This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
Freedom Alive and Well in USA: Depends How you Define it
Professor Orlando Patterson is from Harvard University, and was a guest speaker at a lecture I attended at the London School of Economics (LSE) on 12 June 2006, 6pm, entitled Ordinary Liberty: What Americans Really Mean by Freedom.
One of the many misunderstandings between US citizens and the rest of the world is how oblivious US citizens are to their freedoms being compromised by the present political climate. Prof Patterson, a Jamaican by birth, studied in LSE before living in USA. He researches the expression of freedom in the US by exploring the way ordinary citizens define freedom, concluding that freedom is alive and well in USA. However, it depends how you define it.
As part of his research, he interviews 1,450 people through a standard questionnaire, and asks them to produce a visual montage of images which represents freedom to them. The participants are then taken on a 2 hour one-on-one interview to explain their chosen images.
Prof. Patterson draws two distinctive definitions of freedom: one being in the formal sense (i.e constitutional expression) and the other being in a more informal sense (highly personal expression). He argues that the reason why Kerry's campaign attacking Bush's assault on people's freedom fell on deaf ears, was because he was talking about a totally different sense of freedom to what Bush expresses.
In his interviews, he found that most expressions of freedom were in the form of choice, limited government involvement in personal life, and about power (although choice often gave a sense of power and therefore were commonly intertwined). A stark few felt that the increase in poverty had anything to do with freedom. Comments such as feeling free when 'I'm driving in my ute on the Highway', or being able to buy the products or dye your hair red were prevalent in all genders, classes and races. Interestingly, most people felt their levels of freedom were the same or higher than ever before. The issue of rights and democracy was raised by 15 participants in a total of 1,450! In that number, was voting.
Does this explain the lack of civic participation in the US? It could perhaps explain the abismal turn-out at federal elections. It could also explain people's apathy toward politics and a desire to leave the politicians to do what they will with 'democracy'.
I couldn't help wonder what would happen this reasearch was taken one step further and, say, juxtaposed these results with those of Iraqi civilians. Would Iraqi's identify with a highly privatised sense of freedom? Is US's understanding of freedom compromising their ability to be the leaders of the 'free world'? That, among other reasons, perhaps.
Javiera
One of the many misunderstandings between US citizens and the rest of the world is how oblivious US citizens are to their freedoms being compromised by the present political climate. Prof Patterson, a Jamaican by birth, studied in LSE before living in USA. He researches the expression of freedom in the US by exploring the way ordinary citizens define freedom, concluding that freedom is alive and well in USA. However, it depends how you define it.
As part of his research, he interviews 1,450 people through a standard questionnaire, and asks them to produce a visual montage of images which represents freedom to them. The participants are then taken on a 2 hour one-on-one interview to explain their chosen images.
Prof. Patterson draws two distinctive definitions of freedom: one being in the formal sense (i.e constitutional expression) and the other being in a more informal sense (highly personal expression). He argues that the reason why Kerry's campaign attacking Bush's assault on people's freedom fell on deaf ears, was because he was talking about a totally different sense of freedom to what Bush expresses.
In his interviews, he found that most expressions of freedom were in the form of choice, limited government involvement in personal life, and about power (although choice often gave a sense of power and therefore were commonly intertwined). A stark few felt that the increase in poverty had anything to do with freedom. Comments such as feeling free when 'I'm driving in my ute on the Highway', or being able to buy the products or dye your hair red were prevalent in all genders, classes and races. Interestingly, most people felt their levels of freedom were the same or higher than ever before. The issue of rights and democracy was raised by 15 participants in a total of 1,450! In that number, was voting.
Does this explain the lack of civic participation in the US? It could perhaps explain the abismal turn-out at federal elections. It could also explain people's apathy toward politics and a desire to leave the politicians to do what they will with 'democracy'.
I couldn't help wonder what would happen this reasearch was taken one step further and, say, juxtaposed these results with those of Iraqi civilians. Would Iraqi's identify with a highly privatised sense of freedom? Is US's understanding of freedom compromising their ability to be the leaders of the 'free world'? That, among other reasons, perhaps.
Javiera
Howdy, Stranger!