I once had a wife. She became unhappy in the marriage and began making demands for change in the relationship. We negotiated various 4th level compromises. Nothing seemed to relieve her dissatisfaction until we realized her conflicts were global in nature. There were no solutions on that level so we got divorced and lived happily ever after.
Question 2:
Mario Savio began his speech with the analogy that Sproul Hall was to student rights what circa 1964 Mississippi was to civil rights. The analogy and allusion to Brave New World worked well to imply much more sinister motives to the university bureaucracy, willful suppression of students' rights rather than mere apathy towards them. Savio argues many times from a global perspective, even mentioning twice that their ideals were worth dying for. That seems to be exaggerated but consistent with global values
Question 3:
Dr. Bullard argues primarily from the stasis of fact/conjecture. This leaves several loose ends for me, points that could be argued as unproven. For instance, the Brentwood post office was not handled the same as the senate building when anthrax was discovered. That is a fact but its unclear to me how that fact proves racism. I could find any number of alternatives to explain the fact without resorting to the draconian specter of racism. It would be just as easily argued that the discrimination is against poor people of whatever race. If Dr. Bullard argued with cause statements he might make a more convincing case.
I found Dr. Bullard's argument fairly convincing becuase he appealed so specifically to history. Twelve hurricanes that all had the same racial results suggests cause/effect, and not simply correlation. Also, he expands the problem of racially segregated response by binging up government response to other crisis situations (like the anthrax scare), which suggests that these values are more global than local (however, perhaps it could still be solved at a level 4?). I do take your point about how hurricanes affect poor people in general - I would be very interested to know about that as well.
ReplyDeleteYou used a good word in suggesting that the writer implied "sinister" motives to the university bureaucracy. Most students at IU don't tend to think of IU's bureaucracy as something evil (save for a few RPS rules), but to have a system entirely dedicated to malevolence towards the students they govern is so much more compelling. Given he is exaggerating, but the point is consistent, nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteZayin,
ReplyDeleteIn your response regarding your marriage and the disagreements you experienced, I thought you made a remarkable claim with the level of conflict and how that conflict does not remain static within one specific realm. It is possible for the conflict to reveal level 5 issues and you provided a perfect example and illustration for readers to understand the fluidity of the levels of conflict. Do you believe that your conflicts and disagreements began with a level 1 or 2 and increased with time to a higher conflict, or that it had always seemed a matter of value or global disagreements?
I think you have made very interesting point by saying how Dr. Bullard's example of post office doesn't really prove that it's anything of racism. I really liked the comparison between the post office example and the supreme court example. Although I think in response 2, you could have talked more about the "Brave New World and different conflict levels. I think there is little more you could have pull out. I also think that your claim about your relationship and the conflict levels you have defined for that example is really remarkable. Do you think that for question 4, in Dr. Bullard and Savio's strategy, you can talk about the stasis of cause, about how they both have reffered to history?
ReplyDelete