Civil Society: How We Have Made a Difference

The following piece is an essay I was assigned to write for my "Governance & Global Civil Society" class this semester. It is a reflection paper of a Michael Edwards' book simplistically entitled, "Civil Society". The book has become a standard work of reference for those who seek to understand the role of citizenship and voluntary civil action in the contemporary globalized (or should I say "globalizing") world in which we live. I would definitely recommend it for those who are interested in differences of interepration of words such as, "democracy", "society", "civil society", "nationalism", along with many other words... and/or navigate through the inquiries associated with these words. It's fairly short for a subjects to which he relates (192 pages), and it concisely states examples well-related to his arguments.

September 12, 2012

Civil Society: How We Have Made a Difference

In the 21^st century, the term “civil society” is becoming a central organizing concept of the social sciences. Since the substantial increase in decentralization of government, many of our current debates about politics and social policy challenge the public to look at things in a new way. I have personally felt that, as time progresses, it gets more difficult to have a conversation with someone on this matter without looking at things from different contexts; in other words, one must compare the present day to historical events and/or cultures. In his book (2009), Michael Edwards continuously uses examples to describe these complex issues and asks us several questions within each chapter that help us think critically on the subject at hand.

One of the thematic reasons behind the new notion of “civil society” derives from the concept of inclusivity. As stated throughout the book, the phrase “civil society” has different meanings. In the beginning, the author explains that an individual; state; country; region; or culture may see civil society as a specific product for a government and/or organization(s) to uphold. He refers to more specific examples of the translation of civil society; Bangladesh translates civil as “gentle” society, while Turkey translates civil as “that which is not related to the military”. (p. 46)

On a related note, the discussion of the distinctions between a “strong civil society” and a “society that is strong and civil” (p. 62) is a concept I have not acknowledged in the past. Edwards implies that the world currently should have a foundation of the latter. In the past, debates have taken place where people use the rhetoric of their arguments to “win” against their “enemies”. From the perspective of civil society needing to be “good,” Michael Edwards makes a valid point by saying that it is necessary to “find [one’s] allies – and identify [one’s] enemies.” (p. 62) By metaphorically thinking of people who follow this logic as the “heroes” of global governance, doesn’t this mean that we are assuming that not everyone wants  peace; love; and civility? As a matter of fact, wouldn’t this also imply that we are trying to seek out the evil in people who are seen as a threat to “our” society? Wouldn’t this, in turn, hypocritically impede what they are trying to promote in the first place? Finally, the definition of “good” seems like a qualitative measure that cannot be obtained: how do we know if we are progressing (or regressing)? In the era in which we currently live, and every other era before it, I cannot think of any one instance where this idea has actually worked. I wouldn’t eliminate the idea completely, but I would argue that the foundation of civil society should be built on Edwards’ use of the term, “strong civil society”.

For years, I have criticized the western world’s continuous creation of NGOs and the encouragement of volunteers. It is not because of the work they do (because I know that they have good intentions), but it is what they represent. This decentralization of government (in most parts of the world) is an attempt to shift the issues that all levels of government have been striving to “fix”. Edwards claims that the issue is not about what/who can make a society civil. Instead, we should be working to strengthen the pre-conditions in which interactions between all three sectors he mentions (association life, good society, and the public sphere) attribute to peace and social justice.

Throughout his book, Edwards discusses how all forms of “inequality” need to be eliminated via pre-existing features in the world: discrimination, lack of civil rights, the refusal to grant independence of states or regions, and the lack of communication between associations. What I personally learned through his wisdom is the idea of looking at things from other people’s points of view, while investigating something more important than what Edwards mentions only sporadically. I would argue that we would need to focus on an even bigger picture than what the concept of inequality signifies, as inequality refers to an unequal distribution of resources. This is only a result that is produced by the concept of inequity, which refers to the unfair, avoidable differences which arise from poor governance, corruption, or cultural exclusion. Based on this idea, I would raise two final questions: “What are the elements (and lack thereof) that expand or assist in the worldwide inequities remain?” and “What can we do to prevent these inequities from impeding the existence of a civil society?” Based on Edwards’ ideas, we cannot answer these questions without the involvement and consensus of all associations. Only then will we move forward and create a positive influence for our respective communities.

An Outlook of a Counterintelligence Program/Stopping Subliminal Ignorance

It's a Sunday afternoon, and I have had so much on my mind within the last 24 hours. No, it doesn't have to do with what I did last night… and no, it doesn't have anything to do with Tony Parker winning the Skills challenge; Kevin Love winning the 3-point shootout; or Jeremy Evans winning the Slam Dunk Contest (I'm a fan of the NBA All-Star weekend… what can I say?).

What I really wanted to discuss were a couple videos I watched and a little bit of research I did last night and this morning.

Before reading this in its entirety, I want you to watch (at least) the first part of a little history lesson by hip-hop legend KRS-One during his visit at Temple University:

Former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (the very first director of the FBI), issued a counter-intelligence program, which (in KRS-One's words) was "the FBI's way of checking up on and breaking up social organizations". In other words, the purpose of this endeavor was to use their power to counter against any group of people who posed as a "threat". These threats include features that many young people in society overlook: revolting for civil rights, joining unions for equal pay, the FBI's perceptions of who they thought were communists, etc. Hoover knew that what they stood for may have inspired others to go against what the superior wanted, which is why one of his set long-term goals for the Black community was to "prevent the coalition of [these] groups". The document proceeds by stating, "In unity, there is strength," and, "An effective coalition of Black nationalist groups might be the first step toward a real 'Mau Mau' in America, the beginning of a true Black revolution." Note that "Mau Mau" is referring to the uprising that took place in Kenya from 1952-1960 that essentially ended the British military campaign there.

Another way of preventing the Black community from gaining any societal influence, one of J. Edgar Hoover's long-term goals on his agenda was to prevent the rise of a "Black messiah". As stated before, any person who went against the beliefs of powerful people posed as a threat because it went against their individual wants… and what they wanted was more power over the people.

KRS-One, also known as, "The Teacha", helped remind everyone (including myself) that the primary reason for the initiative of getting rid of leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Stokely Carmichael (organizer and spokesperson of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, who popularized the term, "Black Power"), Elijah Muhammad (leader of the Nation of Islam), and the characteristics and personality of Malcolm X… who died in 1965, before this was written in 1967.

The Teacha follows these statements with something that is extremely important to recognize today. He implies that the people who have been assassinated (i.e. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X) were killed because of what they represented. There are many people today who say that the primary reason that these two leaders were killed was because they were Black… because of racial hatred. They compare the deaths of Dr. King and Malcolm X to the general misinterpreted view of what the Ku Klux Klan is, or the misperception of who Hitler is in this day and age.

It is now decades later, and the society has now become a product of what I'd like to call "subliminal ignorance". Simply put, being ignorant is when one lacks knowledge or awareness and chooses to completely "ignore" sources that may help them gain this knowledge or awareness. Subliminal ignorance is when people don't know that they lack this knowledge or awareness, and therefore subconsciously ignore the problem that exists. In other words, there is an issue of not knowing about the issue.

To make things clear, KRS-One uses a great example in his TU lecture. The United States government is blamed for a lot of things that they are not actually responsible for (or at least not solely responsible). Going back to this "counterintelligence program", FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (a person that holds a very high status in the government) was a man who manipulated the society for his personal good: to keep the white, rich male superior to everyone else. Meanwhile, the FBI (a governmental agency in the Department of Justice and an organization that we are supposed to trust), is now considered questionable because of certain individuals' preferences and establishing policies for the society to follow.

How does this relate to how we think today? Well, how many times have you heard people blame the government for what they have done? How many times have people criticized Barack Obama for the things he does/has done? "Stupid health care system..." "Stupid war…" "Stupid people in the government who don't know how to do their job…"

Now… in comparison to that, how many times have you heard people criticize the government for not doing something? Mind you, this was something that people in the Civil Rights Movement did… and, in turn, the society saw some changes. However, after the seventies, more and more people are saying things like, "Racism doesn't exist anymore," or, "We live in a more equal society now." The struggle for equity has been impeded for decades, as people of a superiority are still doing a good job at maintaining their huge abundance of power. We, the common people, are not doing a good job of battling against them anymore.

Have we given up… or have we just lost our motivation? I truly believe it is the latter, and that we just need to find a motivation as a collective group. We need to let people become more aware of what is hidden from us. This is a message to stop ordinary ignorance, but more importantly to stop subliminal ignorance, as well. To re-use a quote from the proposal of the counterintelligence program: "In unity, there is strength." Let's use this strength to go against the "superior individuals".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the links to the other videos of KRS-One's lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQYr31GWqT0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1mgPr8X7ls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab6gfvYzxr0

Knowledge Reigns Supreme Over Nearly Everyone

Some People Say

Original Date Written: July 18, 2011

A lot of people say I tend to overthink... that I think too much. They also say that this leads to my fear and nervousness. This is a message to them.

Everyone has ideas. Everyone has opinions. Some are formed and won't change… some are formed and will change… and some aren't formed at all. With that said, these opinions are formed through words, as it is the common way people think about when they "communicate". Words that have the same meaning have different meanings. To some people, "bad" means "good". To some people, "fine" means "not fine". To some people, "stupid" means "wonderful". Having the full understanding of the English language is probably the hardest thing to tackle; well, that… and trying to grasp the concept of "true love"… but that's another story.

A lot of people say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones… but words will never hurt me." It's quite ironic that the saying is only said when someone's true emotions are expressed in an aggressive, sad, or pessimistic manner. It's important to acknowledge that words have more meaning than people think. Why else would people say, "Things are better to be left unsaid."? Because words hurt. Why is it encouraged to say encouraging words to the discouraged? Because words heal. There is a quote by Siddhartha Gotoma which holds true: "Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill."

Some say tomay-to… others say tomah-to

Some say soccer… others say football

Some say bang… others say make love

Some say bitch… others say lady

When one says hoe… another person may think of a gardening tool.

When one says gay… another person may think that he's happy.

When one says douchebag… another person may think of hygienic equipment.

When one says molest… another person may think about annoyance.

On that note… this is why I hesitate and/or take time when I use my words: because I want everything to be said perfectly. However, over the years, I've come to realize that there's no such thing as perfect. Regardless of whether or not my sentences are perfect, people are going to think the way they're going to think. What I attempt to do with my words is make people see things from my perspective… and that is all.

Furthermore, I think that having a voice and using it is one of the greatest gifts God has given us. Just as he gave us lungs to breathe, a brain to think, and a heart for our whole bodies to function, take advantage of your larynx (combined with your lungs, brain, and heart) and use your voice to its full potential. Don’t just say the ordinary: come up with your own way of saying things.

To give an example, there's a girl I'd like to think I know quite well… although I'm not sure yet. A lot of people think they know who she really is (including myself), but it wasn't until a few weeks ago when I found out how underappreciated she was as a person.

Some say she's weird… I say she's unique.

Some say she's smart… I say she's intelligent.

Some say she's funny… I say she's hilarious.

Some say she's cute… I say she's endearing.

Some say she's hot… I say she's beautiful.

Some say she's deep… I say she's profound.

Some say she's dreaming… I say she's coming to reality.

Use your words wisely, y'all.

"Don't forget to forgive, but don't forgive to forget." (Something I always say)

Introduction: Old Enough (18)

Hello, world. My name is Romi Ezzo... and I am ready to meet the public.

If you do not know me yet, you surely will soon.

There are two things I like to do; not just two things, but you know what I mean. I love to write, and I love to think. Creating a blog with the broad purpose of writing down my thoughts and sharing them with everyone will allow me to do just that.

Through this blog, my goal is to engage people in conversation and analysis of the events and issues in everyday life. I hope to show examples of some reflective writing that don't only give people a point of view on a screen, but to also make people think critically about their own perspectives. Some people might learn something new, or even get inspired. In my case, after reading a few of my friend's blogposts, I can say that it has done a combination of both. Hence, the blogpost: My Crest of Consciousness.

Also, the idea of reading other perspectives (comments/responses) from other people already sounds intriguing! So, feel free to leave some feedback for me... down there.

||

v

(My failed attempt of a "down arrow".)

Anyways, because I have nothing, I'm going to show you a piece that I wrote last summer (July 27th, 2011), dedicated to my sister who (at the time) was about to turn 18.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's just an ordinary day… and tomorrow will be, as well. I'm still going to wake up groggier than a man hanging over from another good time. I'm still going to start my day by looking at a man in the mirror preceding a masterful throw of warm water on my face that is so refreshing, I don't even want to go back to bed. Before opening my door to beams of sunlight and head downstairs to my dining room table where a laptop awaits me with a cluster of emails, I indirectly think about how I'm going to prepare myself to the best of my ability for anything that comes across my path… and, of course, think to myself: "What a wonderful world!"

Sometimes, I think about my days of yore, and how long ago 'twas when I was young… or shall I say: younger. 'Twas a score ago when I had been wrought. Okay… I'm not that old, but I must say: I am older… older than I was before I reached a certain age.

When I was seventeen, it was a very good year. It was a very good year for small town girls… and soft summer nights; kind of like this year, and last year, and the one before. It will only be a matter of time when I start talking about when I was twenty-one, living below perfume scented girls whose legs open quicker than the bottle cap popping out of an effervescing Pepsi bottle. It'll only be a matter of time when I will start talking about effervescing champagne bottles.

Turning eighteen is a big deal to many people. In the U.S., you are finally given a taste of the freedom that a typical seventeen-year-old anticipates: marrying an asshole/bitch, divorcing an asshole/bitch, and suing an asshole/bitch. Okay… not exactly what most seventeen-year olds look forward to, but there are other things, too: joining the military, adopting a child, becoming a stripper. No? How about buying lottery tickets or paying taxes? Am I getting any closer? (Well, it's freedom, isn't it?)

In all seriousness, there is all of this freedom that everyone brags about once they turn eighteen. I used to look forward to being in charge of my own bank account, being able to vote, and having the eligibility to shop for porn. Of course, there are the people who completely take advantage of their liberties at this fine age by instilling "artistic" ink into their bodies, buy products bad for their health, and (literally) gamble away their life and end up in prison. However, with all these crazy age laws about what we can legally do, it creates all these ideas in our heads. It makes us think about all of the things we still can't do at eighteen. It makes us think about "aging" at an early age. It takes out all the fun of why people do the (then) illegal things in the first place. Seriously, do you know many middle-aged people or senior citizens who decide to pick up a cigarette and light it if they've never smoked anything in their life?

So… moral of the story: When making decisions as an independent person, live life dangerously while you can. Make life exciting, as life gets too boring eventually. (Coming from the wise and experienced words of a twenty-year-old who has lived out most of his life…)

Bless you all… whether you have sneezed or not.

References:

Papa Roach's "Forever"

Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World"

Frank Sinatra's "It Was a Good Year"