How does Arendt's concept of totalitarianism and or/propaganda apply to your issue? Apply Benhabib's critique of tying citizenship exclusively to nation to your issue? How does Bosniak's view of non-citizen citizenship apply to your issue?
I think that Arendt's concept of totalitarianism and propaganda apply to my issue in a positive way, if I understand her concept and definition: "the destruction of spontaneous thought and action". To me that means it's eliminating impulse action. If she believes that totalitarianism will eliminate impulse action then in regards to at risk activity we might have lesser numbers. On the other hand it could also not being effective in that while it eliminates spontaneous action and thought, who's to say that being involved in at risk activity is impulse? It can be when you have nothing else to turn to the one day your life goes completely into shambles, so you turn to drugs or alcohol, but usually these things happen over a period of time and that's when it becomes dangerous. Her concept of propaganda though I believe is beneficial to my issue because 1) there isn't enough of it and 2) it's important that there is more advocacy of programs to prevent these issues from continuing to arise. The right form of propaganda is key though, and I think that was another important aspect she touched on. She said that it needs to spread something that will make people believe it is real and happening and could happen to you, it should scare you into doing something about it. That's why Hitler was successful, but how far can it really go?
In regards to the Benhabib reading, I think that we have a very serious problem with the way we view citizenship and applying to undocumented residents. In terms of how this applies to my issue though, I am not really sure how it does other than we can't always accommodate everyone thought they belong to a political community or community in general. Benhabib stated that practices should be non-discriminatory in scope. I diigoed that we can't really just make exceptions for everyone all the time, and unfortunately I believe that's the truth. However when politically speaking, it's especially harsh on my issue because they are children who don't have a right to vote. They definitely can't be accommodated if they don't belong to a "political citizenship" of sorts. It's really hard all the barriers there are between state and nation citizenship but that doesn't really affect my issue either. Over all I don't believe that the people affected by my issue feel represented when it comes to that.
One aspect of this reading that I was particularly interested in was establishing global citizen rights. I think it's necessary because while these things that would be considered rights, are norms in most urban societies. It's really difficult to make them norms in other societies where they don't see it in the same light. At risk activity within you is something that his happening in many countries and I think everyone handles it differetnly. By establishing some sort of norms or rights it'd be easier to manage and help. Other than that I don't really see how this non citizenship and citizenship ideology really applies to my issue because we are dealing with children and whether or not they are legal it's still right to help them.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Posted in | |
0 Comments »
One Responses to "7."