Philosophical Radicals - Essay Example

Philosophical radicals Introduction In today’s society, radical tends to have different definition but the most common one that comes to mind when this term is mentioned is that of people becoming extremists in order for them to push for their ideas and for them to be relevant. Radical has a mathematics, philosophical and chemistry meanings where the definitions do not bring out the same meaning depending on the context that it is being applied in. For instance, the mathematical definition of radical is an expression that contains the radical symbol while the philosophical definition of the same word would be the going to the root cause of a problem so as to come up with radical solutions for the same. The philosophical radical is the one that finds the root of a problem in society that society sees as normal then tries to find solutions for the same while in chemistry radical is a free atom or molecule. Robert Jensen is viewed as a radical feminist because most of his work focuses on critiquing men’s violence against women and pornography meaning that he takes the opposite side when it comes to these issues. One of his greatest publications is the Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity that was published in 2007 where his argument is that being radical does not necessarily insinuate that a person is extreme when it comes to them presenting their ideas. For those that hold the view that “When the systems in which we live are in crisis, the most honest confrontations with those systems have to be radical” (Jensen 29)this seems as the only way that they can have their voices heard because society has neglected them, are oppressed, or peaceful activism has failed. In many societies, the political and social institutions tend to set and provide the resources that people need in order for them to survive in a society where the resources are scarce or are controlled by a few (Dompere xx). Some philosophical radicals engage in this activity because of the need to seek social justice that they feel might have been denied to the worker people in society, which at times tends to be women. Radical philosophers are also for the idea that these political and social institutions are corrupt, tend to exploit, are politically secluded, and provide unequal access opportunities to resources to which they desire would be to push these institutions to provide these privileges equally (Guadalupe & Lum 82). The denial of these privileges leads to poverty that may result from people being denied human rights that can help them to be financial able. Radicals argue that the processes that the society has established cannot effectively deal with inequality and injustice hence influencing them to devise their own radical approaches to tackle the perceived vices. This complements the thinking that “When the systems in which we live are in crisis, the most honest confrontations with those systems have to be radical” this seems as the only way that they can have their voices heard because society has neglected them, are oppressed, or peaceful activism has failed. In some instances, social movements can be formed as part of using the radical approach through them organizing peaceful protests so as to pass their agendas and also push for the scrapping of the socioeconomic structures that are viewed as oppressive. At times, radicals can be viewed as elements of violence where peaceful demonstrations fail to achieve the objectives and agendas that the people were hoping for or the results that were being sought after (Chen, Boulding & Schneider 124). What research has been unable to prove is whether social structural changes can be made through the systems that exist within society rather than having to scrap them all together. The structural systems that exist require that the change be made and pushed by the elite in society meaning that if the elite that hold power in society do not support the change being sought then those pushing the agenda can be viewed as radicals. Philosophical radicals exist so as to challenge the views that the elite might hold about how the issues that affect society affect them and their interest. If the issue that radicals advocating for its removal directly affects their interest, then chances are that they would not take action that might be potential harmful to them. In a way, radicals can also be seen as individuals that apply the Marxist approach to capitalism and social conflict that negate the power elite theory. In essence, Marxist views were that the power elite tend to control what is considered criminal or not while they get away with the most serious of crimes but cannot be charged because the law is supposed to protect them (Siegel n.p). Based on this, it is clear that people that seek to topple the dominant views that the power elite hold are labeled radicals by the society because of their involvement in seeking justice and might even become criminals that the law would seek to punish. Therefore, as much as radicals might view themselves as elements of the change they want to see, the ones that control the social and political institutions view them as criminals who are out to destroy peace (Meyerson 171). Subsequently, “When the systems in which we live are in crisis, the most honest confrontations with those systems have to be radical” this seems as the only way that they can have their voices heard because society has neglected them, are oppressed, or peaceful activism has failed. The notions that those in charge of state and other powerful institutions within a society wish that the society remains peaceful and that no body asks questions about how things are being run, which does not sit well with radicals. Radicals are influenced by the burning desire to obtain answers before they can be content with the way the society that they live in is being run, which becomes thorny to the power elites. Power elites therefore, find themselves constantly crafting and influencing the establishment of policies and legislations that will further oppress the society members in order for their interests to be protected (Janda, Berry & Goldman 43). On the contrary, philosophical radicals are the watchdogs of society where they strive to be the defenders of those cannot defend themselves in a society that is oppressive and only focuses on serving the interest of one side of the population. In some quarters, radicals have to pay a very high price for them being vocal and even going against the wishes of those that control the social and justice systems that might be threatening to their families. Their contribution to towards the well being of the society is not seen as valid but instead is listed among the acts of treason or disloyalty to these institutions. Only those that the radicals were advocating for value their efforts and encourage them to go on because radicals do not do this for themselves or for the glory but for the interest of the weak. This supports the fact that “When the systems in which we live are in crisis, the most honest confrontations with those systems have to be radical” this seems as the only way that they can have their voices heard because society has neglected them, are oppressed, or peaceful activism has failed. Surprisingly, the elites do not initiate the change process, which is left to the radicals because elites only focus at maintaining the status quo meaning that their intention remains that of preserving the central structures that are beneficial to them (Haring 19). Radicals on the other hand, mobilize social groups that include members of society that support their views on the fact that their societies are oppressive and the need for them to seek changes in the way things are done. However, radicalization may start as a peaceful way focused on achieving change to the societal structure but extremists might push their views too far to include violence and murders in the name of pushing for their agenda. Irrespective of the approach that radicals takes, the social system and the power elites consider peaceful and violent radicals to be one and the same hence punishment issued is the same because of the perception that they apply similar ideologies. In most cases, radicals that were peaceful are coerced to being violent because the social system has labeled them that way meaning that the oppressive justice and social systems that might exist in a society can shape the type of radicals that people can become. The view that “When the systems in which we live are in crisis, the most honest confrontations with those systems have to be radical” this seems as the only way that they can have their voices heard because society has neglected them, are oppressed, or peaceful activism has failed becomes the reality of the day. The media has been used as a tool used by the power elite to create stereotypes on radicals whose courses are noble because the medial only sites what the elite want to hear, which might not necessarily be the truth. An example of this would be the stereotype that the media has created that most criminals tend to be African American especially if they were ski masks, which is stereotype that originated in the UK a few decades. Conclusion In many societies, the political and social institutions tend to set and provide the resources that people need in order for them to survive in a society where the resources are scarce or are controlled by a few, which creates room for radicals to take shape. Radicals argue that the processes that the society has established cannot effectively deal with inequality and injustice hence influencing them to devise their own radical approaches to tackle the perceived vices. “When the systems in which we live are in crisis, the most honest confrontations with those systems have to be radical” this seems as the only way that they can have their voices heard because society has neglected them, are oppressed, or peaceful activism has failed. This statement justifies why radicals are necessary in a society because unless they advocate then the power elite will remain oppressive towards the weaker groups in society. Work cited Chen, Robert S, Elise Boulding, and Stephen H. Schneider. Social Science Research and Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Appraisal. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983. Internet resource. Dompere, K K. Fuzziness, Democracy, Control and Collective Decision-Choice System: A Theory on Political Economy of Rent-Seeking and Profit-Harvesting. , 2014. Internet resource. Guadalupe, Krishna L, and Doman Lum. Multidimensional Contextual Practice: Diversity and Transcendence. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2005. Print. Haring, Chelsea L. An Examination of Institutional Restructuring and Regime Change in Local Education Politics. Michigan: ProQuest Press, 2008. Print. Janda, Kenneth, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Jerry Goldman. The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America. Boston [u.a.: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print. Jensen, Robert. Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2007. Print. Meyerson, Debra. Tempered Radicals: How People Use Difference to Inspire Change at Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001. Print. Siegel, Larry J. Criminology. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. Read More