Conclusions to Forum 5: Do we live in a democracy?

Is ours a real democracy? This was the question around which our second forum this year was organised. The question, we must admit, had at a first sight an apparently obvious answer. However, as we were able to see through all our comments, obviousness is far from being the more consistent attribute of this topic. Just considering the main possible answers given during this debate could account for this. Although simplifying the nature of most of your comments, it is possible to identify three clear stances:

• Some people answered affirmatively to the question at the beginning, considering that there’s no doubt we live in a democracy.
• Some others, on the contrary, doubted whether ours is a real democracy, and carefully proposed that we live in a false democracy.
• Others, however, defended arguments from both previous stances, arriving at the conclusion that although we live in democracy, this is not a full one.

In reality, each different alternative appears equally valid and it would not be serious to say any of them is wrong. But we still have a difference; how can we account for it then? I think what makes these three options differ is perhaps the fact that each of them implies a different conception of what democracy is. For those adhering to the first option, democracy seems to be characterized by popular sovereignty, which implies that people is the source of any political power. For those who agree that we live in a democracy, the fact that we have the right to vote our representatives would be proof enough of our political power as citizens.

Those taking part for the second option, however, seem to interpret that democracy goes beyond the right to vote. For these people, democracy needs some preconditions without which open elections are no more than a form without content. Some common preconditions are equality of rights, equality of education, similar access to the media and to campaign funds for all political parties, direct participation in political decisions by means of popular consultations and, perhaps more importantly, actual limits and control over those chosen as representatives. Honestly, none of these preconditions has ever been effective in our country, which has not only limited the political options to the preponderance of a few changing and contradictory parties, but has also scared youth off from politics in the last decades. Then it looks quite natural for those who think participation, plurality and the discussion of ideas are essential to democracy, to doubt in calling this a real one.

Democracy Index (The Economist, 2007). More democratic nations in paler blue.

Finally, the third group could be read as a combination of the former two. They seem to look at democracy not as a definite political fact, but as a gradient, where a wide spectrum of forms that are still democratic in nature can take place. For these people, although we vote and have laws that orientate our nation in a democratic fashion, this is an incomplete democracy that can be improved with time and participation.

As I said before, all perceptions are valid. There’s no agreed definition of what democracy is. This should tell us something about the complexity of the term. But also about its malleability. In a way, we can make democracy look the way we want it. Because each nation creates its own image of what democracy is. Some countries tolerate corruption, some others not; some countries tolerate class differences, some others not; some tolerate poverty, and some not. Democracy means a different thing in each of these countries, just as it means different things among ourselves. Perhaps, better than asking about whether or not we live in a democracy, we should have asked what do we want our democracy to look like. Do you think we would have agreed?

In green, nations claiming themselves as democratic.

Conclusions to Forum 4: New technologies, positive or negative?

We’re closing our Forum 4 and it’s time to attempt to draw some conclusions. I noticed that most opinions were coincident about the double nature of technologies. Technologies, most of you agreed, have advantages and disadvantages. Something that has passed unnoticed in the discussion was perhaps the inevitability of technologies. No matter how reluctant we had been to accept computers or cellphones, it’s most probably we had finally been drawn by the force of change. We could ask ourselves, for instance, whether we could keep good contact with friends if we refused to carry cell phones. Some suggested that this would mean displacing face-to-face communication. Contrary to what we usually think, studies on adolescents are showing that new technologies have enhanced personal interaction:

“Friends play an expanded role in the lives of young people. When they come home from school, college or work, socialising does not stop as it used to, it just goes online. Kids and young people are now connected constantly.” (Andrew Davidson, cited here)

Our class could be an example of this. We interact, send doubts and comments and read ourselves online; however this doesn’t mean that we don’t have things to do or say personally. On the contrary, new technologies expand our class, they take our class beyond the institute, but they don’t (and they can’t) replace it.

Of course there are very clear drawbacks to new technologies, and you mentioned many during the forum discussions. But, as Robert put it, “there have always been two sides, one positive and one negative, in relation to these new technologies and pastimes.” Whenever new things appear there are always conflicting views. This is the case for computers and television, but it has also been the same for calculators and even books. New technologies have always been a topic for debate, although, as history teaches us, they have always come to stay. So, if new technologies are unavoidable, perhaps the wisest thing to do would be to get to know them; only through knowledge and experience can we develop a critical relationship with them, being able to exploit their potentials and avoid their dangers.

Finally, as a conclusion to this conclusion, let me invite you to read Reactions to technology: past and present, a post from If I may say so… which I wrote last year after a heated discussion on these same issues. And don´t forget we’re still discussing Do we live in democracy? Don’t miss your chance to participate there as well.

Conclusions to Forum 3: Homosexuality in Children’s Literature

Better late than never, I will try to round-up this year’s last forum. The issue, again, revolved around the topic of homosexuality. This time the topic was inserted in the context of children’s literature. The idea was to ponder about whether it is right or wrong to include such controversial issue in stories for children. After considering your very valuable interventions, I think it is possible to reduce the different opinions to two main stances:

1) The first one could encompass those opinions expressing or implying the idea that children are not mature enough to cope with the idea of homosexuality. In a way, this position implies that homosexuality may be ‘confusing’ for children.

2) The second position would include those opinions expressing that it would be good for children to be in contact with the idea of homosexuality, since in this way they would learn to take it as something natural.

Although both positions admit a tolerant view towards homosexuality, those people adhering to the second stance make it explicit that, for them, homosexuality shouldn’t be condemned as a sexual deviation. This is important since everyone in the forum bestows an educative purpose to children’s literature. In consequence, it seems logical that, for a person who sees homosexuality as something normal, the insertion of this topic did not represent a risk in the education of children. Perhaps, unconsciously or not, those adhering to the first position may feel that facing children to the idea of homosexuality may ‘confuse’ them. But this potential ‘confusion’ can only take place if we admit that there is something wrong in homosexuality. If homosexuality were normal, then, what sort of confusion could we think of?

In reality, it is not the issue of homosexuality that is problematic in this discussion, but children’s literature itself. If we take so much passion in discussing such an issue, this is because, in a way, we perceive that children’s literature is a medium for cultural and social instruction. In consequence, no matter how naïve we think stories for children are, they always convey ideology. Although hidden or in disguise, genre roles, class struggles, sexuality, race and a long list of controversial topics have always been part of children’s literature. Why do princesses always await passively for their prince to rescue them? Why should any romance end up in a marriage? Why do marriages mean a happy ending? Why do we usually read about royal families and not about servants? Why most heroes are white, tall and smart? When we analyse stories for children from a critical perspective, it is not so difficult to identify the values, beliefs and principles that they convey. Perhaps, the important conclusion we can extract from this debate is that children’s literature is never innocent or apolitical. In a way, what we consider right or wrong for our children is the reflection of the world we believe in. If we believe that there is nothing wrong about homosexuality, then we wouldn’t find any problem in reading our children a book containing homosexual characters. If we don’t agree in reading our children such a thing, then this might be because, overtly or not, we find homosexuality objectionable.

Conclusions to Forum 2: Schism in the Anglican Church?

I don’t know why both last forum discussions and some of our later class debates ended up revolving around the issue of homosexuality. Apparently, this seems to be a topic that involves deeply rooted feelings and beliefs, all of which seem to easily move people towards debate and confrontation. Taking into account the potential violence that underlies such emotional discussions, I’d like to begin by acknowledging the respectful tone in which all these debates were carried out so far.

Everything started with our second Forum, which was meant do discuss the possible schism in the Anglican Church. Although the key point was the ambiguous proximity between Anglicanism and Catholicism, what seemed to have caught most of the attention was the acceptance of homosexual bishops by the English church. Among the positions expressed in the forum, there were two clear visions that prevailed:

• On the one hand, it is possible to identify a tendency to consider homosexuality as contrary to the Scripts, and thus to understand that accepting homosexual priests is an unavoidable contradiction for any Christian creed. According to this view, homosexuals cannot be integrated within Christianism, but should build themselves their own set of religious values.
  

• The other point of view prevailing in this forum was that, although one may accept homosexuality within Christianism, it’s not possible to introduce this radical change within an established church without creating something new. According to this view, we cannot go on talking about Anglicanism if we accept homosexual priests. For this view, then, schism is logical and expectable.
  

It called my attention that no clear opinion acknowledged the possibility of institutional evolution. Even within such a traditional field like religion, a historical perspective can bring to light the existence of constant change and transformation. As we mentioned in our last L&C III class, the Catholic Church is perhaps the clearer example of this constant transformative inertia that no institution can avoid. We could mention the radical changes that this church underwent in relation to wealth, forgiveness, witchcraft, heresy, slavery, education and even the interpretation of the Bible. To anyone, it is clear that the church that promoted the Inquisition was based on principles and beliefs that radically differ from those hold by the current Catholic Church. But this which is clear for the Roman church because of its long history and tremendously huge institutional apparatus is also clear for any religious institution provided that we look closely at their historical development.

This third point of view is a historical one, which in a way opposes to both views defended in the forum, since it acknowledges that religions can change, sometimes even radically, without necessarily turning into something new or without necessarily finding a problem in opposing to what they had been in the past. This is called evolution. Since religious institutions are at the same time social institutions, it seems logical that they evolve and adjust their values and principles to the changes and the evolution of the societies in which they are immersed.

Conclusions to Forum 1: Photo of a cannibal?

Our forum discussion on the photograph proposed by Néstor has finally come to an end. I guess we all agreed that we must be careful when using photographs as sources, since photographs are far from being objective reproductions of reality. Among the different ideas you mentioned, I’d like to summarise the following:

• Photographs don’t show the complete context in which a situation takes place.
  
• Photographs imply a person (photographer) who decides what to portray.
  
• Photographs are usually accompanied with a text that may guide or bias our interpretation of the image.
  
• Photographs can be easily altered using digital means.
  

In the case of Néstor’s pic, my opinion is that the label “cannibalism” is forcing us to see something that, according to what you have been discussing, may not be representative of the situation the camera originally captured. As you very well mentioned, the man’s eyes and expression, his posing for the camera, the fact that somebody else is holding the arm, and so, seem to dispel the hypothesis of a cannibal act.

I think this debate should teach us that we cannot blindly trust photographs. As a way of conclusion, I’ve published a post entitled Trusting photographs, which you can read at If I may say so… You’re all invited. And remember we're still discussing the Schism in the Anglican Church? I hope to see you commenting there as well.