flickr, but does this way of looking at art or creating art, such that it is made available for the masses to see, reduce its value in some way? I suppose its the same feeling as three other guys on the train wearing the same (seemingly unique) t-shirt that I am.

I agree with Benjamin's point that how something is viewed, i.e. the medium, has a lot to do with how its perceived. The Internet, like television and newspapers, is open to anyone who wants to use it and be a part of it. Its become a mass medium where everything is reproducable and everyone has a voice of shared opinions that few are then willing to oppose. It therefore changes the perception and true value of artifacts.

The Power Elite

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Since Bill and I talked about this topic in class, I don't have much more to add. Its seems obvious to me that not much has changed in the 50 odd years since this article was written. Everything still centers around the military, economic and political bases of power in this country, and perhaps others. Eisenhower was perhaps the first, but the Bushes and Cheneys (and even Wesley Clarks?) of the world seem to play musical chairs between being central powers in one domain or another.

One difference remains. The leaders of 50 years ago may have held up the facade of being public servants, I wonder if that thought ever even crossed the minds of Cheney, Rumsfeld and company so seem so drunk on their own power. If anything, I'm more inclined to accept that Americans today and those yet to be born have become bonded labor at the hands of our leaders.

Generally speaking, power elite are a necessary evil (a word I use rather loosely), the driving force that move society forward, both with their vision and their wallets.

Does Bill Gates even carry a wallet?

Dewey had a crystal ball?

So many of the points Dewey made since hold true today. In fact, I wonder how he might react today knowing that his predictions have come through. This book was no easy read for me, but here's a few things I got from it:

- The public is often an incoherent, almost non-existent force.
- It is likely to remain that way unless some significant situation/turmoil, a.k.a. negatively externality brings it together.
- Dewey believes in the public's ability to protect and deliberate correctly over important matters, but there are too many special and private interests that influence and deter the public's ability to do so, because the public does not get all the pertinent information.
- There is a need for improved communication for the public to come together.
- Democracy must begin at the level of the local community. It is important for people to get actively involved and express their opinions about matters that concern everyone in the community.
- Politics has to compete for people's attention with other things like technology, etc. which people find to be more desirable topics worth discussing.
- Policies need to be flexible rather than rigid.
- Policies also need to be tested properly to study their effectiveness.
- Dewey touches on the issue of how one should live with one's neighbors responsibly and how without doing so, one cannot be a part of "Great Community"

Mr. Bush should have a passage from this book read to him every night...even if it is too late to undo the mess.

Dyson et al.

There were three phases of the economy:

* The first wave, where the main engine for growth is farmers and laborers who toil to produce goods.

* The second wave, which revolved around major industries like packaged foods, oil, etc. and still largely dominate the scene today. All the land that was previously used for agriculture is now used by these industries.

* The third wave, is largely technological and is based on the creation of knowledge.

Every wave has learned to adapt from every subsequent wave. So farming techniques have improved due to industrialization leading to larger crop yields. Industries today have learned to adapt from the technological wave to increase quantities of mass-produced goods. Yet, the third wave will largely remain untapped while second wave thinking remains in place. The ability for technology to change people's lives will remain largely untapped for the time being.

And yet, I wonder if it is the melding of the second and third waves alone that will propel the discovery of new abilities of the third wave, as has been the case until now. Technological innovation has thusfar been facilitated by technological need.