TALKING: GOOD OR BAD?

This blog has various writers it recurrently cites; but it has a special place of honor for Alexi de Tocqueville – along with Daniel J. Elazar.  Some time ago, it included in an earlier posting, an extended quote from Tocqueville.  The quote is from his famous “travel log” of a visit to America in the 1830s.  Here is part of that citation:

It is not impossible to form an imaginary picture of the surpassing liberty which the Americans enjoy; some idea may likewise be formed of the extreme equality which subsists amongst them.  But the political activity which pervades the United States must be seen in order to be understood.  No sooner do you set foot upon the American soil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult; a confused clamour is heard on every side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand the immediate satisfaction of their social wants … Meetings are called for the sole purpose of declaring their disapprobation of the line of conduct pursued by the Government, whilst in other assemblies the citizens salute the authorities of the day as the fathers of their country … This feeling pervades the most trifling habits of life; even the women frequently attend public meetings, and listen to political harangues as a recreation after their household labours.  Debating clubs are to a certain extent a substitute for theatrical entertainments.  An American cannot converse, but he can discuss; and when he attempts to talk he falls into a dissertation.  He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; and if he should chance to warm in the course of the discussion, he will infallibly say “Gentlemen,” to the person with whom he is conversing.[1]

This writer described this description of a people as the best example of a people being federated among themselves, he has ever read.

          One can characterize these citizens as readily disposed to talking to each other.  This dialoguing helped the writer come up with an instructional approach, again, described previously in an earlier posting, “Some Generic Elements of Debate.”[2]  The point here is that the use of federation theory to guide civics instruction calls on students to talk and talk a lot – just like Americans did in the 1830s.

          It seems that a natural rights guru thinks differently.  Robert Greene, in his best-selling book, The 48 Laws of Power, has the following advice:

When you are trying to impress people with words, the more you say, the more common you appear, and the less in control.  Even if you are saying something banal, it will seem original if you make it vague, open-ended, and sphinxlike.  Powerful people impress and intimidate by saying less.  The more you say, the more likely you are to say something foolish.[3]

Greene offers three main examples supporting his advice, one non-example, a c. 450 BC, Roman warrior, Coriolanus, and two positive examples, King Louis XIV of France, and Andy Warhol, the twentieth-century artist.

          Coriolanus, who had spent the bulk of his career engaging in battles away from Rome, finally decided to venture into Roman politics and submitted himself to an election for consul (the highest position of the Roman Republic).  He didn’t win and almost talked himself into being executed by what he had to say in a couple of speeches – verbal attacks on the common folk.  Without these outbursts, historians, according to Greene, believe he would have won easily.

          King Louis often said nothing but “I shall see” to his ministers and, by doing so, kept them wondering and anxious as to what he was going to do.  Their imbalance weakened them and strengthened Louis.  How?  The advisors, to fill in the silence, blabbed on and revealed more about themselves to their detriment.  Oh yes, Louis is also famous for one other thing he said, “L’etat, c’est moi” (“I am the state”).

          And finally, Andy Warhol followed the example of another artist, Marcel Duchamp, “who realized early on that the less he said about his work, the more people talked about it.  And the more they talked, the more valuable his work became.”[4]  Consequently, Warhol was noted more for his glare into a camera lens than any wisdom uttered from his mouth.

          Of course, Greene is writing for the benefit of businessmen who want to become more powerful and, therefore, richer.  Tocqueville wanted to describe what was becoming a vibrant republic that was guided among its citizens by a view of governance and politics; that being federalism.  The claim here is:  civics teachers are truer to their responsibilities if they use Tocqueville, instead of Greene, to guide their efforts in the classroom.

---

[1] Alexi de Tocqueville, “Political Structure of Democracy,” in Alexis de Tocqueville:  On Democracy, Revolution, and Society, eds. John Stone and Stephen Mennell (Chicago, IL:  Chicago University Press, 1980/1835), 78-101, 78-79.

[2] Robert Gutierrez, “Some Generic Elements of Debate,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, October 3, 2017, accessed March 28, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2017/10/some-generic-elements-of-debates.html .

[3] Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power.  (New York, NY:  Penguin Books, 1998), 31.

[4] Ibid., 35.

EXCITEMENT OR DRUDGERY?

What constitutes bad behavior?  Can one point to some sort of behavior and say, yes, people should not behave that way?  How about violence?  Is violence immoral, per se?  The biologist, Robert Sapolski,[1] cites violence as an example of a behavior one thinks as immoral, but upon reflection, recognizes that people pay to see it – prize fighting, cage fighting, American style football, etc. – and judge it to be not only good, but a source of honor.

          Yes, there is, along with good violence, bad violence.  Generally, the bad type includes those instances when violent acts, outside competitive arenas, hurt other people.  Even there, there are exceptions – violence conducted in self-defense – but such violent acts should be avoided. There are various social theories or models that claim humans are prone to violence.  Even Sigmund Freud, in his model, states violence or aggression to be a basic human drive.  Sapolski is interested in the biology involved with this behavior, suggesting there is a natural angle to violence.

          He supports that claim; that there is a natural basis for human violence, aggression, and competition.  Of course, any cursory review of history would find recurring instances of violence.  The wars, the violent crimes, the domestic abuse, and the school yard bullying seem to plague generation after generation.  There is no hope that a future will find the way to avoid such events.

          Another writer, Jonah Goldberg,[2] makes the argument that this bent toward violence and aggression is the natural disposition people have for each other, particularly if the perpetrator sees the victim as being a “them,” a member of another group.  That other group can be another family, another neighborhood, another state, another country, another race, another class, another religion, on and on.  He attributes the establishment of institutional peace as “The Miracle;” the miracle emanating from the development of capitalism – it allowed for win-win interactions between and among humans.

          One person has an apple and wants money; another person has money and wants an apple.  Capitalism allows an exchange – win-win – instead of either party – usually the bigger party – slapping the other to attain either the money or the apple wanted – win-lose.  That institutional means – which usually takes on a much more complex form – was extensively developed in the 1700s.  Yes, there was trade before, but during that century trade, production, and distribution took on its modern form and that form is known as capitalism.

But there is another side to that coin.  People hurt one another, but they also care for one another and that care need not be based on a person being part of the “us.”  And writers from the same 1700s, such as Francis Hutchinson and Thomas Reid, saw this inclination as also being natural.  Original versions of natural rights or natural liberty were based on an ability or freedom to pursue this “natural” disposition. 

Helping others was/is recognized as causing good feelings.  Hence, and from another eighteenth century writer, John Locke, one can determine people will seek that pleasure, since all behavior is motivated by the seeking of pleasure.  One can postulate, that more “friendly” disposition leads to the civility or, at least, civic behavior that allows markets to exist and flourish.

This writer is a former faculty member at a state university.  That tenure had the opportunity of hearing the then provost of the university, a natural scientist by training, say that the social sciences should count more on natural science literature.  He reported on just reading some social science study that made some claim that was standard fare in the biological field.  His point:  any cursory review of that biological literature would have already made the point being “discovered” in the study.

Well, this writer has taken the bait and his biological guru – given his interests – is Sapolski.  And what does that biologist have to convey given the above topic?  Here is a sampling:

[Y]ou can’t begin to understand things like aggression, competition, cooperation, and empathy without biology … But just as important, second, you’re just as much up the creek if you rely only on biology … [T]hird point … it actually makes no sense to distinguish between aspects of a behavior that are “biological” and those that would be described as, say, “psychological” or “cultural.”  Utterly interwind … [H]uman behavior … is indeed a mess, a subject involving brain chemistry, hormones, sensory cues, prenatal environment, early experience, genes, both biological and cultural evolution, and ecological pressures, among other things.[3]

Yes, a mess indeed, but one that needs to be studied.  For some, this is not a drudgery, but an exciting adventure.  Civics’ teacher-preparation programs should ask of those who are about to enter the profession of teaching secondary students such concerns:  Does this stuff excite you?

---

[1] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017).

[2] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).

[3] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst, 4-5 (Kindle edition).  Emphasis in the original.