Insights on Five Ideologies - Literature review Example

INSIGHTS ON FIVE IDEOLOGIES A REACTION PAPER CONSERVATISM Ben Hourigan’s “Are video games conservative ?” views the video game as the modern teaching instrument by which conservatism is instilled among the younger generation. The article begins with an elaboration of the common impression that video games are the harbingers of violence among the youth. For instance, Senator Hillary Clinton expressed the view of many parents that games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas exposed children, either blatantly or subliminally, to sex and violence as not only accepted but common occurrences in life. The article echoed the commonly-held connection between the violence in video games and the series of school shootings, the most popular of which was the Columbine incident. From this introduction, the article departs from this common view and laid down the premise that, far from departing from conservatism, video games are precisely the most prolific agents of this school of thought. For the greater part of three decades, video games, for all its attractiveness and addictiveness among the young, fostered the essence of conservatism. Hourigan adopts the definition of Roger Scruton in The Meaning of Conservatism¸ that conservatism “involves an attempt to perpetuate a social organism through times of unprecedented change.” Born in the height of the cold war, the initial storylines revolved around the need to preserve and defend institutions and people from invaders, traitors and power usurpers, agents of radical change that would bring down society. After the cold war ended, the games evolved non-combative, and more radical, themes such as environmental protection; however, due to the rise of terrorism and the occurrence of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, games reverted back to the conservative, defensive storylines. The article ends with the view that videogames are a means by which members of a society copes with the need to conserve its way of life in the face of actual external political threats. Reaction to Ben Hourigan’s article on Conservatism The view of video games as proponent of conservatism is a quite novel approach to regarding what has been targeted by many self-styled “conservatives” as a bad influence that erodes the values of the younger generations. Vast improvements in computer technology and the startling realism of many video games’ detailed graphics have given cause for concern for the attitude-changing elements of such forms of entertainment. Minors find these games addictive. While these games existed during the seventies and eighties, they remained obviously animated and the distinction between them and reality had always been clear. From the nineties, however, emergence of the multimedia 3-D interactive versions have blurred this distinction. There is now more seamless integration between live action and computer generated images (CGI). Even in motion pictures the regular use of CGI is now commonplace and mature audiences are none the wiser. If sophisticated adult acumen fails to detect the difference, all the more then for the more impressionable, less discerning minds of children. What does this do now for the over-emphasis placed on the need to set up a combative stance against an ever-present invading force? While the author may be right in saying that conservatist concepts are imparted to the gamers, the level of intensity and heightened sense of aggression are far from the conventional approaches to conservatism. Unlike the real world where areas for negotiation and compromise exist, video games heighten excitement by polarizing alternatives: survive or perish. Failure to mount an aggressive defense means that society perishes at the hands of the invaders. This is probably the strongest contrast that may be drawn between the style of conservatism propagated by videogames as a medium, and conservatism as a manner of addressing change in the normal course of social evolution and development. Unfortunately, it is a distinction which evades the sensibilities of the young. LIBERALISM The selection “What is Enlightenment?” by Immanuel Kant, views the state of enlightenment as being the necessary and inescapable consequence of liberalism. Enlightenment is defined in the article as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage,” the latter in turn meaning “the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance.” Rather than attributing nonage to the lack of ability to understand, Kant observes that in modern society it pertains more to either laziness or cowardice to exercise one’s own intellect. There are elements in society that enforce external guidance, such as books, religious leaders, physicians, and other persons or things that are attributed the status of authorities in their fields. But Kant says that while these elements provide guidance, it is up to the individual to question and examine, and ultimately accept for themselves, the truths which these authorities purport to espouse. Kant does not recommend complete rejection of conventionalism. To be sure, he says, dogmas and formulas established by earlier agents have their usefulness as “mechanical tools designed for reasonable use.” However, it is because of man’s reticence and weakness that these tools have become instruments of abuse, “fetters of an everlasting nonage.” It takes courage to question ideas and principles that have been validated by time and prolonged usage. To question such invites the ridicule of conventional society and condemnation by established authorities. Denial of freedom to think is at the root cause of self-imposed nonage; actually, the article identifies freedom as the sole requirement of enlightenment. What Kant alludes to is not just any “freedom”, but the “freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters.” Kant views this as an innate freedom which the individual need only to realize and decide to exercise, and no social system nor political regime could effectively circumscribe his use of it. Thus Kant states that failure to critically think for oneself is a self-imposed limitation to one’s enlightenment. Reaction to Immanuel Kant’s article on liberalism Kant’s passionate advocacy of freedom initially comes across as overstated, but if one were to contemplate its implications then there is validity to the sweeping statement. As has been the experience in authoritarian regimes that have their roots in centrist ideologies, Kant’s admonition that freedom of intellectual thought and reason is not within the scope of state regulation; only the individual may elect to exercise or suppress this freedom. It is the action that comes as a result of free thought that the state or society subjects to curtailment, and it is the consequence of this forced submission that Kant believes cows the individual into intellectual compliance. Actually, nonage can exist even in the absence of an oppressive external force. There is truth to the fact that, because it is easier to move with the crowd along well trodden paths than to strike out on one’s own in uncharted territory, many people will comply with the norm just to avoid the disquiet of controversy. It is easier to let tradition and status quo settle the intellectual issues than to explore for new answers. It is easier to just say yes than to find reasons to say no. Kant calls this “laziness” and in a sense he was right. It is because argument leads to action, the action requires disobedience, and the actor assumes the role of revolutionary. It is just too much effort the eventually outcome of which is at best uncertainty. In modern society, those who exercise independent thought are labelled “idealists.” The term idealism has lately been attributed a whole range of derogatory connotations, such as misplaced optimism, impracticality, unreasonableness, stubbornness, or even detachment from reality. Paradoxically, the article says, “Are we now living in an enlightened age? The answer is, No, but we live in an age of enlightenment.” Kant meant to stress that, with the present-day right of free speech, the environment is predisposed to the flourishing of individualism. Humanity, however, must elect to exercise its freedom to become enlightened. This is what is still lacking. SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Andrew Scott’s article, “Social democracy in northern Europe: Its relevance for Australia” examines the implication of the social democratic policy prevalent in Scandinavia, on Australia. The report Australia Reconstructed, issued in 1987 by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) delegation to Sweden, Norway, (West) Germany, Austria, and Britain, and its recommendations for new policy options for labour policy in Australia, provides the focal point of discussion. Australia Reconstructed sought to address Australia’s economic dependence on quarrying and raw materials provider rather than on industries that add value to products. The prevailing situation was seen as necessarily short-term, exploitative, and with little prospect for economic progress. The paper proposed steps towards establishing an economy that created more durable foundations for lasting national benefit and economic prosperity. This is the status the paper perceived has been attained by Norway. The article by Andrew Scott stresses the continued relevance of the policy proposals made more than two decades earlier. While Sweden’s policies were originally regarded as the “Middle Way”, it later came to be more associated with the Left in most English-speaking countries such as Canada, Britain, the United States, and Australia. These included the practical approach of consumer cooperatives to bring down prices and use of the same methods to provide low-cost housing, the “efficient Swedish approach to industry development”, aged pension arrangements, trade union participation, and the “general sense of ‘moderation’ and social cohesion.” Drawing on findings from Canadian political scientist Henry Milner, Scott argued that the Swedish model achieved “comparative social equality with economic prosperity” through a blend of social solidarity and readiness to follow the market. Reaction to Andrew Scott’s article on Social Democracy The conventional concepts of democracy and socialism have always set them at odds. The common perception of these as opposing schools of thought is evident by how they have been designated – as the Right and the Left, respectively. Right-wing ideology was associated with capitalism, democracy, zealous protection of personal rights; and left-wing ideology, on the other hand, was associated with labour, socialism, and the primacy of State power over private interests. Traditionally, it is a given that left is left and right is right, and “never the twain shall meet,” so to speak. The Swedish model provided an interesting proposition. It appears that it is possible for left and right to meet, and that is in what has been dubbed the “Middle Way”. Sweden appeared to have attained a “solidaristic market economy” (in Milner’s words), because there is a view that the aims of capitalism and labour are not contradictory but complementary. In the British and American models, labor is viewed by capital as a cost that impedes the accumulation of profits, while capital is viewed by labor as an opportunistic force that takes advantage of labor and appropriates the gains that should properly belong to labor. The Swedish model, however, the interests of labor and capital are perceived to be the same. The idea is that the health and well-being of the community determines its success to meet the demands of the market. This harmonious relationship has yielded fruit, with a lower unemployment and higher income levels for the poorest segment of society in the Scandinavian states (Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark) than it is for the United States, Britain, Australia and Canada, with a higher trade surplus than these same countries (the United States has been in the continuing grip of rising trade deficits). Sweden’s strong manufacturing base, its healthy social democracy, and its resilience in the face of market globalisation is a model that deserves to be emulated. SOCIALISM Andrew Mack’s Class, Ideology and Australian Industrial Relations, expounds on the view that while ideology determines the State’s role in the process by which work is carried out, in Australia, economics is not driven by ideology but by class interests. This is referred to by Mack as “economic rationalism”. The article underscores the divergent interests of labour and capital, and attributed America’s economic rationalism to the neo-liberal theories emanating from the United States and the United Kingdom. The article relates how in Australia’s politico-economic history organized labour had been regarded as a deterrent to economic progress and an unnecessary obstacle to capital-labour relations. Workplace collective representation (unionized labour) was viewed as “in some way ‘illegitimate’”; there was thus a pressure to de-legitimise unions’ bargaining role and in that way remove the threat to the interest of the corporate class. In the 1980s this tension was reduced by the ‘social wage contract’ which balanced the job and income demands of labour with a commitment to a national system of wage restraint and reduction in industrial disputes. With labour advocates dominating in government in the early 1990s, a series of reforms were introduced that fostered consensus-building between employers and employees. In 1994, a new scheme was put in place where unions were to lose their legal privileges, and instead a system of direct workplace agreements between employers and employees would be put in place. The aim was to minimize the role of the union and instead strengthen the personal relationship, that is, the relationship between employers and employees. The article concludes that the government’s changing industrial relations policies have been pursuant, not primarily with the aim of enhancing flexibility, productivity or wage costs per se, but to the lines of the class struggle as envisioned by Marx. Reaction to Mack’s article on Socialism Andrew Mack’s view of the developments in Australia’s industrial relations has taken the extreme position that the classes are primarily out to defend their own interests and are not motivated by desires of cooperation and compromise. The Marxist class struggle, it seems, is alive and well in Australia, and is manifested in the political struggle between labour and capital. The article attributes to the constant tussle between employers and organized labour representation the country’s sluggish economic progress. Rates of employment, productivity, and average income levels are thus deterred because of divergence in class interests. This view, if it should be true, is anachronistic to today’s contemporary sensibilities. Modern human resources management principles have given importance to the well-being and interest of the employee, and the adaptation of appropriate working conditions to address these concerns. For these not to, at the very least, be articulated in principle in the labour policies of Australia is difficult to imagine. It appears that this is what the article asserts, the intentions of the parties behind the policy-making, and not the actual practice or implementation of the policies. The author discusses the rationale, but not the application, and does not offer any concrete incidents or cases which may be adduced as proof of the intention. Discourse that alludes to intentions of third parties (not the author’s) is but conjecture if not supported with tangible proof in the form of actions or words. The theory of class struggle, while not entirely baseless, has found little validity in many of today’s politico-legal systems. Even in the developments laid out in the article, it is apparent that what is contested is not the conflicting interest of the classes (employees and employers), but the intrusion of labour unions as a third party. Were the unions truly representative of employees’ interests, then a Labour government would not have assented to the questioned reforms. SUMMA THEOLOGICA by Thomas Aquinas In the article “The Bread Which You Withhold Belongs to the Hungry: Attitudes to Poverty”, author Peter Singer examines the implications of Christian charity as embodied in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, or Highest Theology. Aquinas concept of overabundance is that it cannot be owned by one who has no need for it, where need is defined as a necessity for present or future sustenance and well-being. Such overabundance instead belongs to those who are truly in need, those who fall within the definition of poverty – that is, absolute, not relative poverty. It thus becomes the duty of the one in possession of these “unneeded” material resources to part with it and give it to those who truly own it by right of their need. The article then proceeds to put this principle into context. A situation is put forward where the subject, named Dora, is made to choose between a $1,000 fee (to buy a television) and the possibly saving the life of a child. The situation is then expanded to apply the apparent answer to the first situation, to what the moral decision should be if the child were actually street kids in Brazil, and Dora already owns a television and wants to upgrade. The principle is the same, that it is immoral to add to one’s “:unneeded” accumulation of wealth when others are still in need of the essentials of human life. Another situation is proposed by the article, that of Bob who has used his life savings to purchase a Bugatti, valuable vintage car. The situation calls for Bob to avert a train accident that would claim the life of a child. To do so, however, would require that Bob sacrifice his car by putting it in the path of the train. The dilemma to Bob is whether he should give up the financial security of his car or suffer the death of a child he did not know anyway. The article thus brings to life the relative size of the sacrifice that may be asked of the well-off. It argues that those who are more affluent have more to spare beyond their needs, and thus are obliged to sacrifice more. Reaction to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica The lofty call of Thomas Aquinas’ highest theology stresses the proactive nature of Christian love. What society today calls “charity” merely asks of the giver that he spare some unnecessary change, some token contribution. It has often been said, that even a few token coins will help. And that is precisely what people give to charity, a few token coins. Some people have resorted to donating to charity to fulfil their own purposes, assuage guilt feelings or to assure themselves that they have complied with their Christian duty to share. The article’s message is that charity is not something that may be spared, or that it is to be undertaken for the purpose of benefiting the giver. Charity does not render the givee beholden to the giver. On the contrary, what excess affluence is parted with is seen as owned by those who are truly in need. The “donation” then is actually a “delivery” of property to its rightful owner, and thus withholding one’s wealth from the poor is denying them their right to their property. This moral principle challenges the contemporary understanding of the legal concept of ownership. It proceeds from the premise that God created all things, provides all things for the sustenance and enjoyment of all men, and that where some men have more than they need and others not enough for decent life, then those who have more violate the will of God by denying the poor the excess of their belongings. At first blush, one might say that this borders on the communist/socialist precept, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Upon more profound contemplation, however, it is apparent that they are different. Socialism mandates state regulation to effect equality; Christianity considers it a divine commandment. For the socialist, it is obligation; the Christian sees it as sacrifice. Socialism bases it claim on social equality; Christianity, on brotherly love. The motivation of the giver creates the difference. REFERENCES Hourigan, B 2005, “Are video games conservative?”, IPA Review, vol. 57, no. 3, Institute of Public Affairs. Kant, I 1954, “What is Enlightenment?”, Introduction to Contemporary Civilization in the West, 2nd ed., Columbia University Press. Mack, A 2006, “Class, Ideology and Australian Industrial Relations,” Class and Ideology, pp. 157-169. Scott, A 2006, “Social democracy in northern Europe: Its relevance for Australia,” Australian Review of Public Affairs, vol. 7, no. 1, the University of Sydney. Singer, P 2002, "The Bread Which You Withhold Belongs to the Hungry", Attitudes to Poverty, Inter-American Development Bank Read More