Building Community Civil Society

I have always had civil trust. Government in my eyes is not a potentially oppressive force that constantly runs the risk of crossing a boundary and exercising too pervasive of an influence in our lives. Instead, I see government as a protective force, which can prevent individuals and groups with the most power from freely causing harm to others, and which has the power to protect its citizens from poverty, discrimination, medical illness, crime, and general social insecurity. For these reasons, I am often confused when I hear that people are against the idea of putting things like healthcare and regulation of the economy into the hands of the federal government. Why do people prefer to have these vital issues handled by private and often self-interested, profit-driven groups? Why are people more afraid of government than of private enterprises? Why do so many Americans see a government with an expanded role as a potential source of oppression instead of protection?

Reading Hayek’s Freedom and the Economic System answered many of these questions for me. I realized that civil distrust dates back to 1939, a time in which much of Europe was dominated by a totalitarian government. At the time, Americans believed that if they let their government regulate the free market, for example, the government would eventually seek to regulate every other aspect of individuals’ private lives to the extent that totalitarian leaders in Europe did. In such a context, I can understand why people developed a fear of powerful government. What I still wonder, however, is why this fear has persisted.

I spent last semester in France, and something that struck me was that the French truly believe that the government should take care of them. The government should provide free healthcare for all, free education for all, excellent retirement benefits for all. When a mother has more than two children, the government should help pay for the cost of raising these children. When there is a conflict between two private groups, the local government should step into mediate. This, according to the French individuals I interacted with, was the national sentiment concerning the proper role of government. In cases where this government failed to provide protection in all of these areas, the French would strike until a compromise of sorts was reached. Now imagine if our government was in charge in France—the French would be striking all the time.

If France, a country that was even more closely effected by the totalitarianism of the 1930s than ours, has managed to overcome a fear of big government, why hasn’t America managed to do the same? Clearly, a government that protects does not necessarily have to be a government that oppresses. I do not fear the government because I know that we live in a liberal democracy where no matter what happens, individuals will always have the power to engage in civil disobedience until their demands are addressed. What is it that is stopping other Americans from thinking in this way?

I have been raised with a rather moderate view of government, the legal system, the police, my community, etc. While I see its merits in providing for some of the needs of constituents, I distrust that large organizations can provide for the needs of individuals. However, I am also extremely wary that any individual can determine his/her true "best" since intentions and actions have consequences that immediately affect others. I felt that Rachel's comment in class was very poignant, and I'm sure that many of us feel the same way. She said that she tends to trust government, but was very honest in saying that her trust may stem from the fact that she hasn't ever been let down by her government in a major way. However, I wish to challenge us to consider ways in which we have been let down by our governments without our knowledge. Personally, I consider our lack of better public-education options to be a letdown, considering the wealth of societies faring better than we are. I am disappointed in a healthcare system that forbids life-sustaining treatment for many, and even for some who are insured. Every injustice committed by or permitted by my government as an act of bigotry is a major letdown to me. I would not expect my government to uphold such standards if it did not promise to do so, but alas, it has made such promises, and it has let me down. I do not have faith that individuals can enter government and change its nature since government is comprised of individuals, as Dan reminded us.

IMO, Transition Amherst operates out of distrust and disillusionment with institutions, and rather, relies on the power of small-community transformation. It does not credit the individual with all know-how in the least. Rather, it is armed with the simple belief that smaller units of governing are more capable of providing the immediate needs and desires of a small community, and that larger governments are unable to provide for its constituents in the same way. I identify very much with TA's no-nonsense sense of communal dependency and complete trust in neither institutions nor individuals. Built into its creed is a healthy dose of checks and balances; our meetings are bureaucratic, but we invite any and all to join in the group's efforts, and we don't allow decisions to be made by individuals, even influential ones.

In addition, TA has the unique ability to reacquire and reorient the definition of "dependency." Communal dependency is looked upon as a virtue, not a character fault. Dependency is seen as a sustainable action and an indicator of progress. I appreciate that a lot.

Throughout this unit, and especially since this morning’s discussion, I’ve found myself reflecting on my own view of the government and what experiences have informed my understanding, perhaps distinct from that of others. Personally, my conception of our nation’s government and its associated practices is overwhelmingly positive. I’ve grown up with the mentality that the government is generally working towards a common good, trying to meet the needs of the people in a practical way with the most benefits for the citizenry. My faith in the government—especially when the Democrats constitute the majority—could scarcely be higher. I’ve begun to wonder, then, what experiences in my life have shaped this trust? Looking back to my last reflection, on my experiences with politics, I think a lot of my positive understanding of government has come from my childhood—I grew up in an area that was pretty well served by our nation’s political decision makers and legal policies. I walked to school everyday feeling safe, something I may have taken for granted, but reflects a larger sense of security derived from trust in the police and the justice system. When I got to school, I was met with well-stocked classrooms, thorough libraries, and enthusiastic teachers. Although I may have not been consciously aware of it at the time, this nurturing and encouraging environment represented the benefits of a political system that was working well for my community. Moreover, my school would occasionally bring in past graduates now serving as congressmen or senators to come and speak, describing their path from public school kids to public servants, and the idealistic message that any of us could follow in their footsteps if we so desired was clear. Reflecting on these experiences, I can see that I was raised in a community that was reaping the benefits of a well functioning government, in that generally the needs of the population were consistently met and the concerns voiced were listened to and promptly addressed. It seems to me that the environment I grew up in gave me every reason to trust the government, for my only experiences with it were ones in which it was functioning properly. Adding to that sense of trust was the notion that I too could become part of the government—if other members of my community were successfully participating in it,  I felt confident that I could become engaged too and effect the changes I saw neccessary.

Taking in all the different readings, I was struck by how divergent some of the views of government expressed were from my own. Most saliently, I noticed a contrast with the issues raised in the SCLC pamphlet, which highlighted the issue of segregation and slavery and the legacy they leave behind. In reading the description of this legacy—inferior schools, slums, and second class citizenship, as well as a sense of apathy in some locations—I recognized a contrast from my own experience, in that this depiction illustrated the reality that government is not always effective, fails to meet the needs of certain communities, and does not respond to the concerns and desires of each community equally. This contrast illuminated my reasons for having such a positive outlook on government, and revealed that trust as a bit naïve (the result of living a pretty stable, sheltered life), as well as incomplete, not addressing the disparity of government efficacy across communities. The way I see it, the difference comes down to a question of access—to what extent does the individual feel he or she has access to the services and structures of government? Moreover, how realistic of a possibility is this individual’s engagement in politics, should he or she decide to get involved? If the individual’s experience is one of a high level of access, I believe this positive engagement will lend itself to a trusting view of government. On the other hand, if the individual expresses feeling little access, where the government’s services either fail or are denied to them and engagement in politics is not a feasible option, a negative, wary view of government would likely result, a sentiment I saw referenced in the SCLC’s description of voter apathy in certain communities. 

I think this question of varying access is related to the experiences of different community members in the public school’s later start debate, albeit demonstrated on a smaller scale. I’ve noticed that the people who have been showing up to the public forums—supposedly a space where any and all members of the community can come to voice their opinions—represent only a specific faction of the larger population. The people who have been attending these forums tend to be middle to upper middle class citizens, parents highly involved in their children’s lives, who can afford to take a couple of hours off in a night to discuss their offspring’s education. Their experience is one of great access—they feel confident they can attend the meetings that will influence the decision and that their voices will be heard—and I would assert that they would likely express faith in the system. Conversely, those who aren’t represented at these meetings—community members from working class families, recent immigrants, and students—would likely express less faith in the political structures operating around this debate. I’m reminded of when a high school student spoke up at the first community forum I attended, and said that although the students were the ones who would be most affected by a change in start time, they knew little about the issue or how it was being organized. Consequently, she explained that the sentiment surrounding this issue was either one of confusion (they cared about the issue, had an opinion they wanted to voice but didn’t know what to do about it) or one of apathy (if they couldn’t get involved or make a difference, why even care?). To me, this encounter represented a small-scale representation of the notion of access and the distinct understandings of government it inspires. Looking forward, in approaching my project as well as the concept of building community in general, I feel that I’ll be more likely to look for the different levels of access to political structures and resources a given community experiences.  As my own view of government has been revealed to me as a bit ignorant, I feel a consideration of access will lead me to ask certain necessary questions when reflecting on government—who has access? Whose voice is being heard? Whose needs are being met? Whose aren’t? And how are these discrepancies shaping an understanding of and level of faith in the political institutions installed? 

Something that I find very interesting is the idea, present in both Thoreau and Goldman, that the individual must be sacrificed for the government and vice versa.  I would argue that this zero sum game between the individuals that make up a society and the institutional force that binds them together is no longer applicable in our modern society. We are a country that puts a lot of power and faith in the capabilities and responsibilities of our government.  Yet we are also a society that highly values the individual, far above any pervasive desire to create a state of equal resources and possibilities for every member of our nation.  So therefore, it seems to me that we ask the impossible from our institutions.  We want it to simultaneously unite and protect us, but we also want to perpetuate a society of stratification, where the individuals who have the most resources/money/opportunities reject any government intervention while others (like those who go eat at the Survival Center) desperately need the government to pay more attention to them.  

One of these programs in which I believe the government should involve itself more is the quest to equalize education in America. While our government focuses on attempting to protect us from the outside (in our various “wars on Terror”), they are losing a more important war internally. An educational system is central to our conception of what government should provide for its citizens, not only because the citizens demand it of their institutions, but also because an educated populace enhances a country’s potential for development and competition on an international scale.  Although I have been extremely blessed in my life to have only been on the receiving end of the give-and-take-away power of our government, the growingly irreconcilable partisan divide in our current government makes it impossible to work towards solving some of our nations most important problems.  These strident and seemingly pointless debates about minute policies makes me start to lose faith in the ways that our government promises to protect us as a nation.  We as a country are home to a diverse population—economically, socially and culturally—and I believe it is our government’s job to provide us with the framework on how to accommodate and grow the institutions, like the school system, to accommodate these changing demographics and work with them in a way that we become more empowered as a nation.   When Louisa and I talk to Kim Stender, who we work with in the Amherst Public Schools, she always seems to express a certain level of mystification on how the Amherst schools are going to incorporate and serve an increasingly socio-economically deprived student population.  Our national government has not provided any states or local institutions with the tools or the resources to know how to deal with these increasingly dire situations, and therefore quality and success differ greatly from location to location.  This ambivalence towards education is something that is going to hinder America’s growth, and create a generation of students who have no faith in their political institutions.

We find security in order and external direction – if we go into a building trying to find an office, we expect numbers to go ascend or descend a certain way in a hall, we may expect a map on the wall. We need instruction like this to feel secure and not take on the complete psychological guilt of being in total control of our options and life circumstances. Partly for this reason, I have formed a general trusting relationship with government in legal systems. I believe there of course can always be modification - for example, I believe the idea of how the voice of people are represented in larger governmental bodies can be extremely contentious, but I agree with the basic structure of a democratic representative governmental body. However, as we discussed in class, I have not had an incident that has entirely disillusioned me of these larger structures. I am entirely aware that this is not the case with those who have had incidents to undermine their basic institutional trust. 

Since we haven’t met with the residents in Topefert apt. complex or Resident Council we are working with, it’s hard to gage our residents trust in larger institutions. We have, however, heard of one member of the executive board specifically, who seems to be largely negative about their living situation, and generally mistrustful. I think we can all recall people who have had similar, seemingly unrelenting negative outlooks on life, largely a product of the hard circumstances they have had to endure in their lives. I am sure there are similar views within the larger membership.

I'm am unsure to what degree people their projects have to work with those who have been heavily disillusioned of a basic trust (I am not just speaking of trust of a larger governmental/legal/communal body), but I imagine that anyone who has ever had to try to create change with someone stuck in only looking at the negative of a situation can talk to the frustration it can produce.

In response to this sort of situation, I began wondering what is the ideal balance community organizers should strike between trusting and advocating for individuals they are trying to organize and working within the larger governmental framework these same individuals they are working alongside may not trust?  (I’m thinking specifically in similar work as Holyoke Unites)  I feel there has to be a very specific medium. A community organizer cannot entirely distrust the government, to the point of paranoia and stagnation; however, I feel a community organizer must also see the instabilities and faults in the law in which he/she can work within to make necessary changes. In this way, the community organizer becomes a buffer between the strong emotions and stories present within the individuals they are working with, yet also understand a system (from the grassroots level) that must be implemented within a more overarching power. The community organizer must be optimistic and respectful to the privacy and rights within the community with which they are working, yet respect the need for a larger structure. This communal respect and understanding, at all hierarchal levels of a social body, which may lead to positive change - making this happen, though, is the hard part. 

It is clear that politics have become polarized, especially over the last century with respect to the role government plays. I tend to lean more conservatively in terms of economics, yet I am all for big government is terms of social policy. That being said, I believe that government is essential for any type of progressive society. I believe that the strongest form of individualism happens when each person gives up some of their power for collective rights and liberties. In my experience, the government has not let me down. However, it is important to understand that people in different socio-economic situations clearly have different perspectives as to what role the government should play. At the macro level, there are many policies that strive to address national problems, but at the micro level, these policies may not be executed to the degree in which people would like. I think this is the cause of such vast political differences. 

In my experience with Amherst Survival Center, I am learning how a non-profit operates within a democratic national government that has an extremely large welfare system. As Hannah wrote below, if the government’s welfare program was successful, there would not be a need for the Survival Center, or at least no need for its current functions. This speaks to the macro/micro relationship we discussed in class in the sense that the Survival Center is working at the micro to correct inefficiencies at the macro level. In addition, there are no requirements to walk in to the Survival Center, such as being unemployed for a certain number of weeks or whatever the baseline standards are for being considered for welfare. These are the kinds of provisions that non-profits allow that help fill the cracks of the welfare system.

Furthermore, the Survival Center serves anyone who walks in the door, regardless of social or economic status. Everyone is set on equal footing. I cannot help but relate this to the Michael Edwards reading. Edwards documents the history of the term “dependency” and says that today’s notion of dependency falls a lot on the individual. Since the Survival Center holds everyone on same ground, whether somebody who walks in is dependent or not is irrelevant. The Survival Center is a non-profit model that helps shatter this negative stigma of dependency, and perhaps their model should be used to combat the stigma further. I would also just like to add that utilizing my academic readings in evaluating and furthering my experience at the Survival Center has been an ongoing process since the beginning, but throughout my time, I have constantly been asking myself, should I bring academics to the non-profit? I ask because on several occasions I have had discussions with members of the Survival Center and heard some incorrect facts that I wanted to correct. However, I still do not know my exact place in the community, and if I have a right to challenge what I hear (this is true even in terms of racism). This has been a perplexing question for me, and one that I hope to find out more in reading about other people’s experiences. If anyone has any feedback, I would love to hear it in the comments. 

We have bigger problems, in my opinion, than an overbearing government.  We have a government that cannot get out of deadlock because of partisan bickering and political gamesmanship.  (Is part of the problem philosophical disagreement over the role of government?  Sure it is, but that doesn’t make for much of an excuse.)  We have politicians concerned more about their jobs than their charges.  We have a citizenry apathetic and jaded about the political process.  And we have a citizenry that feels disconnected from their greater community – reflected in voter turnout numbers, in demographic breakdowns for our volunteer military corps and other positions in the service sector, in residential segregation patterns, and in the gargantuan inequalities in income, wealth, and educational achievement that exist between the have’s and the have-not’s.

Even in the issues we care most about, many of us today are guilty of what has been termed “couch potato activism,” or “slacktivism.”  In just the past few decades, the world has seen major changes in technology, globalization, and communications.  In the age of Facebook and Twitter, new media is omnipresent.  Social media outlets have received credit as factors contributing to meaningful participation in civil society in the Arab Spring and in the fight for gay rights, just to name a couple examples.  But it also can lead to a skewed sense of “activism,” as compared to what we read about in the Thoreau and SCLC readings for this week.  Posting a Facebook status update or retweeting a video – one with a narrative that has been disputed by some, no less – is only a beginning to participation in civil society, though some people feel like that alone is enough.  Even more telling, perhaps, is that in this day of supposed media transparency, where a cell phone video can capture a story and distribute it around the world, a man like Joseph Kony can be just now “discovered” by the western world, even though he has been a leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army for over two decades.  Government alone cannot fix problems without the support, beckoning, and partnership of individuals; individuals’ apathy is what cripples government.

In many ways, this may be the story of Holyoke.  For all we hear of the rich and vibrant community there – and yes, many of us have even gotten the opportunity to experience it first-hand – the election records show a disconnect between the people of Holyoke, their problems, and the idea of government as a solution.  It is especially apparent in minority communities, as our research in recent weeks has revealed.  This may very well be because of what Rachel said in class today: the people have lost faith in government because the government has betrayed that trust.  Maybe it takes a political figure like Mayor Morse to win that trust back transform apathy into activism.  Government cannot fix the problems alone, it needs the people’s support.

In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau describes how when he converses with his neighbors about the magnitude and seriousness of social problems that exist, they ultimately say that “they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it.” Though Thoreau scorns his neighbors for this passivity and fear, I, in many ways, sympathize with them. Especially in our individualistic society that encourages everyone to live lavishly, to pursue the American dream, ceaselessly chasing after self-interest, it is difficult to step outside the structures that are already in place and risk losing comfort and security. Further, many people believe that they only have one life to live, and they want to enjoy it by filling it with worldly pleasures.

From another perspective, many religious people believe in a life after death. For example, Christians believe in an eternal life of complete happiness with God. Thus, because they believe that life on earth is only temporary and that there is a greater life to come, they are free, if their faith is strong enough, to give themselves completely to others, to fully devote their lives to serving others rather than to pursuing self-interest.

I really appreciated the point Yewon made in class today about self-interest versus societal interest. She said that in helping society we ultimately help ourselves. Although I see this as a valid and true point, I recognize that there is a stigma of dependency and that people, often givers or people who seek to help others (including the government), maintain a certain cynicism about the intentions of those in needs. We tend to judge people on what they claim to need, using our own outside judgment to determine what they really need and what are unnecessary luxuries. This comes down to not only how much faith citizens have in the government, but how much faith the government has in the individual.

I used to feel extremely irritated whenever I thought about people not reporting all sources of their income; I felt that these people were cheating the system, skewing their financial status on paper in order to get more money to spend on things that they wanted rather than on things that they actually needed. Citizens want their tax money to be used on people who “deserve” the money, people who will somehow contribute back to society instead of sitting around at home, people who will not “waste” the money given to them, but rather, who will use it to buy necessities. This is why the government and organizations working with the poor are often so intent on making sure that people who they give their resources to are needy “enough.” We want to help people help themselves, to push them away from a cycle of dependency.

But after reading Flat Broke with Children, I realized that if we become so focused on not letting people become dependent, we forget that people are living in situations where they don’t have the resources to help themselves. Just as SCLC emphasizes the importance of finding a “balance between attacking the causes and healing the effects of segregation,” so we must find the balance between pushing people out of a cycle of dependency and providing resources for them to succeed in the present.

Who are we to decide what people really need? Who is the government to decide what people really need? If we have not experienced these struggles first-hand, we will never be able to fully understand what people in need really need. This is why allowing people from within a society in need to be part of the government and organizations that make changes for that society is so crucial. Without this grassroots aspect of initiating change, nothing good will come out of efforts to create an equal and just society.

Because most of YAC’s funding comes from foundations, businesses, and individual donors, it is not as tied up with the government as other organizations are. About half of the board consists of youth from the YAC programs. These youth collaborate with the adult staff to represent their fellow youth and to make changes that they know they and their peers would like to see. Trust is especially important for this kind of board as the adults could easily undermine the opinions of the youth, thinking that they, as adults, know better what will be best for the program. Again, the grassroots cornerstone of YAC is key to its purpose of reaching out to youth. 

I really enjoyed the SCLC reading.  I visited the South in 2006 and was able to meet with some of the leaders of SNCC and the SCLC, so I enjoyed reading a formal write up of their beliefs.  As I pointed out in class, I thought their viewpoint about civil disobedience, and the definition of an "unjust law" was a little strange.  According to the SCLC, an unjust law is one in which people must obey a code they had no part in making.  Since beginning to study enfranchisement in relation to my report with the Springfield Institute, I wondered - what about felons?  Felons don't have the right to vote, but are obligated to obey the rules of our legal system.

 Like many others who have posted, I found Goldman's reading troubling. "The individual and society have waged a relentless and bloody for ages."  I don't think she does a good job supporting this claim.  Do these ideas still apply today?  Did they apply when Goldman was writing?  Maybe it's my American upbringing (which certainly does teach me to question government) but I found myself disagreeing with many of Goldman's points.  I think government does a lot more than maintain property and monopoly.

 I enjoyed Fraser and Gordon's piece on welfare.  "Welfare state" has definitely taken on a racially charged connotation, and some political factions have painted a portrait of a stereotypical welfare recipient.   I do think that the two authors do a good job of defining “dependency” and explaining its political implications.

Over the last few weeks, we have made several references to the partisan division and conflicts that seem endemic in the current world of electoral politics.  One of the central issues on which these two sides disagree is precisely the proper role of government--what services it should perform and what is best left to private enterprises.  I have always found myself more likely to agree with the democratic stance on this issue.  I believe that regulation is necessary, and the complexities of this tie in with our conversation today about the vastly different amounts of trust that people have in the government and in each other. 

The United States was founded in the hopes of escaping a government that the founding fathers saw as tyrannical.  Anger about taxation without representation ties in well with some of the concerns voiced in the SCLC pamphlet: "An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote."  Fearful of another overly-powerful central government, the founding fathers focused on checks and balances and separation of powers to check the power of each branch and each individual.  However, as was astutely noted in class today, it is difficult to isolate a government as an independent entity--it too is made of individuals.  Our system of government is thus founded, to a certain extent, on the distrust of individual action--Goldman certainly views this as an abomination. 

Does my support of a strong centralized government, then, mean that I put too little trust in individuals?  I do not think of myself as a bitter or cynical person.  I tend to put my faith in institutions that have served me well, but I also realize that there are many who they do not serve quite so well.  However, I cannot seem to reconcile myself with the thought mentioned today in class that perhaps self interest and the interests of society as a whole are one in the same.  I know that people have an infinite capacity to act selflessly, but I also think that people are often selfish, and sometimes deservingly so, where their own fight for survival precludes thoughts of a common good.  While I can sometimes pardon selfish actions, I cannot trust people to act in the common interest without government regulation.  One need only look at the current environmental plight to see the consequences of the triumph of selfish self-interest over common interests.  The tragedy of the commons is applicable to far too many circumstances.  I hear Republican candidates mention eliminating the EPA and I cringe.  Given the choice, industry would clearly rather pollute the commons.  I must then place my hope in government's ability to regulate.

I generally trust the legal system, but learning about the school-to-prison pipeline through the Riveras' perspective in Black's book makes me realize that its priorities are often misaligned.  Likewise, I generally trust the police, although I know that some abuse their power.  I feel like the majority of the time, these institutions merit my trust. Perhaps individuals do as well.  I feel similarly about Amherst and my homeown community.

I cannot blame the Toepfort residents, who we are trying to empower, for their lack of trust in government bureaucracy.  When they call about bedbug infestations, the  powers that be direct their concerns elsewhere without ever addressing them.  Recently, the new hot water heaters broke and nobody even bothered calling the housing authority--when Betty asked why, they told her that there was no point since the housing authority wouldn't do anything.  Our goal is to empower them to place their trust in each other and their ability to change their own circumstances, even if the government does not immediately begin to deserve their renewed trust.

In his article “Civil Society” Michael Edwards highlights the complex relationship between civic associations and government.  Thinking about this article in relation to both Sharon Hays’ critique of welfare reform and my experience at the Survival Center has led me to question what the ideal relationship between government and civil society should be. 

The Survival Center and the government’s welfare reform policies provide a fascinating comparison of the differences and similarities between civil society and government.  On the one hand, the two are entirely different: the Survival Center is a small and local non-profit organization that serves (from my observations) thirty or forty people a day whereas welfare reform is a government policy that affects the lives of millions of Americans.  Yet in spite of their disparate structures, the center and policy both attempt to solve the same issue: how to provide services to those who cannot afford them. Comparing the center and the policy, then, provides insight into how civil society and government deal with the same issue. 

The fact that both the government and a separate, non-profit organization deal with the issue of poverty already demonstrates that the government’s system is flawed.  If the government’s policies to alleviate poverty were effective, organizations like the survival center would not be necessary.  Hays’ article points out many of the flaws in the government’s system. She explains that although welfare reform initially appeared to be an improvement upon the old welfare system because of the increased funds it received, it in fact made the process of obtaining government support more challenging.  She attributes this challenge to the increase in bureaucratic procedures that those who wanted to receive the benefits of welfare needed to undergo.  Bureaucracy is a fundamental component of government.  But in this case, it provided a clear impediment to the success of the government’s welfare policy.  I am both an optimist and a strong believer in government, so I would like to believe that government should be able to support all of the members of society.  But reading this article has made me wonder if the structure of government in and of itself renders it impossible to be an effective combater of poverty. 

The Survival Center takes a completely opposite approach than the government in how it deals with service provision.  Anyone from the area can walk into the Survival Center and utilize its services without having to answer any questions besides where he or she is from.  To me, this approach appears to be a far more validating and effective means of service provision than the government’s welfare policy.  But the success of the Survival Center has very clear limitations.  Amherst is a unique town because, while poverty exists here, there is also an active volunteer culture and it is relatively wealthy.  A model may not be as sustainable in a different area in which the population does not have the time to spend volunteering at the center.  The center does not appear to be a self-sustaining organization and constantly needs to fundraise.  If the center were the only mechanism of providing meals to those who cannot afford them, it would put an enormous amount of pressure on its fundraising efforts.  This issue highlights the potential of government: through its constant revenue of tax money, the government does not run the same risk of becoming entirely devoid of funds. 

Comparing the Survival Center and welfare reform, makes me wonder whether a balance could be reached between government and non-profit work.  Could the government channel some of its welfare funds into local organizations like the Survival Center?  How would this work in communities where successful non-profit organizations do not yet exist?  If non-profits partnered more closely with government, would they inevitably take on the bureaucratic qualities of government that prohibit its ability to deal with social issues?  It would be hard to answer these questions before any attempts at partnerships are made.  Perhaps our work at the Survival Center could involve greater research into the intersection between the center and government policies, and the potential that uniting these two very different means could have to provide positive and socially improving ends. 

I tend to place my faith in institutions, both legal and social, but I thought Rachel's comments in class today very insightfully revealed that privilege at the micro level can distort views on the macro level.  The government has also functioned smoothly for me in my personal life, or at least well enough that I haven't felt the need to question its premise as an institution.  This certainly plays a role in my favoring of political mediation as a means toward improving the functioning of governmental institutions or seeking the passage of the policies I support.  Even when there is virtually zero chance that, for example, the Defense of Marriage Act will be repealed by Congress this session, I still suport the institution of Congress since, in my potentially very flawed view, it has tended to move toward greater justice over the long term.  Examples like the political success of the civil rights movement and the justice done in the Brown v. Board of Education decision have always provided sufficient justification for that system of political mediation.

With regard to the role of government in the economy, I believe it is uniquely suited to provide for a Rawlsian sort of economic justice without falling into Hayek's nightmare scenario.  Again, perhaps I place too much faith in government due to my own experiences, but I fear the outcome of emerging from the veil of ignorance more than I fear the potential for an out-of-control government.  While the government cannot alone provide for similar opportunities for all citizens, it can help compensate for market externalities and protect against institutional discrimination.

Still, the government's role in the implementation of laws, regulations, and taxes/subsidies cannot provide for a thriving and inclusive society alone.  I enjoyed the Putnam article and believe that the social capital he refers to is very much necessary to achieve a more just society in collaboration with, rather than in opposition to, the government.  When a community engages government as a unit by means of its social capital, it can truly make the government function toward its advantage; however, with what Jon Huntsman loves to call the 'trust deficit,' it is hard to see how many of the more disenfranchised communities in the country can be motivated to expend their social capital on working with a government that has for so long ignored them.  

In that respect, I can easily understand why Holyoke Unites has avoided working through some of the governmental institutions that work on education and housing issues.  Although those institutions are designed to work toward the same theoretical ends as Holyoke Unites, they have not historically supported the community it seeks to represent.  In that respect, Holyoke Unites fills the governmental gap as a participant in civil society, but it could potentially have a more transformative effect if it could engage the governmental institutions.  In other words, civil society functions best when it can engage the government and find a suitable balance of duties for that community; unfortunately, it instead must frequently find its own resources in order to take on the roles of government in underserved communities.

As I mentioned in class today, I was surprised at how much Thoreau argued against the established government and how strongly he argued for utilizing the concept of civil disobedience as a way to be a just, self-conscious, and moral person. His comment that voting is a passive and less effective action to make any right change in the governing institution and constitution seemed, to me, as a denial of the idealized American democracy that the United States itself has tried to introduce all around the world and most of other developing and even advanced states have tried to imitate as their role model of the governing system. And finding the similarity between Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience and Goldman’s article on Anarchism in terms of changing the current system of government via disobedience and denial of the proper reason of the current government’s existence, I gave a second thought about the American version of democracy, which has been believed as the most advanced and ideal form of social system by a lot of foreigners and Americans.

I do personally trust socially established institution, such as government, the legal system, the police, and the community I live in at home. My belief in these institutions could largely be from the general conservative understanding of society as a big house in which I could live safely: without the comprehensive and big governing institutions, I myself would not be able to exist as an individual with my personal and social rights and a sense of safety. I do know that these institutions can do wrong by implementing narrow-minded or biased policies that satisfy the needs of some privileged social class and promoting certain images and beliefs targeted against certain group of people, such as less-privileged class of people, within society, but still I do believe that we need such big and overarching institutions for the overall social safety and prosperity of individuals and a nation as a whole. What we need to do is checking and giving proper feedback to these institutions based on the mutual trust so that we could keep our governing institutions as ours. It is owner who has the responsibility and right to keep his or her own property as his or her own, and to do that, what the owner should do is paying attention to and putting continuous efforts on the existing government through continuous communication rather than disengagement and avoidance.

Of course, my belief in the capacity of the social institutions does not mean that they should control every aspect of society. My belief in those institutions does not mean that I do want an absolute authoritarian government. I emphasized the importance of mutual trust between the governing institutions and individuals who constitute them. For the “mutual” characteristic, it is necessary that not only individuals need to pay attention to the operation and structure of the institutions, but also the institutions need to be careful not to infringe individual rights and properly independent personal domain of life, such as organizing proper grassroots organizations for sociopolitical participations, proper conducts of economic activities, freedom of movement, pursuit of happiness with understanding other’s same right and so forth. I believe that the governing institutions can not only not infringe these individual and civil spheres in the modern understanding of these terms, but facilitate them through proper clarification of right limits and possibilities so that the overall society becomes more lively. This mutual beneficial relationship between institutions and individuals is what I deem what our society should look like. Proper input and output: this basic economic, political, and social concept might abbreviate an ideal society.

I think that my project at the Survival Center is closely related to the proper role of government and civil trust in it. The center is basically a welfare facility to satisfy the needs of certain group of less privileged people within the Amherst community. As being witnessed frequently in readings, the modern society has a tendency to mark those beneficiaries of such welfare system as irresponsible, negligent, passive, and even square pegs in society. As the world is getting moving fast, those individuals who could not catch up with the speed of changes have become considered to be social failures and even free-riders of other people’s efforts. For these negative images of the beneficiaries of welfare system, which could not be said to be well based on the real characteristics of those people, to be rooted in people’s minds, government’s general stand and policy on welfare could not avoid exerting certain influence in society. And it is also government that can improve the socioeconomic environment of those beneficiaries so that the lingering effects of the personally controllable tragic situation can be removed, reducing the high dependency of them on social welfare. And for government to do this job, it is also imperative that individuals input their own ideas, understandings, opinions, and encouragement to allow and check their government to follow the intended path. Mutual understanding, influence, caring, and ultimate trust: these are the necessities in relationship between government and individual/civil society. 

In the last group of readings about civil society, there were two passages that most stuck with me.  One was a saying of Confucius, that "If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honor are subjects of shame."  The other was a quote from Emma Goldman, that "crime is naught but misdirected energy."

I think the Confucian saying was powerful to me in the way that it conflicts with American values and society.  We think of America as a state governed by the principles of reason.  We are a democracy where all men and women are equal and have equal opportunities to become educated and empowered and to improve their lives and change their situations.  We believe in independence and social mobility.  According to Confucius, if we claim that America is a state governed by the principles of reason, riches and honor are justified, because they were earned by individuals taking advantage of the "American Dream" who are to be celebrated and emulated.  However, by this same logic, poverty and misery ARE subjects of shame, because they remind us that in reality we are not a state governed by the principles of reason.  We are, largely, a state governed by the principles of status, inherited social and cultural capital, and structural racism and classism.  These realities are contradictory to the American philosophy of equality and justice for all, and I believe that the reason we so stigmatize dependency is because is exposes those structural inequalities that we would rather ignore.  We would rather blame people on welfare for their own situation (in line with our individualist values) than blame the state of which we are a part for their situation.  Because in a democracy, where power is for, of, and by the people, we are implicated in their situation.

Goldman's quote that "crime is naught but misdirected energy" made me think of Timothy Black's book and the school-to-prison pipeline.  I think it is a very powerful and astute characterization of what crime is and where it comes from.  Just as we often associate the face of the young, single, unemployed mother with welfare and dependency, we associate the faces of young, poor, minority men with crime.  We pass them off as lazy, unwilling to work hard in school or at a job, lost causes, and violent.  I think that Goldman is right, though, they are not naturally lazy or violent, rather, their energy has been misdirected.  They have been disadvantaged by structural inequalities that do not teach or allow them to harness their energy and intelligence, and thus they have no where else to put it.  While this characterization of crime is obviously not uniformly true I think it is an important lens through which to look at the school-to-prison pipeline: the misdirection of energy and ability from the classroom to the prison cell.

According to Confucius, the situation of the people that my group is working with in Holyoke is shameful.  Not to them, but to society, that we as a society that is "equal" and governed by the principles of "reason" have allowed people in our nation to live in such destitute circumstances.  What is important is for these people not to characterize themselves as being shameful, not to feel shame for their situation.  I hope that what we as a group can do in working with their leadership is empower these people to begin to move beyond the stigma of their situation as "dependents" and work towards the redirection of their energy.