Week one: Marx, Tocqueville, and Gramsci
This is our first foray into some basic theories about how civil society works and what it is. Our goal is to closely read these theories and try to learn their terms and language. Key ideas include individualism, hegemony, and civil society. We want to understand these theories in order to have a better idea of the underlying ideas about nonprofits in the US.
Marx
In "On the Jewish Question," Karl Marx argues that the modern states envisioned by the French and Americans, with their doctrines of liberty and private property, would guarantee that there would be a schism between “species-being” of humans and the egoistic individuals. In the sphere of “civil society,” which is structured by constitutions and secured by the state, the individual is free to pursue his or her own interests. However, Marx argues that this structure merely pits all against all, since in this sphere we only see each other as impediments or means to an end, rather than as humans:
“the right of property...leads every man to see in other men, not the realization, but rather the limitation of his own liberty” (108).
Presumably Marx would argue that nonprofits are simply reflections of the rifts within society (different religious views, class, race, etc) and do not unite mankind into the species-being. Nonprofits then might simply grow out of these divisions. Moreover, if individualism is the building block of society, then there are no guarantees that nonprofits would create a “good society” where all humans are provided access to healthcare, education, and wealth. Individual philanthropists might simply give their money to organizations that provide the rich with things like art and diversion, since those donors would not be obliged to help the poor. Of course, nonprofits didn't exist as we know them in Marx's time, so this is an inference on my part.
Tocqueville
Similarly, Alexis de Tocqueville describes churning and warm interactions of groups of individuals in Democracy in America. Where he differs from Marx, though, is that this is the engine by which civil society takes shape and has order. Marx sees the war of all against all; Tocqueville sees a fluid arena of debate. While these associations might lead to fragmentation and individualism, Tocqueville argues that this leads to greater social welfare:
"It thus happens that ambition makes a man care for his fellows, and, in a sense, he often finds his self-interest in forgetting about himself" (120).
Marx would counter, what about the oppressed within this regime? His “On the Jewish question” deals with Jews in Germany, who were oppressed. He argues that the distinction between Christians and Jews in Germany is misleading politically. Rather, the goal should be a state without religious division, where people are unified rather than divided. “Civil society” in this view is, again, a site of individuals acting in their own self-interests. If I am interested in my advancement, and that means I can prevent you from getting ahead, I will find a way to oppress you, and one technique I might use is to “gang up” on you with my like-minded pals. Depending upon the context, one might substitute other oppressed minority groups (recent Hispanic immigrants in the US, for example) for Jews and still see what Marx is arguing.
Thus, while they describe the same thing, they have different starting places and different biases. Tocqueville starts with the individual, arguing that the individual will look around him or herself to see that she cannot live on her own, and will associate. Marx argues that the best society would be one where we start with our common interests and in serving them we serve ourselves. Marx argues for abolition of private property, private interests, and religion, in favor of humans who are fully formed, simultaneously political and civil, deriving the best interests of all of society from their common property.
In my view, both can be extreme.
Gramsci
I offer Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks as a synthesis of these views. He argues that the state is run by the powerful (and by powerful, he means economically powerful), but that the powerful does not simply dominate the people with brute force, but through subtle means of hegemony. Hegemony is basically
“force and consent; coercion and persuasion; State and Church; political society and civil society; politics and morality (Croce's ethical-political history); law and freedom; order and self-discipline; or (with an implicit judgment of somewhat libertarian flavor) violence and fraud” (191).
That is, hegemony is a sort of “soft-power” used by whomever is in control of the state. The institutions within civil society are seen as the place of debates and struggles. Education, for example, is a site where people learn how to behave within a society. As such, it is a key space for the powerful to maintain their interests. If my group is in charge, and I educate your group that obeying me is right and natural, then I don't necessarily need violence to maintain my position. This accounts for the highly political nature of education: various groups in civil society struggle over the goals and meaning of education.
Nonprofits can be seen in this way. Since money is, in one sense, a store of social power, its rather easy to see how particular groups fund those nonprofits that would advance their interests.
In order for any powerless groups (who Gramsci calls “sub-altern”) to gain power, they realize they must associate and struggle:
“The subaltern classes, by definition, are not unified and cannot unite until they are able to become a 'State'; their history, therefore, is intertwined with that of civil society, and thereby with the history of States and groups of States” (192).
Thus, I propose that we view nonprofits as a part of civil society which can be exceptionally revolutionary (progressive, able to change the social order), or can be reactionary (conservative, desiring to maintain the social order). Those not in (economic) power might gather what is now called “social capital,” an idea we'll turn to later.
However, for now, it's safe to say that the winner of this debate is... Tocqueville – at least in the American context. His idea of individuals gathering into groups in a democratic state is now referred to as “pluralism,” and this idea – rather than Gramsci's more high-stakes view – has been a key concept in the history of nonprofits. We will consider views on that in the US context next.
Of course, my readings might be wrong! But basically, I want to present you a fundamental debate in civil society theory (and in theories of why nonprofits exist): are we humans "political animals" that must associate in order to get things done and make the good society? Or are we a collection of individuals who must be at liberty to pursue our own ends? Leave your thoughts in the comments, and please cite any passages from the text that you mention.
Labels: gramsci, marx, tocqueville
posted by Robert W. Gehl @ 12:04 PM
31 Comments:
Wow the Marx peice was really hard to understand, but I think I got the main idea, and I tend to disagree (i'm not sure if that was the expected reaction or not since I am the first one to post a comment!) To me it seems that Marx and Bauer strive so hard to create a political state which cannot be corrupted by religion or the "civil society" but I don't see how that is possible. You cannot simply remove one way of thinking, or one of your "lives" and be a different person in a different situation, and that seems to be what they expect. I disagree because I think that all of our "lives" and thoughts and beliefs are intertwined and no matter the situation, whether in dealing with politics or when we are dealing with others from day to day, or when we are by ourselves, we are the same person overall. We still will, for the most part, have the same beliefs, opinions, thoughts, prejudices, etc. Instead of working so hard to abolish religion, or our private lives from politics, why not just embrace it? I think that is what democracy attempts to do. When you accept each individual not on the basis of religion or race, sex, what have you, you simply look at the value of the ideas they have to offer, then the meanings behind their differences become insignificant.
One more thing, I also completely disagree with the Marx's concept of the civil society. I don't think men are basically mean and heartless. I dont think the "civil society" should be corrupt, I think man naturally has a lot of positive things to offer. Proof? Look how many nonprofits we have now!
Whitney - thanks for commenting so quickly! And disagreeing with any of the readings is perfectly fine, as long as you support your case (which I think you have).
One point where I think that you might actually agree with Marx is on your last point. You say:
One more thing, I also completely disagree with the Marx's concept of the civil society. I don't think men are basically mean and heartless. I dont think the "civil society" should be corrupt, I think man naturally has a lot of positive things to offer. Proof? Look how many nonprofits we have now!
What Marx is arguing is not that humans are "naturally" or "basically" self-centered. Quite the opposite - he thinks of us as "species-beings" or political animals who must work together to live. What he is arguing is that the concept of individual liberty tends to create a society where the default is for each of us to each other as an impediment (ie, if I don't work late without pay tonight, my coworker will, and he will get a raise; if I don't get ahead materially, someone else will, and he will be at an advantage).
Marx might see NPs as a positive force, just so long as they don't emphasis our differences. To be fair, there are NPs that do things I guarantee you don't agree with!
Based upon what three readings, each author views the idea of civil society differently. In Marx's case, he believes we are free from society's grasp and we can pursue our needs over the society's. He believes everyone's interests in a society conflicts with everyone's needs. In other words, one similar need is the only thing needed for the society. Looking at Tocqueville, he believes everyone must help each other in the society not themselves. In other words, caring for people with like Autism while you don't have Autism is the main concept of Tocqueville. Gramsci states civil society can not exist without a State. In other words, a government must exist in order for a society to exist. Basically they argued that society needs a something to work. Nonprofits have a similar to their ideas because they need a common interest, giving to others than yourselves, and a higher power to recognized your group. That is how I see the readings on the ideas of nonprofits.
I agree with Marx’s criticism of Bauer. Obviously, it doesn’t make sense that to be a citizen a person needs to give up being Jewish or Christian, as Bauer goes to say that “man should renounce religion, in order to be emancipated as a citizen.”(99) Faith is part of human nature, so by denying this right can someone really be politically emancipated? Marx’s seems to agree that rights of man are not separate from “privilege of faith” (106). I was thinking about Whitney’s comment and I seem to agree and disagree. I think it makes sense that to an extent that in the civil society and political sphere we really are two different people. As Marx’s would say that we are “private individual” in one sense and “communal being” in another (103). Yet I agree that in most instances this distinction wouldn’t hold. For instance like Mr. Gehl was giving an example about the oppressors, if you believe man is self interested, as Marx does, soon this man will realize that in order to oppress suppose some minority group he dislikes he needs to get with people just like him. Once he gets with people, who have similar views, he will have to cross into the political sphere to lobby for laws that oppresses the minority he dislikes. In that sense this private individual views come into to bear on his person as a citizen. I personally feel Marx is himself torn between agreeing and disagreeing between the distinction between man as egoistic being in civil society and as citizen, as although through the entire essay he says that civil society is the arena where man gets to be human and stay true to his real human nature, which is self-centered, in the end of the essay he says that really human is to be a human who has absorbed the citizen in him.
When reading De Tocqueville he mentions on page 124 that the government taking the place of associations is not something that should happen because eventually the government would have to step in and do everything for the citizen. He says it would be a vicious circle that would not end well. Once the government started down that path there would be no end. However over the years the American government has grown in size. During the Great Depression many jobs and programs were developed by the government. I don't believe that this has hurt society instead it helped people get back on their feet. I am not arguing for total government control by any means but I think in some cases there is great benefit to having the government step in. I think that so far American history has proved that De Tocqueville was wrong about Americans becoming helpless.
I also wanted to share some thoughts about Tocqueville’s work. For me, this reading was very personal. Since I lived in India for over 13 years, similar to Tocqueville’s, sometimes like an outsider I see some things in the American civil and political society, which I don’t know if everyone else can. I think his argument about right of association, which shapes the civil society, and ultimately leads to actions that are socially beneficially can only be applied to the U.S. This mutually beneficial relationship between civil society and right to association only holds in America because of the political culture of the people of this nation. He says that in America, associations are unique because people “learn from birth that he must rely on himself to combat the ills” (113). I agree with him because, unlike in U.S., people all over the world don’t think that if something happens in their neighbor they need to make an association; instead, they think government should do something. Besides this, he points out that people all over the world have a very different conception of an association; I believe him because I always thought of associations as something negative and something that is formed to go against the ruling government—maybe to revolt. On the contrary, in America, people in associations see themselves as minority, who want to talk and work with the majority not to throw it off. I guess my main point is that associations, in most countries, cannot work to benefit of the entire civil society because people don’t believe they can.
I agree with Ashima because majority of the world's population depends on their government to do something for them and not themselves. Many associations that support good causes are look down as inferior and insufficient for their ideas and beliefs. Disabilities associations have this issue and more from people outside the organization because people people sometimes just do not understand the purpose of their cause. People just sometimes lack an understanding and belief in causes that could change the world for the better in the end. In other words, the world and people themselves must gain awareness about such associations and the possibilities that could happen because of the associations' existences.
I agree with Whitney's post describing Marx's overestimation of human thinking. Successful people live integrated lives where they do not exclude themselves from public life based on their demographic or worldview.
Judaism or Christianity define how many citizens interact in the public sector. Sanitizing human beings of their convictions in the name of arbitrary 'common good' is unethical.
DeTocqueville correctly portrays reality where individual identity and local influence generate spaces for effective action. The heart of the nonprofit secor is mission. DeTocqueville's message hits home to how nonprofit executives and associates are self-selecting and use free association to meet the needs of their constituents.
I agree with Marx stating that capitalism is competition. Instead of one man helping the other, it is one man competing against the other to get ahead. Karl Marx fought for the poor and under-privileged who were taken advantage of. For Marx, everyone is equal. He believed we should get rid of class structure to help the collective good. If the individual is the basis of the society than there is no guarentee that non-profit organizations will create a better society. It will reflect the division of the society.
Regarding the comment made by Ashima, I would say that I agree and disagree with some of the comments made.
I disagree with the fact that Ashima said that people all over the world do not see the importance of having associations. I was born in Ivory Coast, which is one of the developing countries. We have plenty of associations in the country. Those associations work to support the government. People see the benefits of having them and be a part of them. They are also one of the first resources that people go to when in need. I think Ashima was generalizing the concept that associations can only work in the United States. The Ivory Coast is a poor country and the government has difficulties assisting the people with their variety of needs. It is difficult for the people to sometimes count on the government, thus associations are the primary resource in the Ivory Coast. Not all countries understand the importance of having associations. I would not say that all countries all around the world count on their government to take care of their issues.
I agree with Ashima when talking about the association system in the United States. The United States is one of the developed countries that has a better understanding of the role of what each association can do for the country. People invest and contribute for the well-being of the society and in return they use those associations to help solve their problems instead of going to the government.
I am not sure I feel about the Marx piece. I found it difficult to understand the point Marx was trying to agree. He seemed to contradict himself. I absolutely agree with Marx's criticism of Bauer. A person should not have to renounce his/her religion in order to achieve politcal emancipation. However, I think that is impossible to completely seperate religion and government. Marx does not seem to offer much insight into how political emancipation should be achieved.
In my opinion, the most interesting piece from our reading selection this week was Gramsci’s “The Prison Notebooks.” Perhaps I feel this way because I am a Government and International Politics major and have read both Marx and De Tocqueville many times before; however, Gramsci offers a different view on how groups (or associations) form. One quote from the reading that struck me was from page 200 of The Civil Society Reader, in which Gramsci states: “It always happens that individuals belong to more than one private association, and often to associations which are objectively in contradiction with one another. I agree that many people who choose to be active in society are active in more than one aspect, but I do not think that the majority act in opposition to one another, as Gramsci proposes. It seems as those the author has a rather cynical view of why individuals take a stand for something they believe in. Personally, I do not act in order to better myself or promote myself in any way. Rather, I take part in various organizations in order to help as many people as possible. I understand that I am not everyone and everyone does not act the way I do, but I would like to think that society is quite as self-serving as Gramsci offers in his work.
In Tocqueville's reading on page 121 he describes how communities should work together no matter which financial status you have in order to prosper as a community.
The community works best when the rich can provide the funds to carry out the services by the poor. By increasing the general prosperity of the "neighborhood", they are also "increasing the wealth and satisfying the needs of the public".
Within retrospect to present day seems to have some truth to it. By investors donating money to an organization, the workers in the organization can reach out to those who need their services. (i.e. homeless shelters or free clinics). By bettering the community with these services, everyone benefits.
I agree with Sam's insight on how the American government has proved Tocqueville's point of how individuals will lose the idea of forming associations and will need the government to come to their help.
Presently there are thousands of nonprofit organizations that start with individuals that have the idea of forming it. Though the organizations need approval from the government, the government doesn't assist the organizations with funds, management, or anything else but rules and regulations.
After reading through some comments already posted by the class, I went back to readings I had done in the past, especially of Alexis De Toqueville. In a reading focusing on political association in the United States, a piece of De Toqueville’s Democracy in America was presented in order to demonstrate how different associations in America are in comparison to the rest of the world. De Toqueville says that “in no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objects in America.” He recognizes that associations in the United States have been created in order to promote public safety, commerce, industry, morality, and religion. I understand that some readers may not like the fact that De Toqueville has presented the American people as helpless when practicing individual endeavors. However, I believe the author recognizes the need for associations in order to make a greater impact on society. For instance, I can donate food to the local food drive as an individual effort. Of course this is a wonderful gesture and will help in the success of the food drive. However, if I were to join the organization and help work with a team of individuals to organize, plan, and distribute the donated food, I would be making a greater impact as part of the association. I for one believe that our established associations have made the greatest difference in the service arena and think that De Toqueville has a point when he mentions the accomplishments of the association versus those of the individual.
I know Marx can be somewhat dense and his ideas are rather radical, but I’m always very inspired by him. I read “On the Jewish Question” many years ago in high school, and was exposed to more of his writings in college. While he does have a very extreme point of view on the collectivist nature of what a good society should be, it certainly would not hurt if more people’s views were skewed more towards Marxian thinking. The very last paragraph of the reading (pg. 112) describes Marx collectivist ideal in such a way that makes me think of bees in a bee hive. It would be nice if people were able to work in selfless harmony like social insects do, but self preservation seems to be the primary focus for the greater part of humanity.
In regard to the religious ideas put forth in the Marx reading, I think it is an interesting concept to consider. I know it seems objectionable to give up one’s religion for the state, but in the context of Marx theory it makes sense. The moral tenets of the major world religions (Christianity, Buddhism, etc.) all seem to be fairly similar, so it should be possible to convey those ideas in society without necessarily using religion to do so. If the idea is that people should work to become a “species being” as Marx terms it, religious divisions would have to be eliminated. As long as each individual remains loyal to a certain religious association, a part of them will always be in competition with others in society.
I love Alexis de Tocqueville’s boundless faith in the power of American associations. I would agree that they have been a very powerful part of American history. The Revolutionary War and the women’s and civil rights movements would not have been possible without the right of association. I don’t know that I would agree that we use associations in quite the same way in modern society. For example, there was such a huge youth movement against the Vietnam War 60’s and 70’s, but where was that during the most recent Iraq War? There were and are plenty of people who felt strongly about it, but the most common form of protest seems to have been with bumper stickers. I don’t know if people are apathetic or lazy, or just too scared of all the dangers that modern society has, if not created, at least exposed, but that sense of social cohesion seems to be fading away. There are plenty of groups that people can join and organizations that support one cause or another, but are any of them powerful enough to make a change in society? Even as people become more tolerant of other ethnicities, religions, and viewpoints in general, society seems to be more fractured than ever. Especially with the use of the internet people are more connected, but in way that does not promote real social cohesion. Perhaps the individualism that serves as the basis for de Tocqueville’s pluralism has become so pronounced that it no longer creates the same conditions of association that it once did.
Lauren, I agree with what you are saying about the difficulty of creating real social cohesion even if a minority association is accepted by the government. For example, The civil rights movement fought for the equal treatment of blacks, and yes, it worked (for the most part) as far as granting equal liberties to them. But racism is still present in the US, some would say more than ever. What we have to realize is the question at hand is not "will everyone agree?" instead, the question is "will everyone be able to accept this group." If an association's goal is to make everyone like them, they unfortunetely are doomed from the start. As nice as it would be, there is no way everyone is going to agree with everyone else's wishes. The matter at hand is can the government accomdate the association as much as it does the majority. Usually the goal of most associations is to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, or to not be opressed in some way, and that is all they can really ask for.
With respect to Marx, I found his comments regarding the political emancipation of German Jews particularly interesting. The distinction he makes between mans’ political self (and his assertion that political man is abstract, artificial) and egoistic man (man who is separate, motivated by preservation and private interest) still carry weight to this day. If, rightly, we are to suppose that an individual’s political emancipation is a necessary requisite in bringing about a larger goal of human emancipation then any decision made by a political state which seeks to exclude mans’ ability to express her political self must be resisted. By removing barriers created by class, race, gender, or social rank we can ensure the equal opportunity required for meaningful participation in our political community.
The distinctions Marx makes about the self are important because of the perceived conflict between the general interests and private interests of man. In this respect, at least, it seems that non-profits should have a role to play in the development of human emancipation to the extent that they allow man to surpass his own narrow private interests, and fulfill her larger role as a member of civil society.
Antonio Gramsci’s writing entitled “Selections from the Prison Notebooks” only further accentuates how important education is to a civil society. While the coercive power of a state government to enforce discipline on groups which do not give willing consent is well known throughout human history; much less focus is given to the shaping of societies through cultural power. The ability for governments to engrain their citizens with the cultural and political values which they themselves ascribe to is both assuring and frightening at the same time. Having been raised in this country; values such as freedom, liberty, equality, and equal opportunity are principles which I grew up learning about in school (and indeed, are principles I believe deeply in) however, the positional for misuse and indoctrination is a very real possibility. Consider how Kim Jong-il has used his countries education system to demonize his Korean brothers and sisters in the south, or look at how America is depicted in text books across the Middle East. I suspect many of those books would reflect exactly what Gramsci was articulating, that powerful interests exercising soft power can shape the course of individuals and strengthen their positions without the use of force.
I, like Lauren, love Tocqueville’s faith in the power of American associations. The part they played in our past is much different than the role they play today. Today, we will never see the same type of cohesion that was present in the 60’s and 70’s, which could be due to the internet culture. However, we must remember how associations are labeled this day and age if they are different from popular belief. Labels such as “unpatriotic” were the first thing we heard out of any analyst’s mouth from Fox news regarding associations against the Iraq war. It is no secret that attitudes such as these diminish the role and power of these groups in society.
Like Ilana, the Marx piece was somewhat difficult to understand. What did draw my interest was the notion of obtaining political emancipation through giving up religion. Marx may be on to something here because as we know in American politics, leaders must have the same religious views as the majority. So with that said, can religion and government ever be completely separate? So far, no nation has achieved that objective.
I have to agree with Lauren and Whitney. It is extremely difficult to have minority groups become cohesive with other groups. The actions that were taken to grant minorities freedom in the early and mid 1900's were successful however, racism was still a thorn even after Jim Crow Laws were extinguished, Marches were sought after, and other events that aided in the civil rights movement.
Although the government can accommodate certain races for their rights,the accommodation means nothing if the government doesn't accommodate the minorities as they do the majority. Therefore, the government can strive all the more earnestly to treat every group he same but in actuality I don't think that that ca happen, especially while racism is still present.
After reading some comments, I was intrigued by Sam and Hoang-Khanh's comments. I believe that the government has a duty to step in and help the society get on it's feet. The more the government turns down funding for non-profits, the more the community will suffer and economically we will eventually be decreasing the number of jobs and services due and increasing fees and services that should be at an affordable price for american citizens.
Nya J
I agree that Tocqueville’s ideas on association’s best describe nonprofits in the U.S. context. Associations in the U.S. are “mainly formed for the purpose of discussion” and to “draw the majority over to their side and then to exercise power in its name” (Tocqueville pg.117). Although associations do serve as vehicles for discussion I think that much as they strive to create greater social welfare they also work to achieve individual interest. Associations and nonprofits can be seen as part of civil society and political society. Power and especially the power of persuasion is in numbers meaning that people as individuals in democratic societies cannot act as independents and must act together in order to achieve their own interest, which might or might not , be beneficial to the common good. Citizens in democratic societies had to learn to work together and enlist their fellow man to help him in order to get things done. Associations are borne out of the idea of combining knowledge to reach a greater end or result. People can use associations to achieve their individual self interest by enlisting the help of others with similar self interest to help them and try to persuade the majority in power to share their views. Associations and non-profits represent civil society and political society. When people pursue self interest they sometimes wind up working for the common good. I disagree with Marx that the final step in human emancipation is when people work for the common good and think of themselves last. I think this is unrealistic and that when people form associations their desire to work with others to achieve similar interest works for the common good.
Nya J
I agree with Gramsci’s ideas although they are a bit extreme. I can see where associations and nonprofits can be used a soft power and a means of coercion for getting people to do what you want them to do. I understand the education example where there is a desire by many parties within a state to control education. Government is the institutionalization of a conquest and in addition to institutionalizing a conquest governments must also reestablish its right to rule through civic education if it wishes to sustain it s right to rule. I view education as Tocqueville saw education which was as a means to educate democracy. Civic education is a means used by the government to reestablish its legitimacy and right to rule. In order for governments to remain in place and survive they must reestablish its legitimacy with each generation through civic education. Seeing that civic education reestablishes a government’s authority it is understandable that many parties would seek to control education either to keep the ruling party in power, persuade the ruling power to adopt its views, or oust the ruling party from power.
Apologies for the somewhat late response; I just got my books.
I just finished the Marx reading and honestly understood very little of it. I'm not even sure if I understood the Jewish Question; Jews want to be considered a part of society but in order for that to occur, they need to either give up some of their Jewishness or the state needs to lessen their restrictions...? I'm sure at some point in time I knew about the history behind this but at the moment I'm a bit clueless.
I'm also a bit clueless as to the stance Marx is taking. I guess if I don't understand the question then I'm also not going to understand the answer, huh? There's actually a part on the second page where he says that if you can formulate the question then you've solved the problem. I have my doubts about that, too.
This is just me guessing but Marx is advocating this "species-being", correct? That's the self in a social context; someone that is a member of various institutions within society. He's into giving up egotism and individualism because that's the only way everyone is going to be considered part of the whole. (I'm just assuming he's in favor of everyone becoming part of a whole since he the founder of communism.)
In relation to what you said about Marx's possible views on nonprofit organizations...in an idealistic society where we all have stars on our bellies (or don't for that matter), Marx probably would believe that we wouldn't have a need for stereotypical nonprofits. I'm not sure if I can explain it but if everyone were equal I just don't see nonprofits as being the outlet to help others. I mean, if no one were hungry then we wouldn't need to feed anyone right? Or if everyone was hungry then we would all need to be fed? The structure of a nonprofit probably wouldn't work.
Also: Are you saying that nonprofits related to "arts and diversion" are less noble than ones related to basic human needs? That's probably true, though.
I agree with a large majority of you that the Marx reading was slightly confusing although I think I understood the major aim or theme of his writings. Marx wrote,"the so-called rights of man . . . are nothing but the rights of the member of civil society ". So, the man is not an individual but instead his freedom exits in his role in the political community. I also agree with what you wrote Rob when you said, ". Tocqueville starts with the individual, arguing that the individual will look around him or herself to see that she cannot live on her own, and will associate". Applying that to nonprofit makes sense. Creating change requires associating, forming a community, a group. I agree also that Tocqueville would be the "winner" if that even applies, based on their ideas.
I finished the rest of the readings and then read what you wrote above; to be quite honest, we were very much on the same page. I really found De Tocqueville to be the most in line with the way we think of things as Americans. And I actually highlighted that passage you quoted from page 120. I also made note of a paragraph on page 121 which reads:
"It is difficult to force a man out of himself and get him to take an interest in the affairs of the whole state, for he has little understanding of the way in which the fate of the state can influence his own lot. But if it is a question of taking a road past his property, he sees at once that this small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests, and there is no need to point out to him the close connection between his private profit and the general interest."
As an American, I feel that this is what it's all about. That's how I am because that's the society I've grown up in. I have also been taught to strive toward selflessness but honestly, selflessness is not a proper reflection of myself. In the context of nonprofit work: I do all sorts of random volunteer work. When I was at community college, I was affiliated with the honor society and we did all sorts of do-goodery. Now I am involved with various organizations and programs at Mason that also expect me to do these things. I do them because it's expected of me. I do them because it's what's socially acceptable. I do them because they look good on paper. I do them I want to make connections. My mom has been calling me selfish since I was a little kid and she's right; I do things out of self interest.
I've been told by many that you have to do what you're passionate about. Are you passionate about the things you love out of self-interest? Even when you're trying to help others? No one wants to hear that the answer is yes but.......it's true. At least in my case.
I eventually want to work for an arts-related nonprofit. Maybe something dealing with youth, music, public radio, or what have you. That's where my heart is because that's what I've always liked personally. Live music or public radio; the sense of community it brings.....has saved my life. Perhaps if I had been affected by cancer or gang violence or starvation my calling would be elsewhere but it's not. I can raise money through Relay For Life, work with at-risk city kids, and donate food to the needy but I do that to appease society. I am aware that my heart is not in it.
Should my heart be in more serious causes or is it ok to just go through the motions? Is this a typical dilemma; I'd imagine there are too many causes for everyone to care about all of them but are you ok with the fact that your heart is more inclined to be involved with a museum than the bum sleeping on the stoop in front of it?
After finally finishing all three pieces, I still found the most interesting piece to be the Marx piece. I agree with Danielle that it is very difficult to become completely cohesive with other groups. I can speak from personal experience because I am Jewish and although I am "American" and I have lived here my whole life, I am from a different culture and we have different traditions then the majority.
It would be almost impossible to accomidate all cultures equally when we all view the world so differently.
Katie - I see you repeat what you said in class, as a sort of aside: are the arts and diversions important? Do they serve a vital role in a society? My comment about them was basically to say that in a society that values individualism, there is no guarantee that someone who is wealthy will (to use an unfortunate Obama phrase) "spread the wealth around," opting instead to fund a museum which might feed the mind but not the body.
That said, your question: "are the arts important?" would be an excellent one to pose to Karen Klaverkamp when she comes to speak.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home