On the Edge of Darkness: Conversations About Conquering Depression
Kathy Cronkite
I. About the book and authors
1) Concept of book
§ Cronkite cast a wide net to talk with dozens of people who have in some way experienced depression, and gets their thoughts on a variety of topics. There are celebrities (very successful people), mental health professionals, family members of people with depression.
§ Many of the entries are, as the title suggests, very conversational—they are probably transcriptions of interviews. Many of the more professional opinions are better organized, and obviously have more scientific research behind them. It’s interesting to see the clinical view and the layman’s view laid side-to-side on so many topics.
2) About Kathy Cronkite
§ Former sufferer of unipolar depression, and currently an advocate for depression awareness, here in Austin as latest I can track. She is an author, has had a few other jobs in shows business, and is Walter Cronkite’s daughter.
II. Summary of Book
1) Chapter 1: The Dog and I
§ Cronkite talks about two images of depression: a black hole, and Churchill’s image of a black dog. She prefers this second image—something with you that people not might realize is even there, but you’re constantly aware of it. She gives the straightforward history of her lifelong suffering of depression and the relief when she finally was able to treat is successfully. It depended on her recognizing that it was a chronic illness that she would always be recovering from.
2) Chapter 2: It Takes One to Know One
§ Since it was Mike Wallace’s admission of having depression that gave her courage, she starts off with his account of his own depression. It is interesting that as the accounts progress through the book, one emerging theme is that they list all of the things that were bothering them at the time—in Mike Wallace’s case, a lawsuit, and some worry about his career. But as he and others eventually determine, these things are separate from the disease itself. Everyone has hard things that they have to suffer through in life, but not everyone is victim to the hopeless despondency of depression that renders them incapable of dealing with the issues. Wallace’s account focuses more on his physical symptomotology than his mental state
3) Chapter 3: What Is Depression?
§ A discussion on the colloquial use of the word “depressed,” versus the actual clinical disease. As comes up many times later in the book, this overlap may lead to misunderstandings about what depression actually is.
§ In this chapter, Cronkite mainly talks about bipolar and unipolar. Bipolar has a strong genetic component, and occurs by some studies more or less equally in men. Women are much more likely to suffer from unipolar depression (1:4 by one study). See also the attachment at the end of this book report, with the most up-to-date clinical diagnostic tools for various types of depression.
§ Depression can kill you if untreated. Some of the contributor’s discussions in this chapter made some clear metaphors that opened my eyes—I will stick with the metaphor of diabetes (II). There is a strong genetic component. But people do have some control over whether or not it manifests; but even people who avoid sugar all their lives can still succumb. It also can be treated with ongoing care, but can easily kill you if ignored. This made me think of a literary work, The Sorrows of Young Werther, by Goethe. It comes at the end of a longer conversation, also interesting, but the gist is captured here:"Human nature," I continued, "has its limits. It is able to endure a certain degree of joy, sorrow, and pain, but becomes annihilated as soon as this measure is exceeded. The question, therefore, is, not whether a man is strong or weak, but whether he is able to endure the measure of his sufferings. The suffering may be moral or physical; and in my opinion it is just as absurd to call a man a coward who destroys himself, as to call a man a coward who dies of a malignant fever."Later in the book, there is a moment with Cronkite heard a woman on a radio show arguing that if assisted suicide is okayed for people with chronic disease, people with depression should have the right to make this choice, too. This may have been somewhat the case in Goethe’s time, but the Cronkite wanted very much to make the argument to the caller that 80-90% of cases are successfully treated. There is some more discussion of this in chapter 9, but that chapter is more focused on individual’s experiences with it (but obviously with no one who attempted successfully).
§ This is the first chapter that has a lot of different voices giving their experience. It drives home that depression can have a lot of varying symptoms and degrees of intensity, and one can see why it might not be a simple diagnosis. There is also distinction between sadness and depression.
4) Chapter 4: Black Dog, White Dog
§ Short chapter on bipolar disorder. I found the chapter by Susan Crosby (Lindsay Crosby’s wife) a more interesting examination of the phenomenon. It was interesting that even though bipolar people sometimes will not want to treat their illness because they miss the “highs” and the energy and feeling of accomplishment, it was the highs, and not the lows, that were completely devastating to the Crosbys.
5) Chapter 5: Effects on a Career
§ This and the next chapter on the stigma go together hand in hand. A lot of the discussion in this chapter was about how sufferers had to hide their depression and treatment from employers, mostly out of fear of judgment.
§ Aside from the stigma, however, there is discussion about the difficulty of carrying on a career with consistency with an untreated affective disorder. The Styrons (writers) had to kind of reset their lives when William came down with an unexpected case of severe unipolar depression late in life.
§ One weakness I found in the book was so many of the contributors had rather atypical careers. A lot of them were in show business or politics. And while I did come to see how those particular freelance-esque careers, when you deal with constant judgment by others, could easily precipitate a depression, for the purposes of looking at it from a management perspective, I think the book misses out a lot on the experience of how everyday life depression would exhibit, in and office for instance. The discussions from psychiatric professionals picked up the slack here, but the first-person accounts still seemed unbalanced.
6) Chapter 6: Overcoming the Stigma and the Shame
§ There are a lot of connections between this chapter and chapter 13, which deals with men and women’s different “relationship” to the disease.
§ Many of the accounts say it’s more than just the stigma of a “mental illness.” Whether true or not, many felt there was less stigma with coming out with a substance abuse disorder. Some felt they would still be judged as having a “moral failing,” rather than a disease. One doctor has heard people call it a “wimp’s disease.”
7) Chapter 7: Substance Abuse
§ Several of the contributors had some substance abuse issues as well. There is an interesting discussion about the connection between substance abuse and depression---and how difficult it can be clinically to determine which is the cause and which is the effect. Or if one is masking another completely. Kitty Dukakis’s story most clearly showed how important it is to get to the root diagnosis to really help someone. Substance abuse can be a way of self-medicating a depression, and then can be a way of prolonging it.
8) Chapter 8: Love’s Labour’s Lost: Susan Crosby
§ Susan Crosby tells the story of her marriage to Lindsay Crosby, son of Bing Crosby, who suffered from bipolar disorder. Interesting points: she spent years and years getting herself therapy to figure out why she was so bothered by things (for instance, his sleeping with other women, going on rampant horse-buying binges). There is more discussion of women’s “place” in society and how it relates to depression (she also exhibited signs of depression eventually). Also interesting that as a celebrity and trust-fund kid, Lindsay was surrounded by false friends who just liked him when he was high and fun, and didn’t try to get him help. In fact, they got him out of the psychiatric ward early before he eventually killed himself. Susan blamed this entourage phenomenon on why it took so long to get him treated.
§ On the celebrity phenomenon, in modern terms: it’s not surprising that Brittney Spears is getting treated for bipolar disorder—would it have gone untreated this long if she hadn’t been a celebrity? Because at the same time, she had more opportunities to exhibit her mania—possibly her symptoms wouldn’t have been so pronounced and easily diagnosable if she hadn’t had lots of money and documentation of her every move.
9) Chapter 9: Suicide
§ One repeated theme in the accounts from everyone is that they all had fleeting glimpses of suicide. For some it was just a thought that it would be great if they never woke up. What’s also interesting, since these are all survivors of depression, is what things prevented it in the end. Personal connections, even though they are hard to maintain as a depressive, are important. While one person did owe a friend her life after an actual attempt, more of them explained that there was just enough of the rational sense of them to realize how much it would have broken their families, or anyone left behind.
§ Joan Rivers’s account of her husband’s suicide, and her own subsequent, eventual suicidal thoughts reminded me of another theme that creeps up throughout the book: that in many ways, depression is contagious. While there are clear studies on the strong genetic component of bipolar disorder, unipolar depression is more common, and does occur in families. The idea of how it can effect friends and families is dealt with in chapter 17.
10) Chapter 10: Leslie Garis
§ An short individual account of a woman’s experience with a very long depression, until she sought treatment successfully.
11) Chapter 11: Ya Gotta Have Heart
§ There is a connection between heart disease and depression. In fact, most patients who have had heart attacks or heart surgery are specifically counseled to be on the lookout for depression.
§ Discussion about whether this is because people are facing their own age and mortality.
§ Cronkite mentions that there is frequently a form of post-traumatic stress syndrome when people undergo any surgery, from discussions half-overheard while anaesthetized.
§ While most of the medical professional in the book have been in mental health, there is an account here from a cardiologist that seems to lack some of the empathy of the others. There is definitely an implication from him that heart disease is a more real disease than depression. Naturally, there can be arguments about whether it is more urgent, or more serious. But this is one time where the conversational tone of the book fails—people aren’t given the succinctness to really state their cases, and some sections, taken out of context, might be misinterpretable.
12) Chapter 12: Living with Loss
§ Death and true loss of course cause sadness. This is normal. One difficulty is deciding when a despondency has become a diagnosable depression that should be treated. There are some arbitrary cut-offs (“three months”) for clinicians, but the chapter does drive home that even though there is a difference between normal sadness and depression, it’s still a gradient, and the line is still something drawn by we humans.
13) Chapter 13: Being Woman, Hard Beset
§ Simplified: is the prevalence of unipolar amongst women hormones or society? There is definitely evidence that there is some connection to hormones (women on birth control pills experience atypical depression more often, pregnant women are least likely to experience depression, and postpartum depression is common).
§ Because of the discussion on hormones, a discussion on seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is brought in here because it is believed to be a hormonal issue (in this case, melatonin).
14) Chapter 14: Lifting the Fog
§ Various treatments for depression: drugs vs. cognitive therapy. Strongest evidence is that both combined is much more effective than either separately.
§ One lesson to take away from this chapter’s testimonies is that treatment is not always straightforward or simple, even once the diagnosis is correct. Many doctors don’t have a clear grasp of drug interactions, which can be particularly problematic if a patient is simultaneously undergoing substance abuse treatment.
§ Cognitive therapy: Cronkite had almost been offended that this could work because it seems like someone telling the patient to will themselves out of it, which she had not ever been successful at doing, until she started medication. The lesson is that the treatment will not be the same from one person to the next, but it’s important to believe that there is something that can work.
15) Chapter 15: Beauty and the Beast
§ Are artists more prone to affective disorders? Does it improve their art?
§ Answer: Artists with bipolar disorder can have great productivity as they enter into their manic phases, and this can give them a creative advantage, because their every thought is sped up.
§ Answer: No, artists are only more susceptible to depression because they feel things more deeply, and sense things more acutely as a matter of course in their work.
§ Answer: Artists are constantly exposing themselves to criticism, which may act as a precipitating event, which would make them more likely to suffer.
§ I didn’t find this chapter particularly enlightening—I think this debate can be very interesting. Artists are by definition atypical. People with mental illness are by definition atypical. How much is this coincidence, and do we as society have something to gain (art, beauty) by an artist’s disease remaining untreated?
16) Chapter 16: Existential Blues
§ How do psychology and spirituality overlap? Some might interpret depression as a distance from god. The author’s experience with religion was helpful to her personally, but ultimately she knew it was a separate issue from her depression, and it remained dangerous to go off her medication.
17) Chapter 17: The Black Dog at Home: Support of Family and Friends
§ This chapter was interesting—it was one of the chapters where there was some disagreement within the testimonies. Sufferers of depression and medical professionals talked about what it was best to do if you suspect or know someone is depressed. Some felt it was best to act as if everything was normal. Some felt it was important to recognize that they are suffering from a disease, and to get them help accordingly.
§ There wasn’t as much discussion as I would have thought about protecting yourself from a depressed family member. It had been mentioned in other places in the book. Obviously, in cases of manic patients, physical protection is necessary. But the potentially “contagious” effects of depression are real, with the learned helplessness of dealing with and caring for someone who just won’t get better.
18) Chapter 18: It Tolls for Thee
§ Depression and marriage. A more specific discussion than the previous chapter. Spouses must be patient, but if they are willing to understand the disease, they can be important in helping wit the diagnosis. They may notice early warning signs before a sufferer does.
§ Mostly this chapter seemed to be a way for the contributors to thank their husbands and wives for putting up with a lot and helping them through.
19) Chapter 19: Families in the Dark
§ A chapter introducing the importance of recognizing that depression can run in families, and why talking about the disease can help make diagnosis, and therefore treatment, easier. It’s a bit of a lead-in to the following two chapters.
20) Chapter 20: Children of Depressed Parents
§ Of all the feelings of helplessness that family members can undergo (see previous chapter), it’s the most crucial time for children. If they don’t understand what’s going on (if the parents doesn’t know, or if the parent is too ashamed to explain), they can easily blame themselves for the irrational moods. Several accounts give what they think is the best way to approach the subject with kids. Several accounts show kids who are still afraid of the disease, and who don’t want to talk about it (Cronkite points out it’s important to explain that it’s a treatable disease, something she feels she may have forgotten to stress to her kids).
§ Cronkite’s son: “One thing [that has changed since finding out about the disease]: I’ve known what’s going on, which has made it a whole lot easier on me. Like if you’re on the fourth floor of a building and there’s an explosion, you have no idea what’s happening, but if you heard on the radio that there’s a bomb in that building or a technical explosion, or something, you’d be less scared because you’d know what was going on.”
21) Chapter 21: Children with Depression
§ People have relatively recently begun diagnosing and really accepting that children can be depressed. It is hard to sort out a depression in a kid, because so much diagnosis is based on criteria like “less interest than normal,” when a kid hasn’t been around long enough to have established a normal baseline.
22) Chapter 22: Old Dogs, New Tricks
§ Deals with depression in older people. Again a more difficult diagnosis than with the mainstream population, for one thing because it’s hard to parse out from dementia. They have a few overlapping symptoms, but more difficult is they often occur at the same time (similar to substance abuse—it’s hard to figure out cause, effect, and treat both effectively).
§ Discussion about whether sadness is a normal part of the aging process. There is, after all, loss—loss of youth, and eventually loss of most friends. Again, the distinction has to be made about when it’s time to cut them off, define it as depression, and get them treatment.
§ The longest essay is from Jennie Forehand, who had one other long entry in the book. Her experience with her mother, who was kicked out of assisted living places and suspected of psychotic disorders before she was diagnosed with depression, was fascinating.
23) Chapter 23: Advice to the Players
§ This short chapter is mostly of very short urgings by many of the contributors to get help for the disease if you have it. The advice ranges from “make sure to take care of yourself” to “see a psychiatrist as quickly as you can.” One doctor stresses the importance of both—he believes in alternative therapies, yoga and meditation for instance, but thinks these are largely just a palliative, while medical treatment can offer a real cure.
§ This is an interesting distinction (palliative vs. cure): if depression is just overwhelming sadness, isn’t something that takes one away from the sadness a cure? No, the argument is again, there is something more basic to depression than just the outside emotions, and with a medical origin, it needs a medical cure (see next chapter).
24) Chapter 24: Healing
§ This chapter stresses that the “cure” makes the recovery sound quick, when in reality it’s a long process and involves a lot of work from the patient. Medication may be necessary, but it doesn’t mean it will work like a switch—it will just make it possible for the patient’s willpower to have some effect.
25) Chapter 25: Ad Astra per Aspera
§ “To the stars through difficulty” (uplifting conclusion)
III. Other themes of the book
1) Images of depression
§ Black dog (Churchill)
§ “mist seeping slowly” (p48); hangover/residue (p49); “dark cloudy gauze” (p118); smoky room (p144); “When I would try to explain to people my experience last time I sobered up, I would tell them about a famous painting traditionally called Nightwatch in Amsterdam. It was painted by Rembrandt. It’s a scene of a bunch of seventeenth-century gentleman on the wall of a fortress keeping watch during some battle. For hundreds of years, it has been assumed that it was a night [scene], because it was so dark, until they cleaned it about ten years ago. To everyone’s amazement, it’s actually a day portrait. That’s what it’s like when alcoholics stop drinking. Everything is still there, the way is still there, the kids are still there, all the same people are still there, it’s just a lot lighter than you thought it was.” (Mary Jones, p93)
§ The comparison to diabetes and other diseases.
§ Moral weakness (p78) (this reference made more in relation to the stigma, not any contributor’s actual view)
§ Disconnect from the rewards system (p91) (one of the more clinical assessments, but very a very interesting way to view it)
§ On sadness vs. depression: like a hangnail versus a shotgun wound (p111)
§ The book of Job as a parable about suffering from depression.
2) Arbitrary distinctions that must be made, or things that exist on a continuum
§ Biological vs. psychological (“the brain is the organ of the mind” p31-2)
§ Beck Inventory—one of the most common ways to measure depression. A 21-question quiz
§ Feeling vs. thinking (p49)
§ Schizophrenia vs. bipolar (p57)
§ Alcoholism <-> depression (p88)
§ A call for help vs. a “genuine” suicide attempt
§ Mind/body/spirit
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Depth Psychology: Jung
[...Depth Psychology continued...]
Remember, Freud in particular saw only ill patients, with “fat and juicy” neuroses.
Transference—patient see therapist as all-knowing, wise, father-figure etc. Similar to the defense of identification (think teens with sports heroes), but it’s not a defense mechanism, the word is just a phenomenon in the therapy process. It’s important because in the organizational setting, which is based on rank/hierarchy, underling may transfer childhood needs. Mentor may also transfer parental feelings (sort of counter-transference).
Jung’s additional level of consciousness:
-awareness
-preconscious
-personal unconscious
-collective unconscious (Jung’s idea)
Collective unconscious composed of archetypal “memories.”
Jung was impressed by shamans, who would make the distinction between “little dreams” and “big dreams” (which were composed of/included big, archetypal symbols). He felt those came from collective unconsciousness. Myth important to understanding the collective unconscious.
Handout: Jung’s diagram of the psyche.
The shadow: all the things we’re ashamed of about ourselves. Often suppressed, therefore often revealed in dreams.
Jung’s goal of individuation: to move more of the personal unconscious into the conscious. Also, integration of the anima/animus, because the pathway to the collective unconscious is our opposite-sex figure (clearer from diagram).
Alex’s book report: Jung’s autobiography
Schott’s additional notes: Jung had a psychotic episode in 1912. Possibly some rebellion against dogma/organized religion because of his father’s church affiliation.
Remember, Freud in particular saw only ill patients, with “fat and juicy” neuroses.
Transference—patient see therapist as all-knowing, wise, father-figure etc. Similar to the defense of identification (think teens with sports heroes), but it’s not a defense mechanism, the word is just a phenomenon in the therapy process. It’s important because in the organizational setting, which is based on rank/hierarchy, underling may transfer childhood needs. Mentor may also transfer parental feelings (sort of counter-transference).
Jung’s additional level of consciousness:
-awareness
-preconscious
-personal unconscious
-collective unconscious (Jung’s idea)
Collective unconscious composed of archetypal “memories.”
Jung was impressed by shamans, who would make the distinction between “little dreams” and “big dreams” (which were composed of/included big, archetypal symbols). He felt those came from collective unconsciousness. Myth important to understanding the collective unconscious.
Handout: Jung’s diagram of the psyche.
The shadow: all the things we’re ashamed of about ourselves. Often suppressed, therefore often revealed in dreams.
Jung’s goal of individuation: to move more of the personal unconscious into the conscious. Also, integration of the anima/animus, because the pathway to the collective unconscious is our opposite-sex figure (clearer from diagram).
Alex’s book report: Jung’s autobiography
Schott’s additional notes: Jung had a psychotic episode in 1912. Possibly some rebellion against dogma/organized religion because of his father’s church affiliation.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
Twin Oaks Community
I don't think I ever posted a link to Twin Oaks Intentional Community. I think all of you might find it interesting, and there is a 3 week visitor program (I intially did that just out of curiosity, then stayed for the summer). It's been great during this course to have had this experience to tie a lot of the ideas to.
It was initially begun to simulate Walden 2, BF Skinner's book, but as it's a true democracy, its goals and workings have changed very organically over time. I could do a whole update about the community, and how much it represents the ideals of things (resilience especially comes to mind) that have come up repeatedly during the course. If I can remember enough things about the place, I will do a more full update, but I really encourage you to visit the link. It's what got me interested in all of the forms of shared housing (co-op, cohousing) that I have incorporated into my life plans.
It was initially begun to simulate Walden 2, BF Skinner's book, but as it's a true democracy, its goals and workings have changed very organically over time. I could do a whole update about the community, and how much it represents the ideals of things (resilience especially comes to mind) that have come up repeatedly during the course. If I can remember enough things about the place, I will do a more full update, but I really encourage you to visit the link. It's what got me interested in all of the forms of shared housing (co-op, cohousing) that I have incorporated into my life plans.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Photographs from the Edible Schoolyard, New Orleans, main campus
It turns out I chose a great weekend to visit the Edible Schoolyard. This Saturday was their first "open garden" open to the school's parents, the neigborhood, and anyong who wanted to come. I went on a tour with the school chef.
The school is a charter school, K-8, opened last year (though the building had been a school for at least 50 years). They apparently have a second, smaller campus now, with 45 students, but I didn't see that one. Those are the basics.
The not-so-basics is that the majority of the school's lesson plans are based around food and gardening, with an emphasis on outdoor activities and classes. It really brought me back to my own experiences and memories of childhood at a New Orleans public school. By far, my most vivid memories are from lunchtime (not recess), field trips, and when we got to have class outside. (Also, one time that I stacked some books for my teacher really efficiently, but that doesn't apply here.) All of those things are all day every day at this school! If they can really manage to work in a regular curriculum on top of it, these kids are definitely going to be much more engaged than the average schoolchild.
Further thoughts that my visit engendered as photo captions below:
Most of the gardens are of edible foods. This is the herb garden, which was the first thing I saw upon entering. Apparently during the first year, before they were able to get much of the land workable, the kids asked if they could just start some raised gardens, and this was one of the pods that were completely student-initiated. That giant palm-looking plant in the back is lemongrass! My parents have one at their house, and they'd begun to doubt that lemongrass really got that big.
During the tour, which was mainly outside of the building, she mentioned that while there is tons of rennovations to be done inside and out, the priority for the school is rennovating the outside of the building first. First, obviously, because of the focus of the school on gardening. But before taking this course, I still would have found the painted external walls (like above) a little bit superficial. Now I recognize, and so does the school, how important the veneer is. The window frames are crumbling away, and the panes are nearly opaque with dust. But it's not depressing when all around it is a green and vibrant garden.
Another thought I had as I relived some of my own schooldays--how many recess playgrounds are just blacktop? Like melts-in-the-summer, burns-your-feet-through-your-rubber-soles blacktop? My sense is most urban ones anyway. How will kids ever appreciate unpaved earth if that's all they know, if that chemical tar smell is associated with the fun of recess? An ESY summer project was to replace the blacktop section with a brick courtyard, with spots for shade trees throughout. Again, even though I hadn't seen the original blacktop, I was amazed at how drastically the renovation must have improved the look and feel of the area.
My mom, who lives in the neighborhood, even noted how spruced up the neighborhood around had begun to look. Whereas most people don't really want to live near a school, this one seems to be a potential central point for the surrounding community.
They have plans to involved the surrounding community more. This open garden I attended was the first, but it will become a monthly tradition. They will also eventually participate in a nearby farmer's market with some of the kids. Since it's a charter school, anyone can attend it, but as they are getting better established, more kids from the nearby area have begun to attend this year.
Hmm...that photo ended up looking more like a prison yard than I intended. But I wanted to show a volunteer working in the garden alongside how urban the surrounding area is. During the tour, our guide said 98% of the students lived under the poverty line(!).
This is a vegetable garden. The guide pointed out that one grade planted it and the next class had to carry it out. This teaches an important lesson in patience and long-term investment in a project. But students would also learn the lesson that there is value in creating something even if you yourself can't use it. They in turn probably inherit projects that the class ahead of them started.
To me, the garden of plants not edible (to humans, anyway) has clear implications in teaching about ecology. And by extension, using Capra's analogy, communities. They can learn that pragmatism, with its focus on results and actions, does not have to be a focus on immediate results. There is both an aesthetic and critical importance to having certain insects in a garden.
___
Lastly, although I didn't get a picture to illustrate it, my favorite example of one of the community-building tools was for consensus. The faculty does aim to involve the kids in all aspects of the decision making, and while consensus would be particularly hard in a K-8 setting, there is at least some attempt at it. The scarecrow-making process tried to acommodate everyone's preferences. That's how they ended up with a policeman-scarecrow (with cheetah legs and a panther tail), and a soldier-scarecrow (holding a child, and with a clown's head). Scary...
The school is a charter school, K-8, opened last year (though the building had been a school for at least 50 years). They apparently have a second, smaller campus now, with 45 students, but I didn't see that one. Those are the basics.
The not-so-basics is that the majority of the school's lesson plans are based around food and gardening, with an emphasis on outdoor activities and classes. It really brought me back to my own experiences and memories of childhood at a New Orleans public school. By far, my most vivid memories are from lunchtime (not recess), field trips, and when we got to have class outside. (Also, one time that I stacked some books for my teacher really efficiently, but that doesn't apply here.) All of those things are all day every day at this school! If they can really manage to work in a regular curriculum on top of it, these kids are definitely going to be much more engaged than the average schoolchild.
Further thoughts that my visit engendered as photo captions below:
Most of the gardens are of edible foods. This is the herb garden, which was the first thing I saw upon entering. Apparently during the first year, before they were able to get much of the land workable, the kids asked if they could just start some raised gardens, and this was one of the pods that were completely student-initiated. That giant palm-looking plant in the back is lemongrass! My parents have one at their house, and they'd begun to doubt that lemongrass really got that big.
During the tour, which was mainly outside of the building, she mentioned that while there is tons of rennovations to be done inside and out, the priority for the school is rennovating the outside of the building first. First, obviously, because of the focus of the school on gardening. But before taking this course, I still would have found the painted external walls (like above) a little bit superficial. Now I recognize, and so does the school, how important the veneer is. The window frames are crumbling away, and the panes are nearly opaque with dust. But it's not depressing when all around it is a green and vibrant garden.
Another thought I had as I relived some of my own schooldays--how many recess playgrounds are just blacktop? Like melts-in-the-summer, burns-your-feet-through-your-rubber-soles blacktop? My sense is most urban ones anyway. How will kids ever appreciate unpaved earth if that's all they know, if that chemical tar smell is associated with the fun of recess? An ESY summer project was to replace the blacktop section with a brick courtyard, with spots for shade trees throughout. Again, even though I hadn't seen the original blacktop, I was amazed at how drastically the renovation must have improved the look and feel of the area.
My mom, who lives in the neighborhood, even noted how spruced up the neighborhood around had begun to look. Whereas most people don't really want to live near a school, this one seems to be a potential central point for the surrounding community.
They have plans to involved the surrounding community more. This open garden I attended was the first, but it will become a monthly tradition. They will also eventually participate in a nearby farmer's market with some of the kids. Since it's a charter school, anyone can attend it, but as they are getting better established, more kids from the nearby area have begun to attend this year.
Hmm...that photo ended up looking more like a prison yard than I intended. But I wanted to show a volunteer working in the garden alongside how urban the surrounding area is. During the tour, our guide said 98% of the students lived under the poverty line(!).
This is a vegetable garden. The guide pointed out that one grade planted it and the next class had to carry it out. This teaches an important lesson in patience and long-term investment in a project. But students would also learn the lesson that there is value in creating something even if you yourself can't use it. They in turn probably inherit projects that the class ahead of them started.
To me, the garden of plants not edible (to humans, anyway) has clear implications in teaching about ecology. And by extension, using Capra's analogy, communities. They can learn that pragmatism, with its focus on results and actions, does not have to be a focus on immediate results. There is both an aesthetic and critical importance to having certain insects in a garden.
___
Lastly, although I didn't get a picture to illustrate it, my favorite example of one of the community-building tools was for consensus. The faculty does aim to involve the kids in all aspects of the decision making, and while consensus would be particularly hard in a K-8 setting, there is at least some attempt at it. The scarecrow-making process tried to acommodate everyone's preferences. That's how they ended up with a policeman-scarecrow (with cheetah legs and a panther tail), and a soldier-scarecrow (holding a child, and with a clown's head). Scary...
from the drive
On the drive to New Orleans, I was listening to Stephen Covey's lectures of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. I'd listened to it before, after getting over the impression that it was aimed at go-getter businessperson types. But re-listening to some of them in the car, I was struck with how so many of his ideas have the same goals of asset-building and highlight building social capital to realize a lot more goals than you can as individuals. If I had a print version of the book, it would be easier to reference, but the in a broad sense, the way he defines "habits" is the sustainability. It's the underying assets that you need in order to continually use without depleting. And his definition of "effective" could be interpreted as developing. Anyway, just part of the long drive...nothing I could use in a paper, just interesting how many places I've been seeing the same ideas, at their very basic, since starting this semester.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The levels of analysis for your paper, using communities/liberal democracy as example:
Micro-level
Theoretical approaches to civil society, notions of citizenship [book: Civil Society]. Connection/relation of individual to the group.
Philosophy as a religion, belief system based on faith. Broader philosophy informs expectations at both levels. This will inform what you believe about liberal democracies and why you think it is (or isn’t) superior)
Mid-level
Example: citizenry in a liberal democracy (in the sense of valuing the individuals). Look at liberal democracy, start pulling out individual ideas. What’s the relationship between liberal democracies and how we in the US work? In terms of social institutions (e.g. government, market for ordering and setting framework of relationship between individuals and group). Three regulating entities in US liberal democracy—state/government, market/capitalism, civil society/community. Looking at the different philosophies of how these regulate, and how they regulate specifically to us. One obvious idea: individual as the unit of value. So our rules/regulations try to capture that.
EG: Bill of Rights and Constitution. (Side note: Some same concepts similar in all modern societies; difference may be in how they are instituted versus where you’re studying, in this case, the US. Think compared to the USSR, which also valued the individual in theory).
Micro-Level
Looking at the key practical questions when differentiating between modern societies.
Example of key terms/working definition: “Individual.” How is this conception embodied in the institutions?
Key ideas: Find normal standards, both ideal and in practice. Context is important (time period an important part context, as someone brought up the fact that the ideas of equality in the constitution were penned at a time when slavery was the norm)...
Constitution: open to interpretation. It specifies process, guilt-in standards about debate, discussion, making a collective decision of some kind.
How do you sharpen your focus?
Be able to move comfortably between narrow focus and abstract theoretical level. Start with your own clear definition of community=further from geographical boundary, think longer term sustainability. So, place and process important. Then think: what are the factors of success that make a difference. Rank these factors and variables as more or less important by your own or others’ standards. More key terms: Sustainability, capacity, resilience.
Ways to search for literature
Some terminology: community, community development, community organizing, social capital, community competence, empowerment. Keep in mind different aspects of these terms when reading literature.
EG: LR’s definition somewhat place-bound, also captures community-building, which is a particular process beyond simple growth. At macro view, what are you looking for? Involve people in decisions that affect their lives. So, some faith in ability of people to come together and solve their own problems. How is the capacity used for change and restructure?
Measuring success of community-building: impact on place, individual, process. So, moving in directions of practical questions…individuals: e.g. Resources, what do they feel, value, believe? Not always able to capture individuals’ talent to create collective community. [Discussion of Austin vs. Temple’s merits].
Allegiance and commitment—trust in the process, even if a given decision not consistent with what I want. Reciprocity—if that process works more likely to participate. Process dimension—what can you look at described as variables, speaking to this trust people place. Characteristics of community, community building process and of organizer/catalyst/activist—the person mindful of what’s necessary for the other two things to happen.
Things to think about in each of these three areas:
Community characteristics: Involves some conceptualization of what a health community looks like, “should” be. How or were where is the community? (Generally, and around a specific issue.) [Jefferson(?) insisted on an informed citizenry). Awareness, motivation. Is there a geographic dimension? Do people identify with the place, organization? Get sense of existing cohesion? If so, around what? Indication of existing capacity to adapt, respond? Assess whether there are already mechanisms in place for members to come together and discuss? Issue of leadership. Is there any? What is its nature? How did it emerge? Any track record in terms of solving problems? In part, LR’s same idea as building community.
Process of building community characteristics: Gauge degree of participation. Ideally, you want widespread participation, having the means (procedure-wise) to participate. Interactions between organizations, individuals in community, need good communications system in place. Faith in process, seeing value as individual in being part of the community. No use substituting other’s judgment for the common people (elite). People can decide without entire technical knowledge. Institutions allow people to come together to make important decisions (schools, universities, activist groups). Are there processes in place that allow leaders to emerge or to be identified? Are there things in community allowing to practice leading? E.g... Over-supervised children’s play not always helpful.
Activist’s characteristics: Do they understand the community? How decisions do or don’t get made? Can you determine the commitment of other catalysts? An element of trust between individual and community at large? Community builder experienced? How? How relevant? Are they eligible, adaptable, patient?
Remember the key areas at the micro levels, and the practical questions you would ask to assess them? In research, think more “what are my research questions” what are hypotheses? What are variables that capture the research questions? How can I asses/observe these variables?
Faith/believe vs. reason/logic (i.e. “Truth”) are they mutually exclusive? Some argue science only way. Or, possible common-sense, experience. Experienceàthis leads to “truth,” what work in the sense of keeping you moving. Keeping improving the human condition as that definition continues to evolve. Learning by doing vs. studying not mutually exclusive.
“Third Places”—gathering places; bowling alleys, bars, churches.
Next week: reading for summit; more on East Austin.
Micro-level
Theoretical approaches to civil society, notions of citizenship [book: Civil Society]. Connection/relation of individual to the group.
Philosophy as a religion, belief system based on faith. Broader philosophy informs expectations at both levels. This will inform what you believe about liberal democracies and why you think it is (or isn’t) superior)
Mid-level
Example: citizenry in a liberal democracy (in the sense of valuing the individuals). Look at liberal democracy, start pulling out individual ideas. What’s the relationship between liberal democracies and how we in the US work? In terms of social institutions (e.g. government, market for ordering and setting framework of relationship between individuals and group). Three regulating entities in US liberal democracy—state/government, market/capitalism, civil society/community. Looking at the different philosophies of how these regulate, and how they regulate specifically to us. One obvious idea: individual as the unit of value. So our rules/regulations try to capture that.
EG: Bill of Rights and Constitution. (Side note: Some same concepts similar in all modern societies; difference may be in how they are instituted versus where you’re studying, in this case, the US. Think compared to the USSR, which also valued the individual in theory).
Micro-Level
Looking at the key practical questions when differentiating between modern societies.
Example of key terms/working definition: “Individual.” How is this conception embodied in the institutions?
Key ideas: Find normal standards, both ideal and in practice. Context is important (time period an important part context, as someone brought up the fact that the ideas of equality in the constitution were penned at a time when slavery was the norm)...
Constitution: open to interpretation. It specifies process, guilt-in standards about debate, discussion, making a collective decision of some kind.
How do you sharpen your focus?
Be able to move comfortably between narrow focus and abstract theoretical level. Start with your own clear definition of community=further from geographical boundary, think longer term sustainability. So, place and process important. Then think: what are the factors of success that make a difference. Rank these factors and variables as more or less important by your own or others’ standards. More key terms: Sustainability, capacity, resilience.
Ways to search for literature
Some terminology: community, community development, community organizing, social capital, community competence, empowerment. Keep in mind different aspects of these terms when reading literature.
EG: LR’s definition somewhat place-bound, also captures community-building, which is a particular process beyond simple growth. At macro view, what are you looking for? Involve people in decisions that affect their lives. So, some faith in ability of people to come together and solve their own problems. How is the capacity used for change and restructure?
Measuring success of community-building: impact on place, individual, process. So, moving in directions of practical questions…individuals: e.g. Resources, what do they feel, value, believe? Not always able to capture individuals’ talent to create collective community. [Discussion of Austin vs. Temple’s merits].
Allegiance and commitment—trust in the process, even if a given decision not consistent with what I want. Reciprocity—if that process works more likely to participate. Process dimension—what can you look at described as variables, speaking to this trust people place. Characteristics of community, community building process and of organizer/catalyst/activist—the person mindful of what’s necessary for the other two things to happen.
Things to think about in each of these three areas:
Community characteristics: Involves some conceptualization of what a health community looks like, “should” be. How or were where is the community? (Generally, and around a specific issue.) [Jefferson(?) insisted on an informed citizenry). Awareness, motivation. Is there a geographic dimension? Do people identify with the place, organization? Get sense of existing cohesion? If so, around what? Indication of existing capacity to adapt, respond? Assess whether there are already mechanisms in place for members to come together and discuss? Issue of leadership. Is there any? What is its nature? How did it emerge? Any track record in terms of solving problems? In part, LR’s same idea as building community.
Process of building community characteristics: Gauge degree of participation. Ideally, you want widespread participation, having the means (procedure-wise) to participate. Interactions between organizations, individuals in community, need good communications system in place. Faith in process, seeing value as individual in being part of the community. No use substituting other’s judgment for the common people (elite). People can decide without entire technical knowledge. Institutions allow people to come together to make important decisions (schools, universities, activist groups). Are there processes in place that allow leaders to emerge or to be identified? Are there things in community allowing to practice leading? E.g... Over-supervised children’s play not always helpful.
Activist’s characteristics: Do they understand the community? How decisions do or don’t get made? Can you determine the commitment of other catalysts? An element of trust between individual and community at large? Community builder experienced? How? How relevant? Are they eligible, adaptable, patient?
Remember the key areas at the micro levels, and the practical questions you would ask to assess them? In research, think more “what are my research questions” what are hypotheses? What are variables that capture the research questions? How can I asses/observe these variables?
Faith/believe vs. reason/logic (i.e. “Truth”) are they mutually exclusive? Some argue science only way. Or, possible common-sense, experience. Experienceàthis leads to “truth,” what work in the sense of keeping you moving. Keeping improving the human condition as that definition continues to evolve. Learning by doing vs. studying not mutually exclusive.
“Third Places”—gathering places; bowling alleys, bars, churches.
Next week: reading for summit; more on East Austin.
Monday, October 22, 2007
On the advantage of the WTO: If a big state negotiated with a small state, it wouldn’t be giving much up by walking away from the negotiations. If all the small states are working through the WTO, the big state would be walking away from all of them at once, in which case it has a lot more to lose. The large group of trade becomes self-sustaining because cost becomes much higher to defect/walk away, even for a hegemon.
This interest has nothing to do with altruism (fits in with neoliberal institutionalism). You set up the game this way. Self interested actors will cooperate and not compete rationally.
Trade and the Environment; interaction—International Political Economy
IR
International Security (war, alliances); not much at the second level of analysis (one example is the democratic peace)
International Political Economy (trade, environment); theories more often at the second level of analysis.
Note on the term “liberalism”—free trade, free economics (though in US, democratic more interested in protectionism, so it’s confusing).
Benefits of Free Trade (according to liberal theories)
Takes advantage of comparative advantage. Both countries do better by trading. “Autarky” is when there is no trade. Tariffs reduce the amount of trade, therefore the benefit of advantage.
By specializing, you might get even more efficient, with economies of scale. Free trade bad for monopolies by increasing competition. Domestic competitors might have barriers to entry, for instance, but international competitors may be well established.
Variety
Counterarguments (arguments FOR protectionism):
Why would you have normative protectionist strategy?
In the same way you should diversify a portfolio to reduce risk, specialization could be risky (eg. If that industry fails).
It might be hard to switch over people from one job to the specialty your country has the comparative advantage in. People don’t want to do that—a sector of society will oppose it. “Embedded liberalism”—you have to take care of the potential loser from trade or they will oppose it. Close to US domestic meaning of “liberal”). How can you protect the people who have to switch over? Slow down specialization, possibly by inhibiting free trade in the short term. The real-world idea that to promote free trade, you need some amount of protectionism.
Security/national defense. Certain things you don’t want to depend on others for (guns, oil, food). Eg. Japan protects its rice industry. This one particularly often wrongly cited because it’s hard to argue against.
Infant industries. Industries too “sensitive” (inefficient). But then they won’t give up their protection; you don’t want to give up your domestic monopoly. No incentive to become more efficient.
Balance of trade (Trade deficit)—tariffs could balance it out. Liberals would argue against tariffs as the tool. Your own currency depreciates, then your exports would go up, so trade would balance naturally.
If you have a comparative advantage in high-wage jobs, low-wage jobs go away, poor hurt; embedded liberalism says not to hurt the poor. Social safety net (welfare, job retraining, unemployment insurance) and protectionism.
What if Pareto-efficiency makes poor worse off? Liberal theories—more government revenue from the richer rich can redistribute the income. But rich won’t want to help. What about other countries’ poor? “Protectionism” refers to protection of your own country. Domestic redistribution (embedded liberalism) with global free trade the big win/win welfare maximization.
Spillover effects—liberal economics=no difference between potato chips and computer chips. But computer chips will give you extra spillover to other high-income/high-tech industries. Also, education levels if you specialize in high-tech will be higher, meaning more skills in various areas. If you need to protect a high-end industry to avoid specializing in low-tech, benefits in long-term outweigh short term costs.
(Krugman’s): strategic Trade Policy—the example of Boeing and Expressjet. Inefficiencies of a subsidy more than made up for by the capture of the rest of the market. Very rare.
Protectionism as a tactic or threat—if another country is doing it, we threaten retaliatory tariffs in order to get them to drop theirs. Game of chicken, with the potential for both to lose/fail, because in order to credible threaten, you may have to actually do it, then things spiral.
Capital Controls
Restriction of money flowing in and out of a country. Investment, usually, in stocks, companies. Country may want to have control over shocks in economy. Eg a 1929-esque spiral for an entire country. Shock/spiral might not happen so quickly if there are restrictions. Even if everyone had capital controls, there would still be foreign investment. Investors look for countries without capital controls. Country chooses between poverty and instability. Currently, countries removing capital controls. Represents, to some people, a diminution of autonomy of states. Cannot control own monetary policy. Not technically imperialism. Countries can set selves apart, like Albania. Or Chile can set up some capital controls—and they didn’t lose foreign investment, but retained control. Chile’s economy—investors willing to invest because it’s stable. Investors don’t think they’ll have to pull money out, so no worry that it would be more difficult to. Regaining this autonomy after gaining stability.
(aside 1997 Asian Financial Crisis: 80’s and 90’s saw a rapid deregulation of capital controls. “hot money” allowing quick removal, and 3 month loans, for example. Then, there was overproduction in Asia, and when that became apparent, people pulled their money out of the countries, accelerating the crash. In a single year, there were double digit losses in GDP. The mobile capital really exacerbated the problem of overproduction. Capital controls somewhat put back in.
The reduction of capital controls from the Western liberal idea of free trade. IMF probably worsened matters by recommending further liberalization, when Asian countries probably needed some level of protection at this point.)
Environment
Everything we read was partially international, but there are really two parts to differentiate between:
International effects on domestic environment (Eg acid rain between Canada and US)
Effects on international environment (Eg global warming)
“Race to the Bottom” comparative advantage can come from low environmental regulations (also, labor standards). So, countries have incentives to pollute, even with local problems results (lead poisoning example).
Local environmental standards—think classical liberalism, interconnectedness. There is no real isolated environment that won’t affect us. But good to differentiate between local and inherently global. Some thing that individual rationalism will not make the collective good. Law could fix the collective decision problem.
Excludable? (can you prevent someone from taking advantage of it?)
Rival? (depletable?)
Yes
No
Yes
Private good (eg pizza)
Common Pool Resource (“tragedy of the commons”; Eg Atmosphere in depletable sense; global fisheries)
No
Club Good/collective Good (once your are allowed membership in the country club, everyone can swim in the poll without depleting)
Public good (Eg swimming in the ocean)
A lot of focus on common pool resources because of tragedy of the commons, lose-lose prisoner’s dilemma.
Wijkman: Solutions—enclosing the commons, privatization. Classic collective action problem—could maybe come to an agreement with smaller compensation. Ideal international management (example with ocean fisheries auctioned, non-winners compensated).
This interest has nothing to do with altruism (fits in with neoliberal institutionalism). You set up the game this way. Self interested actors will cooperate and not compete rationally.
Trade and the Environment; interaction—International Political Economy
IR
International Security (war, alliances); not much at the second level of analysis (one example is the democratic peace)
International Political Economy (trade, environment); theories more often at the second level of analysis.
Note on the term “liberalism”—free trade, free economics (though in US, democratic more interested in protectionism, so it’s confusing).
Benefits of Free Trade (according to liberal theories)
Takes advantage of comparative advantage. Both countries do better by trading. “Autarky” is when there is no trade. Tariffs reduce the amount of trade, therefore the benefit of advantage.
By specializing, you might get even more efficient, with economies of scale. Free trade bad for monopolies by increasing competition. Domestic competitors might have barriers to entry, for instance, but international competitors may be well established.
Variety
Counterarguments (arguments FOR protectionism):
Why would you have normative protectionist strategy?
In the same way you should diversify a portfolio to reduce risk, specialization could be risky (eg. If that industry fails).
It might be hard to switch over people from one job to the specialty your country has the comparative advantage in. People don’t want to do that—a sector of society will oppose it. “Embedded liberalism”—you have to take care of the potential loser from trade or they will oppose it. Close to US domestic meaning of “liberal”). How can you protect the people who have to switch over? Slow down specialization, possibly by inhibiting free trade in the short term. The real-world idea that to promote free trade, you need some amount of protectionism.
Security/national defense. Certain things you don’t want to depend on others for (guns, oil, food). Eg. Japan protects its rice industry. This one particularly often wrongly cited because it’s hard to argue against.
Infant industries. Industries too “sensitive” (inefficient). But then they won’t give up their protection; you don’t want to give up your domestic monopoly. No incentive to become more efficient.
Balance of trade (Trade deficit)—tariffs could balance it out. Liberals would argue against tariffs as the tool. Your own currency depreciates, then your exports would go up, so trade would balance naturally.
If you have a comparative advantage in high-wage jobs, low-wage jobs go away, poor hurt; embedded liberalism says not to hurt the poor. Social safety net (welfare, job retraining, unemployment insurance) and protectionism.
What if Pareto-efficiency makes poor worse off? Liberal theories—more government revenue from the richer rich can redistribute the income. But rich won’t want to help. What about other countries’ poor? “Protectionism” refers to protection of your own country. Domestic redistribution (embedded liberalism) with global free trade the big win/win welfare maximization.
Spillover effects—liberal economics=no difference between potato chips and computer chips. But computer chips will give you extra spillover to other high-income/high-tech industries. Also, education levels if you specialize in high-tech will be higher, meaning more skills in various areas. If you need to protect a high-end industry to avoid specializing in low-tech, benefits in long-term outweigh short term costs.
(Krugman’s): strategic Trade Policy—the example of Boeing and Expressjet. Inefficiencies of a subsidy more than made up for by the capture of the rest of the market. Very rare.
Protectionism as a tactic or threat—if another country is doing it, we threaten retaliatory tariffs in order to get them to drop theirs. Game of chicken, with the potential for both to lose/fail, because in order to credible threaten, you may have to actually do it, then things spiral.
Capital Controls
Restriction of money flowing in and out of a country. Investment, usually, in stocks, companies. Country may want to have control over shocks in economy. Eg a 1929-esque spiral for an entire country. Shock/spiral might not happen so quickly if there are restrictions. Even if everyone had capital controls, there would still be foreign investment. Investors look for countries without capital controls. Country chooses between poverty and instability. Currently, countries removing capital controls. Represents, to some people, a diminution of autonomy of states. Cannot control own monetary policy. Not technically imperialism. Countries can set selves apart, like Albania. Or Chile can set up some capital controls—and they didn’t lose foreign investment, but retained control. Chile’s economy—investors willing to invest because it’s stable. Investors don’t think they’ll have to pull money out, so no worry that it would be more difficult to. Regaining this autonomy after gaining stability.
(aside 1997 Asian Financial Crisis: 80’s and 90’s saw a rapid deregulation of capital controls. “hot money” allowing quick removal, and 3 month loans, for example. Then, there was overproduction in Asia, and when that became apparent, people pulled their money out of the countries, accelerating the crash. In a single year, there were double digit losses in GDP. The mobile capital really exacerbated the problem of overproduction. Capital controls somewhat put back in.
The reduction of capital controls from the Western liberal idea of free trade. IMF probably worsened matters by recommending further liberalization, when Asian countries probably needed some level of protection at this point.)
Environment
Everything we read was partially international, but there are really two parts to differentiate between:
International effects on domestic environment (Eg acid rain between Canada and US)
Effects on international environment (Eg global warming)
“Race to the Bottom” comparative advantage can come from low environmental regulations (also, labor standards). So, countries have incentives to pollute, even with local problems results (lead poisoning example).
Local environmental standards—think classical liberalism, interconnectedness. There is no real isolated environment that won’t affect us. But good to differentiate between local and inherently global. Some thing that individual rationalism will not make the collective good. Law could fix the collective decision problem.
Excludable? (can you prevent someone from taking advantage of it?)
Rival? (depletable?)
Yes
No
Yes
Private good (eg pizza)
Common Pool Resource (“tragedy of the commons”; Eg Atmosphere in depletable sense; global fisheries)
No
Club Good/collective Good (once your are allowed membership in the country club, everyone can swim in the poll without depleting)
Public good (Eg swimming in the ocean)
A lot of focus on common pool resources because of tragedy of the commons, lose-lose prisoner’s dilemma.
Wijkman: Solutions—enclosing the commons, privatization. Classic collective action problem—could maybe come to an agreement with smaller compensation. Ideal international management (example with ocean fisheries auctioned, non-winners compensated).
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
little to big to little again
(oh, and I forgot the link that got me thinking on the below topic, Costa Rica's referendum on the free trade agreement with the US. For better or worse, the topic was at least discussed and understood by the population it affected before it passed.)
In class last week, Professor Rhodes talked about the often-underestimated capabilities of a community to understand for itself the decisions it can make. We had been talking about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth presentation and its value in taking the argument to "the people," who will be just as affected (in this case, by climate change) as those making the decision. I brought up the fact that maybe Al Gore wasn't bringing the full scientific understanding to the people, but he was at least summarizing the work that had been done. I'm trying to find the best way to put what I'm trying to add on to what we talked about in class, but it has to do with the balance between trust in the system and contribution to the system.
In class, when I brought up the fact that Al Gore's presentation is a simplification of the process that at least gets people to trust that the experts really aren't trying to pull one over, Professor Rhodes gave the qualified agreement, but emphasized that people do have more capabilities of understanding than usually credited with. I have been thinking about things that cloud this understanding. And I think a large part of it is distrust in the system (in this case, I would be thinking of the country at large), and this leads to a lack of motiviation and engagement in the decision-making process (another concept emphasized in class).
My thinking is colored by the other classes I'm taking, and this week in International Policy we went over some aspects of Game Theory, about why and when people priorotize their individual goals over the common goals, even if the overall payoff for the common goals is greater. (This is in some ways the crux of why I am interested in public policy). Two of the "solutions" to the Prisoner's Dilemma (in getting the "rational individual"'s decision that's best for him personally to coincide with the one that's best for the group) is to make the group that's making the decision smaller, and to make it known the group will make similar decisions in the future. Therefore, I think of the ideas of community that we are getting at are similar to the solution to the social problem--a finite group whose members all have some connection to each other, and foresee making decisions together in the future.
With fewer decisions being made at the local level, people have less of a reason to form a community that will attempt to understand the problems that are going to affect them. With less reason and motivation to understand problems of varying effect on the individuals, there will more more of an assumption that people aren't capable or willing to understand their problems. Which in turn is going to lead to politicians and extra-community leaders making decisions that will affect them.
OK, this is a little pessimistic, but it's a sort of overarching vicious circle that I can see as a problem in our country being so huge.
I wonder what sense of personal responsibility the children at the Edible Schoolyard will be gleaning from their experience. Will they be more likely to feel empowered when they see the connections they have to the world around them? Or will a small bastien of control in New Orleans seem artificial to them as they grow up and start experiencing the crushing frustrations of most adults trying their best to make a change to the city they love?
In class last week, Professor Rhodes talked about the often-underestimated capabilities of a community to understand for itself the decisions it can make. We had been talking about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth presentation and its value in taking the argument to "the people," who will be just as affected (in this case, by climate change) as those making the decision. I brought up the fact that maybe Al Gore wasn't bringing the full scientific understanding to the people, but he was at least summarizing the work that had been done. I'm trying to find the best way to put what I'm trying to add on to what we talked about in class, but it has to do with the balance between trust in the system and contribution to the system.
In class, when I brought up the fact that Al Gore's presentation is a simplification of the process that at least gets people to trust that the experts really aren't trying to pull one over, Professor Rhodes gave the qualified agreement, but emphasized that people do have more capabilities of understanding than usually credited with. I have been thinking about things that cloud this understanding. And I think a large part of it is distrust in the system (in this case, I would be thinking of the country at large), and this leads to a lack of motiviation and engagement in the decision-making process (another concept emphasized in class).
My thinking is colored by the other classes I'm taking, and this week in International Policy we went over some aspects of Game Theory, about why and when people priorotize their individual goals over the common goals, even if the overall payoff for the common goals is greater. (This is in some ways the crux of why I am interested in public policy). Two of the "solutions" to the Prisoner's Dilemma (in getting the "rational individual"'s decision that's best for him personally to coincide with the one that's best for the group) is to make the group that's making the decision smaller, and to make it known the group will make similar decisions in the future. Therefore, I think of the ideas of community that we are getting at are similar to the solution to the social problem--a finite group whose members all have some connection to each other, and foresee making decisions together in the future.
With fewer decisions being made at the local level, people have less of a reason to form a community that will attempt to understand the problems that are going to affect them. With less reason and motivation to understand problems of varying effect on the individuals, there will more more of an assumption that people aren't capable or willing to understand their problems. Which in turn is going to lead to politicians and extra-community leaders making decisions that will affect them.
OK, this is a little pessimistic, but it's a sort of overarching vicious circle that I can see as a problem in our country being so huge.
I wonder what sense of personal responsibility the children at the Edible Schoolyard will be gleaning from their experience. Will they be more likely to feel empowered when they see the connections they have to the world around them? Or will a small bastien of control in New Orleans seem artificial to them as they grow up and start experiencing the crushing frustrations of most adults trying their best to make a change to the city they love?
Monday, October 8, 2007
Explanation of the term “neoconservative”: US foreign policy debate on how to treat the USSR. Three positions:
1. Rollback—existence of Soviets on the planet were a danger by existing because they would expand/infect world, destroy our freedom. Partly realist. Also worry about the idea “catching on”—liberal notion of “why should you care about people far away.” So partly classical liberalism (we are all connected).
2. Containment—military and political flavor. Quarantine the threat. Do not cooperate. Idea that since our system is better, the communists will eventually collapse.
3. Détente—We don’t have to contain it—that would make the world more dangerous. So we should interact, trade, exchange.
Détente—democratic and Kissinger and Nixon parties associated. “We can live with communism forever.” Other countries freedom doesn’t matter. Very realist, the democrats came around to it in the 70’s.
But there was a backlash—helping was viewed as morally outrageous. Senator Jackson said they need to take a harder line. Became “neoconservative”—deal with USSR because of internal workings, not foreign policy. Not neorealist. Idea of regime changes came around.
(Interdependence continued)
What is the explanation for weak states pushing around strong states (oil crisis again)? Sensitivity (can be though of as short-term). Why was US sensitive, but not vulnerable? Other supply sources of energy. And changes to demand (fuel efficiency). If we’d been vulnerable, war more likely. What is their (K and N) version of interdependence? They add “complex interdependence”—we have many more ties between people than just business to business (“globalization”). The interconnected NGO’s, easier travel, nonstate actors. So, even more things would be lost as a result of war. Recent events suggest this is not the reason for not invading during embargo (2 wars since in Middle East). True that we give up a lot of the inter-dependence, but that still didn’t stop us.
Complex interdependence=the web of [??] matters (think Freedom Fries).
Liberalism—obstacles to collective action
Olson—Do groups act in their own self-interest? Do gropus of rational individuals act in the group’s self-interest?
Public good—everyone benefits.
Collective good—members of the group benefit.
People more likely to free-ride—all of the benefit and none of the cost. This is why we have underprovision of public goods. We are net worse off.
Only a few ways to get it done:
Coercion: “Hegemon” can punish. Forces individual self-interest (eg labor union requires picketing, or you’d lost your job). Hegemonic coercion. Collective action problem (League of Nations).
Hegemonic leadership—a single actor benefits enough to do it rationally (in the mining road example, the mine company itself benefits enough to make the road). Charging the freeriders would be a form of coercion (ie a toll on the road for the miners). Hegemonic coercion sometimes a form of hegemonic leadership. Taxation an example of coercion.
Small group can overcome the problem of freeriding. No anonymity. Only transparency. This facilitates cooperation. “K-group” where K is a small number. This insight from observations of cartels. Smaller=easier. True for all.
So, do we see as little cooperation as predicted? Keep in mind some non-financial benefits can make an action rational even if it seems pure altruistic. Or ethics may drive to “irrational” decision. Enlisting in army and voting are examples. Patriotism is an ethos that makes you act irrationally. These examples are pervasive. Is this true for states? Consider later, when we get to “norms.” For the rest of today we’re going to assume states act on rational self-interest.
Neoliberalism (Neoliberal institutionalism)
Non-normative. (classical assumes no different between individual and common(?).
Even if states selfish and not altruistic, cooperation possible between states. Beating realists at own game (starting with same assumptions, but different potential outcome). Set up so mutual benefit from selfishness.
Axelrod—Prisoner’s Dilemma an depend on how likely to repeat interaction in the future. If played over and over, then the payoffs change. So cost of defecting is now also the likelihood of other side defecting in future. Try to get it so if you cooperate, it’s better for me to cooperate. “tit for tat” won the competition/simulation. You cooperate last time, I cooperate this time. Same for defection. Evolution of the cooperators surviving.
Relative Gains vs. Absolute Gains
If both countries get absolute gains in a trade deal, but country B gets a relative gain, will country A support the deal? Realists say no. Neoliberals say yes.
Country A
Country B
GDP
5
5
GDP (with trade)
7
8
Normative only in that structures that would promote this should be constructed. Anyway, what will state A actually do in the above situation? When will a state not care about relative gains?
No switch in dominance (but may think about it more carefully if dominance lessened against certain states)
Is the other state a rival? I.e. If A/B is US/UK vs. US/USSR
Idea of a “friend” vs. “rival.” Walt, remember, said there are other factors besides power. Balance of Power Vs. Balance of Threat (determined by aggressive intentions). By Waltz prescription, it’s better to be poorer as there’s no relative loss, even if a friend. We should suffer, so they suffer more. Not a popular idea, so democrats and republicans both favor open trade.
Order of countries preferences
Cooperate
Defect
Cooperate
2
2
1
4
Defect
4
1
3
3
Countries acting rationally, in their own self-interest, end up in Box 4 (both defecting)
Oye— Getting from box 4à1. Olson’s idea of having a small group of people. Detecting defection is easier—Defection is less attractive. Or Axelrod’s prescription—repeat iterations (“lengthening the shadow of the future”) so tit-for-tat can become a prescription and rational decision. Alter the payoffs (directly, not just shadow of the future). One idea is the one of “hostages,” making it so you and others suffer more if you defect. Put your own troops in harm’s way (similar to First Move Advantage scenario.). Publicize a treaty. Everyone knows if you break it, no one trusts you, not just the person you broke it with (Wilson’s idea). How do you lengthen the shadow of the future? Don’t fling open doors—becomes a one-shot game if they stab you in the back. Peace negotiations, slow etc. Start seeing several rounds of them, each one becomes more and more likely. How an you increase your ability to discern what is defection (worst misperception is they cooperate but you think they are defecting).
Transparency and “norms” help with misperception.
Set a norm—if the norm/agreement is 100 missiles per year, 100 is cooperation. If only 50/yr, 100 is defection. Norms needed to clarify cooperation and defection.
Reduce number of players. Better to have local trade agreements rather than, for example, the WTO. Total gains vs. individual gains again. How do you split up the total gains?
An individual may gain more from something that benefits less overall. All of these things can be done by institutions. Building, norms, rules for example.
Keohane most famous for explaining why institutions can do this increase in cooperation.
§ They provide information, which creates transparency. Eg. International Atomic Energy Agency.
§ Reduction of transaction costs. Cooperation more costly if you need lawyers, negotiations; cumbersome. Institutions can reduce those costs. Economies of scale.
§ They lengthen the shadow of the future. If you screw over someone, you might have to face them the next day (at the UN, for example, on a different issue the next day). That’s why there are very few vetoes in the UN).
§ Institutions can also provide for enforcement. Punishment if a country defects. Possibly less likely to use violent means. Institutions have smaller numbers, more likely to carry out enforcement as it’s a collective good.
1. Rollback—existence of Soviets on the planet were a danger by existing because they would expand/infect world, destroy our freedom. Partly realist. Also worry about the idea “catching on”—liberal notion of “why should you care about people far away.” So partly classical liberalism (we are all connected).
2. Containment—military and political flavor. Quarantine the threat. Do not cooperate. Idea that since our system is better, the communists will eventually collapse.
3. Détente—We don’t have to contain it—that would make the world more dangerous. So we should interact, trade, exchange.
Détente—democratic and Kissinger and Nixon parties associated. “We can live with communism forever.” Other countries freedom doesn’t matter. Very realist, the democrats came around to it in the 70’s.
But there was a backlash—helping was viewed as morally outrageous. Senator Jackson said they need to take a harder line. Became “neoconservative”—deal with USSR because of internal workings, not foreign policy. Not neorealist. Idea of regime changes came around.
(Interdependence continued)
What is the explanation for weak states pushing around strong states (oil crisis again)? Sensitivity (can be though of as short-term). Why was US sensitive, but not vulnerable? Other supply sources of energy. And changes to demand (fuel efficiency). If we’d been vulnerable, war more likely. What is their (K and N) version of interdependence? They add “complex interdependence”—we have many more ties between people than just business to business (“globalization”). The interconnected NGO’s, easier travel, nonstate actors. So, even more things would be lost as a result of war. Recent events suggest this is not the reason for not invading during embargo (2 wars since in Middle East). True that we give up a lot of the inter-dependence, but that still didn’t stop us.
Complex interdependence=the web of [??] matters (think Freedom Fries).
Liberalism—obstacles to collective action
Olson—Do groups act in their own self-interest? Do gropus of rational individuals act in the group’s self-interest?
Public good—everyone benefits.
Collective good—members of the group benefit.
People more likely to free-ride—all of the benefit and none of the cost. This is why we have underprovision of public goods. We are net worse off.
Only a few ways to get it done:
Coercion: “Hegemon” can punish. Forces individual self-interest (eg labor union requires picketing, or you’d lost your job). Hegemonic coercion. Collective action problem (League of Nations).
Hegemonic leadership—a single actor benefits enough to do it rationally (in the mining road example, the mine company itself benefits enough to make the road). Charging the freeriders would be a form of coercion (ie a toll on the road for the miners). Hegemonic coercion sometimes a form of hegemonic leadership. Taxation an example of coercion.
Small group can overcome the problem of freeriding. No anonymity. Only transparency. This facilitates cooperation. “K-group” where K is a small number. This insight from observations of cartels. Smaller=easier. True for all.
So, do we see as little cooperation as predicted? Keep in mind some non-financial benefits can make an action rational even if it seems pure altruistic. Or ethics may drive to “irrational” decision. Enlisting in army and voting are examples. Patriotism is an ethos that makes you act irrationally. These examples are pervasive. Is this true for states? Consider later, when we get to “norms.” For the rest of today we’re going to assume states act on rational self-interest.
Neoliberalism (Neoliberal institutionalism)
Non-normative. (classical assumes no different between individual and common(?).
Even if states selfish and not altruistic, cooperation possible between states. Beating realists at own game (starting with same assumptions, but different potential outcome). Set up so mutual benefit from selfishness.
Axelrod—Prisoner’s Dilemma an depend on how likely to repeat interaction in the future. If played over and over, then the payoffs change. So cost of defecting is now also the likelihood of other side defecting in future. Try to get it so if you cooperate, it’s better for me to cooperate. “tit for tat” won the competition/simulation. You cooperate last time, I cooperate this time. Same for defection. Evolution of the cooperators surviving.
Relative Gains vs. Absolute Gains
If both countries get absolute gains in a trade deal, but country B gets a relative gain, will country A support the deal? Realists say no. Neoliberals say yes.
Country A
Country B
GDP
5
5
GDP (with trade)
7
8
Normative only in that structures that would promote this should be constructed. Anyway, what will state A actually do in the above situation? When will a state not care about relative gains?
No switch in dominance (but may think about it more carefully if dominance lessened against certain states)
Is the other state a rival? I.e. If A/B is US/UK vs. US/USSR
Idea of a “friend” vs. “rival.” Walt, remember, said there are other factors besides power. Balance of Power Vs. Balance of Threat (determined by aggressive intentions). By Waltz prescription, it’s better to be poorer as there’s no relative loss, even if a friend. We should suffer, so they suffer more. Not a popular idea, so democrats and republicans both favor open trade.
Order of countries preferences
Cooperate
Defect
Cooperate
2
2
1
4
Defect
4
1
3
3
Countries acting rationally, in their own self-interest, end up in Box 4 (both defecting)
Oye— Getting from box 4à1. Olson’s idea of having a small group of people. Detecting defection is easier—Defection is less attractive. Or Axelrod’s prescription—repeat iterations (“lengthening the shadow of the future”) so tit-for-tat can become a prescription and rational decision. Alter the payoffs (directly, not just shadow of the future). One idea is the one of “hostages,” making it so you and others suffer more if you defect. Put your own troops in harm’s way (similar to First Move Advantage scenario.). Publicize a treaty. Everyone knows if you break it, no one trusts you, not just the person you broke it with (Wilson’s idea). How do you lengthen the shadow of the future? Don’t fling open doors—becomes a one-shot game if they stab you in the back. Peace negotiations, slow etc. Start seeing several rounds of them, each one becomes more and more likely. How an you increase your ability to discern what is defection (worst misperception is they cooperate but you think they are defecting).
Transparency and “norms” help with misperception.
Set a norm—if the norm/agreement is 100 missiles per year, 100 is cooperation. If only 50/yr, 100 is defection. Norms needed to clarify cooperation and defection.
Reduce number of players. Better to have local trade agreements rather than, for example, the WTO. Total gains vs. individual gains again. How do you split up the total gains?
An individual may gain more from something that benefits less overall. All of these things can be done by institutions. Building, norms, rules for example.
Keohane most famous for explaining why institutions can do this increase in cooperation.
§ They provide information, which creates transparency. Eg. International Atomic Energy Agency.
§ Reduction of transaction costs. Cooperation more costly if you need lawyers, negotiations; cumbersome. Institutions can reduce those costs. Economies of scale.
§ They lengthen the shadow of the future. If you screw over someone, you might have to face them the next day (at the UN, for example, on a different issue the next day). That’s why there are very few vetoes in the UN).
§ Institutions can also provide for enforcement. Punishment if a country defects. Possibly less likely to use violent means. Institutions have smaller numbers, more likely to carry out enforcement as it’s a collective good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
