Discordja

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Recovered Memory Review Annotated Bibliography

Brewin, C. R., & Andrews, B. (2017). False memories of childhood abuse. Psychologist, 48–52. Retrieved from http://proxygsu-ogl1.galileo.usg.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123687930&site=ehost-live

Brewin and Andrews review previous literature to investigate whether therapists are to blame for false memories of child abuse. In one study, 15 per cent of participants fully accept a false memory and discusses how false memory implantation works. The repression memory hypothesis is critiqued as not having enough empirical evidence to support its validity but nonetheless scientifically plausible, especially in light of dissociative amnesia. Based on 11 surveys since 1994, therapists have a low 17 per cent belief in the validity of recovered repressed memories but 43 per cent of clinical practitioners were reported to believe that recovered memories were accurate sometimes. In short, clinicians are not as informed as they should be in terms of latest psychological knowledge. Therapists were more likely to not believe in the possibility of accurate repressed memory retrieval. Repressed memory recover should not be accepted as true at face value.

Colangelo, J. J. (2009). The Recovered Memory Controversy: A Representative Case Study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538710802584601

Contributing to the controversial debate on recovered memories, Colangelo discusses the Freudian theory of memory repression which is essentially being used by the proponents that suggest recovered memories are often true. Studies cited in the article suggest that interference is more likely than actual memory repression. However, a critic of that finding is cited as mentioning that it is difficult to falsify Freud’s theory of repression as much of what Freud suggested to be influenced by repressed memories are impossible to study in an experimental setting because it would be unethical. An alternative to repression is dissociation. Dissociation here means the memory encoded is not erased by stored in a different stream of consciousness but not consciously known about. Very similar to repressed how repressed memories are stored theoretically. This eventually to multiple forms of dissociation. Two “distinct types” are detachment and compartmentalization. A case study examined and with reference to a few previous studies, the author concludes that it is possible for people to recover memories once forgotten with about a 60 per cent veracity rate. The mechanism behind forgetting memories, however, is not understood here; another study I cite does research the mechanism, however.

Corsiglia McMahon & Allard. (2018). Child Sexual Abuse Repressed Memories. Retrieved from https://childmolestationattorneys.com/repressed-memories-child-sex-abuse/

This website page hosted by “Attorneys for Child Molestation Victims” explains why childhood sexual abuse may cause repressed memories to be retrieved as an adult many years after the actual abuse occurred. The page suggests that research has proven that traumatic experiences trigger a defense mechanism within the brain to block memories. Further, the page suggests that even if you have “only the vaguest memory of the incident”, that you should come forward to report the incident to the police.

Geraerts, E., Lindsay, D. S., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., Raymaekers, L., Arnold, M. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Recovered-Memory Experiences of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Psychological Science (0956-7976), 20(1), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02247.x

Geraerts et al., attempt to remedy the lack of research done in how recovered memories come to be. According to previous research, recovered memories can be false or partly false but not always by suggestive therapy. The “forgot it all along” (FIA) phenomenon and “Deese-Roediger-McDermott false-memory task” test are tested hypotheses in this article. In a double dissociation study, the FIA task had significantly more false memory reports. Participants who spontaneously recovered memories were no more likely to have a false recall.

McNally, R. J. (2017). False Memories in the Laboratory and in Life: Commentary on Brewin and Andrews (2016). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 40–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3268

In rebuttal to Brewin and Andrews’ article, McNally provides relevant citations that may be referenced in writing the paper. There are about five mentioned factors that contribute to false recovered memories. Firstly, a person needs to have a belief in a repressed memory of, say, sexual abuse, but the belief alone is not enough. A retrieval cue or method must be accredited for recalling the memory. Psychotherapy or a clinician may increase the chances of recovering false memories. “Magical ideation and absorption” increase the likelihood of false memories as well as dissociation.

McNally, R. J., & Geraerts, E. (2009). A New Solution to the Recovered Memory Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01112.x

McNally and Geraerts explore a new solution to the recovered memory debate and the different interpretations that have been previously formed to explain why recovered memories of child sexual abuse was found to be false. These interpretations and the solution proposed by McNally and Geraerts will be examined and compared to various articles and their findings. One interpretation suggests that traumatic events can be repressed by the brain but is recovered years later. The false memory interpretation suggests that traumatic events are not encoded properly within the brain, however the two authors support the idea that empirical evidence does not support this interpretation. McNally and Geraerts then suggest a third interpretation that revolves around the idea that there is a lack of a memory retrieval cue in recovering the sexual abuse one experienced as a child and it is through recollective experiences that one recovers memories, but clinicians and psychotherapists can recover a patient’s memory in a suggestive way—thus misleading and causing one to think they remember something they had not gone through.

Sharman, S.J., & Scorbia, A. (2009). Imagination equally influences false memories of high and low plausibility events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 813. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1515

Sharman and Scoboria touch on the effects of event plausibility on participants’ false memories. Techniques and methods one can use to implant false memories of events are discussed, but what the authors want to further research is whether plausibility influences recovered memories. Previous experiments and their conclusions similar to the one the authors’ experiment are discussed. The experiment used students from an Australian university as their participants. Questionnaires were mainly used to gather various information such as how clearly the participants can clearly visualize their childhood memories and certain events such as losing a toy or witnessing ghosts or demons. The results are compared to previous research. The authors’ findings contrast what they had read and discussed prior to the experiment. Participants had clearer and “more complete memories” of imagined and highly plausible events. Imagination inflation was shown regardless of event plausibility. By questioning participants on highly plausible event, participants generated sensory details that were memory fragments of “genuine” experiences. Event plausibility affected memory but not confidence ratings. Some of the results were consistent with literature reviews such as that memory ratings increased confidence ratings. Further, event plausibility does not affect imagination inflation; participants had clearer memories for highly plausible events. Imagined memories are confidently held, regardless of plausibility.

As of now, the conclusion should be akin to the idea that memories can be recovered but they may be done so with a low veracity rate. Certain techniques and mechanisms behind the repression of memories and their recovery will be discussed. The main idea is to discuss what the common findings are from a decent sample size of articles on the topic of repressed memories and their experiments, literature reviews, or books. Repressed memories are usually defined as traumatic memory that is difficult memory to remember. Other interpretations as to how memories are lost will be included as well.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Community within Modernity

Modern society has often been credited with an emphasis on the individual rather than the community. This emphasis on the individual has caused worry and speculation that too much individualism will fragment and erode community. So, the modern challenge then becomes to find a way to a synthesis of both community and individualism by having communities without the establishment of unequal power hierarchies. This also poses a question of whether individualism and community are essential to understanding modernity. Communities and individuals, because they exist within relation to one another, are drawn into conflict. Most notably, there are conflicts between communities of peoples fighting for their self-interests. This starts with the Neolithic era producing men with leisure and can produce new ideas through the medium of language. One of the most notable examples of communities being drawn into conflict is noted within The Revolution within the Thirteen Colonies which featured different communities of people coming together to secede from the Crown. After The Revolution, there is a fragmentation of community again as people begin to care more for pluralistic, ethnic, and interest-based ideas and representation. While this is not so much focused on the individual and individualism, communities are formed by individuals with similar interests.

To begin, individualism and individuality will refer to the definition given by Crittenden (1992); the individualism is

“constituted by individuals whose goal is to fulfill private ends… whose principal characteristic is the possession of individual rights that have priority over societal needs.”

The individual, too, may alter the interests of a community or form new communities of people. In contrast, the community is defined as a general will or public interest of groups of people (e.g., sex, gender, class, nationality, and profession). The imagined community is similar in that there is a common interest, but many of the individuals within the community will never meet yet will acknowledge the community’s members whenever given the opportunity (Anderson, 2016, pg 6). These imagined communities may overlap with communities but also include communities revolving around ideas or abstracts such as music genres, bands, literature, artists, art, and the likes. One such community of people are the English.

Englishmen, as Gordon S. Wood (1993) writes, during the eighteenth century were known to be unruly subjects but the English subject used the king as a “common tie” among other English subjects. The king served as the head of family and his children were all those who pledged allegiance to him, thus forming a community— “monarchial society”— among the English. The Englishmen and others in the Thirteen Colonies would grow tired of being under English rule and rebel to form a new community of Americans. Here, there is conflict between two communities of peoples. Those who wanted to be independent from the king and instill democratic-republican values in a new nation instead of continuing a sort of aristocratic and monarchial society. The common tie among the Americans in their newfound country is difficult to establish. The common tie can be the country for which it stands and the ability to purse life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all her citizens. This comes into conflict with what the king had wanted: complete dependency of the colonists on the crown. Individuals with their intended interests joined their factions and communities to either benefit from a community that wanted for more equality within its ranks or a community that preferred inequality and dependency on the crown. This presented an example of the modern dilemma: conflict between individualism, community, and equality.

After the American Revolution, what remnants of the aristocracy had been done away with, communities and individuals were then able to pursue their self-interests and independency if they felt like doing so. This was a radical change from the monarchial society, as Gordon S. Wood (1993) writes, the making of every man to be independent could not be “more radical” and The Revolution was itself a revolt against dependency. For, the previous monarchial society depended on patrons and clients who were all subordinate to the king. The unruly English (and others) no long wanted to be subservient, for as Jefferson put it, “dependence begets subservience” (Wood, 1993, pg. 179) The English preferred instead to be independent peoples, meaning people who owned property and could live “of themselves” (Wood, 1993, pg. 179) Servants, then, are those who cannot live independently. Two communities had to have clashed for both the accessibility to independency and equal rights.

Further, by extending equal rights and equal opportunity among all people within the then-new founded America, a new community a new and vast community was formed: the American people. This community, composed of by individuals, had their own self-interests and new opportunities afforded unto them to take. For instance, government positions were no longer accessible only to English aristocrats. Luxury goods were increasingly being imported for the consumption by all those who could afford them. In other words, what was only accessible to the aristocratic class under monarchial society was now accessible to those with means instead of class or of certain communities. Equality was won in The Revolution. Not total Equality was won in all her forms, but more equality than was available previously. Community and individual interests, however, became much stronger and arguably fractured the broad community of the American people. There was a turning point in American history that caused the “very staple” of American politics and that is “pluralistic, ethnic, interest-group politics” (Wood, 1993, pg. 245). Pluralistic representation became the norm. Communities would vie for political power and people would not trust those who were much different than themselves to represent them in government. This is a fragmentation of society into smaller communities, but the individual still shares common ties and interests with communities. That is, the individual is not yet separate from the community despite an individual’s self-interest, the self-interest aligns with communities of people. Individualism will also fall under a community’s interest. In this sense, for every interest, there is a community. The community of women during The Revolution, for example, comprised of female individuals and their role in supporting their statesmen.

During The Revolution, public affairs were for men and the domestic affairs were left for women. It is during the boycotts against English goods did women have an increasingly important role of not purchasing English goods and making sure their husbands did not either. Women were given an opportunity to “share in the honor” of the country and be a patriotic force behind The Revolution (Norton, 1996, pg. 167) by producing goods from their jennies, defending sieged towns, providing intelligence networks, and the likes; roles afforded to women had then been raised in status and importance around this time. For, communities of women came together into one community in the interest of defeating the British and inevitably proved their patriotism by action. Equality here was extended unto women to allow them to take part in supporting their countrymen but were not given the same equal rights as man. Nonetheless, some equality and honor were won by women in. Like the broad then-new community of American people, there was a broad community of women formed; however, there were also fragmentations into ethnic and interest-based communities prompted by collections of individuals sharing a general will. A partial cause as to why these fragmentations exist is as Condorcet (1979) writes, agriculture and the birth of the Neolithic era allowed a surplus in food and

“If this surplus was absolute, it gave rise to new needs; but if it existed only in one commodity and at the same time there was a scarcity of another, this state of affairs naturally suggested the idea of exchange, and from then onwards, moral relations grew in number and increased in complexity. A life that was less hazardous and more leisured gave opportunities for meditation or, at least, for sustained observation.”

Observation and the exchange of ideas of ideas allowed for people to divide into more communities. Previous to the Neolithic era, man did not have time for observation to where new ideas and communities revolving ideas could form. If we assume tribes are made up of a small number of individuals, then the amount of communities available is smaller than the amount enabled by a large nation-state like the Thirteen Colonies. The Progress of the Human Mind is one that involves the fragmentation of larger communities as ideas spread and individuals gather to meet their interest-based needs. Modernity is where we find ourselves in the progress made so far; tensions between the individual, community, and equality have found themselves at the forefront of the era’s defining traits as we look at the numerous amounts of communities (imagined or not), factions, and ideologies due to the agricultural revolution. The Revolution in the Thirteen Colonies is one example of communities forming and coming apart.

To sum, to understand American modernity, the conflict between individualism, community, and equality is necessary. Communities form, split, and conjoin to meet the interest of people and when equality is afforded to communities of people, different roles and interests may be pursued. Once the ability to pursue something new occurs, another community is spawned. The Revolution, in this case, spurred the modern problem and tension between individual, community, and equality. Monarchial society was fought against and democracy took its place because it was in the interest of the American communities. This is where progress has taken us since the Neolithic era.

References

Anderson, B. (2016). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Condorcet, J. D. (1979). Sketch for a historical picture of the progress of the human mind. Westport, CT: Hyperion Press.

Crittenden, J. (1992). Beyond Individualism: Reconstituting the Liberal Self. New York: Oxford University Press.

Norton, M. B. (1996). Libertys daughters: The revolutionary experience of American women, 1750-1800. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wood, G. S. (1993). Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage.

Author unknown - Brown, Gerard Baldwin (1910). The arts and crafts of our Teutonic forefathers. London & Edinburgh: T. N. Foulis, plate III. Digitized by the Internet Archive, available from https://archive.org/details/artscraftsofourt00brow. (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Jalo using CommonsHelper.)

Monday, January 14, 2019

Incomplete: America: Rich in Name Only

United States’ Third World

1. What is poverty?

2. How Widespread? Current and past trends.

3. Health impacts. Environmental racism. Case studies.

4. Failing Infrastructure.

5. Causes and Drugs

6. Partial solutions—what has worked?

Once dubbed the haven for the world’s poor, sick, and tired, the United States in her infancy was made the popular destination for persecuted religious minorities, the poor, and the wealthy each with their various reasons. In the Eighteenth century, dubbed “the best poor man’s country” (Baseler 70). Though a birthing nation with many flaws, the newly-shipped peoples made the United States as it was and is. At her inception, the vast majority of the population were inmates and indentured servants shipped to the America. Largely an impoverished people, many of them and their descendants moved their way up the socioeconomic ladder. Many, however, have not. Whether a person falls from the upper rungs of society or is incapable of escaping poverty due to ill circumstances artificial and natural, they should by no means continue to live in impoverished conditions resembling the indentured servants and the then early vagabonds of early America; when the United States now has the ability to make itself the best poor man’s country and truly serve as a brother’s and sister’s keeper regardless of demographic and socioeconomic standing.

Presently, the United States is commonly referred to as a world superpower and occasionally as the world’s greatest superpower as well as a country with many opportunities waiting to be had by those who are worthy. The United States, however, has grown to be a country that is rich in name only, but this fact is well hidden and unbeknownst to many. Aside from the long-diminished title as the asylum for mankind, the United States has failed its poor and currently sets to brush aside the issue of poverty festering within itself. To the United States’ credit, there have been periods of time wherein the government openly declared war on poverty and sought to aid the lower classes. In the twentieth century, the most noted presidents that openly sought to lessen the plights of the lower classes such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. Unfortunately, many reforms and initiatives set by the two presidents were not to the liking of various interest groups and, at times, both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Joseph A. Califano Jr., United States Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, wrote in an article for The Washington Monthly that under Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency (1963 – 1960), the poverty line has dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, life expectancy rose, Medicare and Medicaid grew (Joseph Califano 1999). Though Lyndon B. Johnson did may have helped many, he has been, for better and worse, credited as beginning the welfare state. Though, unwilling Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act into law and is reported to have said, “we are ending welfare as we know it (Vobejda).” This marked the end of previous welfare and social policies and the turning over of welfare programs to the states. Where does this leave the United States and what progress has been made since?

Firstly, the definition and measurement of poverty is to be addressed before its further examination. Settling on one definition and requirement for poverty has been an ongoing issue for decades. The U.S. measured poverty by consumption in 1978. Consumption poverty considers a family’s ability to purchase food, housing, and transportation; as of 2016 the threshold by this measurement for one parent and two children was set at $19,337 (Meyer, Bruce D., and James X. Sullivan 2017). Further, by this measurement, the percentage of Americans living in poverty is around three percent. This method has fallen out of favor and usage as the Census Bureau no longer views the measurement accurate, but the Trump Administration had recently used this method (Sarkar, Saurav and Aaron Noffke 2018). This has naturally caused controversy. Trump’s opponents argue that he has used this measurement to further an agenda that does not include aiding those in poverty—as if poverty is not a current social issue. Other more popular measurements of poverty include the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) and Official Poverty Measure (OPM). The SPM measurement includes the inability to afford food, household expenses, unemployment, inability to pay medical bills, and taxes. The OPM “divides family pre-tax money by income by a poverty threshold that equates to three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation” (Shaefer, Luke H., and Joshua Rivera 2018). The SPM and OPM measured poverty, as Shaefer and Rivera show, in 2011 was 16.4 percent and 15.0 percent respectively, while the consumption method measured 4.2 percent. Shaefer and Rivera (2018) conclude that the SPM and OPM is more accurate in measuring in hardship such as being unable to afford household expenses, difficulty in affording rent or mortgage, difficulty in affording utilities, and “unmet medical needs”. However, the effects of poverty, the 55 percent of Americans experiencing difficulties in paying medical expenses, the 40 percent of adults with less than $400 in savings, the number of renters unable to pay rent can be measured with decent accuracy by doubling the SPM (Sarkar, Saurav and Aaron Noffke 2018). This suggests that 42.5 percent of Americans are poor as the low-income threshold is set at $47,000 for a family of four. To note, the SPM, OPM, and double SPM’s thresholds do vary due to the presence of different housing costs across the U.S. Breaking down the demographics of who is in poverty and some reasons as to why should be investigated to bring us closer to understanding poverty in the U.S.

Throughout the United States’ history of poverty, the percentage of individuals that reside within the poverty threshold decreases, but wavers around 10 to 15 percent poverty rate (U.S. Census Bureau definition) since around the 1970s (Hoynes, Hilary W., Page Marianne E., and Ann Huff Stevens 2006). The poverty rate for children, however, stays significantly higher than the elderly and non-elderly; from around 27 percent in 1959 to 17 percent in 2003. Based on the Census Bureau, the poverty threshold for a family of four was about $19,000 or $10,000 for an individual. In 2016, this raises to $12,500 for an individual and $25,400 for a family of four (Census Bureau 2017). Average poverty rates under the Census Bureau definition in other years include: 1979, 11.7 percent; 1983, 15.2 percent; 1989, 12.8 percent; 1994, 14.6 percent. As to how we can reduce poverty further post 2015 is not naturally not easy, but what we can do is follow through by proven means and or go further with ethical hypothetical solutions. The War on Poverty launched by president Lyndon B. Johnson should be studied more closely if we are to continue the war on poverty. In contrast to how the war on drugs and crime eventually led towards an attack upon the people—especially native-born lower-class citizens of America—, we must remember not to harm the impoverished and poverty’s victims, but to lessen poverty’s effects and lower the threshold for poverty. For in the United States, all citizens should be guaranteed the (fair) life and the pursuit of happiness. Despite the cultural telling of the American Dream and the emphasis on pulling one’s self out of poverty, the fact is that it is nearly impossible to do so for many people. Poverty is a cyclical occurrence for many individuals as well as inter-generational. Further, when poverty becomes a social issue, there is a suggestion that there is a systematic flaw. This is partially evidenced by how the poverty rate seems unwilling to decline more than 10-15 percent.

To continue from president L.B. Johnson’s war on poverty, real slashes to tax and regulations, and some sort of support for smaller businesses and employment (Piven Fox Frances 2014), but not just supporting big businesses in place. Most of the programs of the Great Society worked and helped a lot of Americans regardless of color but has been credited with helping blacks gain economic standing during this period. From a poverty rate from about 26 percent down to 16 percent, president Johnson’s war on poverty is credited (Matthews Dylan 2014). Some of the programs president Johnson initiated still stand today in varying conditions such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, head start programs, Title 1 and so on. Many of these still act as safeguards for those near poverty or help those in poverty already. However, what has been done since president Johnson is lacking. No one president since Johnson has quite surpassed his legacy on reducing poverty. Perhaps more focus from the top-down and bottom-up should be on aiding the people do well with their health, finances, and job skills. In the current economy (or any economy), being flexible and quick to learn is becoming increasingly important (Cal Newport 2016).

Boghani, Priyanka. 2017. “How Poverty Can Follow Children Into Adulthood.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-poverty-can-follow-children-into-adulthood/).

Casey, Joan A., Morello-Frosch Rachel, Mennitt Daniel J., Fristrup Kurt, Ogburn Elizabeth L., and James Peter. 2017. “Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, Residential Segregation, and Spatial Variation in Noise Exposure in the Contiguous United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives 125(7)

Deaton, Angus. 2018. “The U.S. Can No Longer Hide from Its Deep Poverty Problem.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/poverty-united-states.html).

Glass, Joseph E., Rathouz Paul J., Gattis Maurice, Joo Young Sun, Nelson Jennifer C., Williams Emily C. 2016. “Intersections of poverty, race/ethnicity, and sex: alcohol consumption and adverse outcomes in the United States.” Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology 52(5):515.

Haveman, Robert, Blank Rebecca, Moffitt Robert, Smeeding Timothy, and Wallace Geoffrey. “The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later.” 2015. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management 34(3):593-638.

Hoynes, Hilary W., Page Marianne E., and Stevens Ann Huff. 2006. “Poverty in America: Trends and Explanations.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(1):47-68.

Miller, Wayne G. 2018. “Health disparities in R.I.: Wellness tied to race, income, education, and ZIP code. Retrieved October 28, 2018(http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20181005/health-disparities-in-ri-wellness-tied-to-race-income-education-and-zip-code).

Pilkington, Ed. 2017. “A Journey Through a Land of Extreme Poverty: Welcome to America.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-poverty-un-special-rapporteur)

Population Reference Bureau. 2002. “American Attitudes About Poverty and the Poor.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(https://www.prb.org/americanattitudesaboutpovertyandthepoor/).

The Conversation. 2018. “The Range of Poverty in America.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2018-09-12/poverty-in-america-new-census-data-paint-an-unpleasant-picture).

Sarkar, Saurav and Noffke Aaron. 2018. “Trump Launches Aggressive Poverty Disinformation Campaign.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(http://prospect.org/article/trump-launches-aggressive-poverty-disinformation-campaign).

Waldman, Annie and Green Erica. 2018. “Charlottesville’s Other Jim Crow Legacy: Separate and Unequal Education.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(https://www.propublica.org/article/charlottesville-other-jim-crow-legacy-separate-and-unequal-education).

Census Bureau. 2017. “What are the poverty thresholds today?” Retrieved January 9, 2019 (https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-poverty-thresholds-today).

Matthews Dylan. 2014. “Everything you need to know about the war on poverty.” Retrieved January 9, 2019 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-war-on-poverty/?utm_term=.43838012d15b).

Newport, Cal. 2016. Deep Work. London: Piatkus.

Other annotations

Boghani, Priyanka. 2017. “How Poverty Can Follow Children Into Adulthood.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-poverty-can-follow-children-into-adulthood/).

Boghani highlights how nearly 25 percent of American children live in poverty (as of 2012)—note, national poverty rate differs slightly. The likelihood of Black and Native children is more than twice as likely to be living in poverty—suggestive of racial inequality. More importantly however, Boghani delves deeper into how children in poverty are negatively affected for the rest of their lives. Children in poverty take longer to graduate, are more likely to develop health problems, are more likely to stay poor when they are adults and are more likely to develop mental issues as well. This article can serve as an introduction in the paper about the negative effects poverty has for children. There are sources used in the article as well that give weight to the statistics used.

This study thoroughly explores racial and socioeconomic inequality in where noise pollution was above average. Higher noise pollution is mentioned as having a correlation with behavioral problems in children as well as negative health conditions. Their data suggests that there are racial disparities in noise pollution. Low SES and minority families were most likely to live in areas of high noise pollution. The results further highlight how low SES and minority groups experience disparity in health and now noise pollution.

Deaton, Angus. 2018. “The U.S. Can No Longer Hide From Its Deep Poverty Problem.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/poverty-united-states.html).

Deaton reminds the readers that America’s poverty levels still garner the attention of the United Nations. With the World Bank now including high-income countries in their polls, America’s social problem of poverty is now able to be compared side-by-side to some of the poorest nations. The estimates of those living on $4 a day in America are quite staggering. America somehow manages to nearly have as much poor people (5.3 million) as the European Union (6.9 million) does in total. He goes on and mentions how some high-income nations spend a lot of money to aid the poor in other countries while seemingly ignoring the issue back home—as if the face of the problem is across the world. This article provides me statistics on how many poor people live in the United States compared to countries across the world as well as foundation for an argument against the United States and highlights a reason as to why Americans should realize how their own country has people living in abject poverty like those across the world.

Further looking into poverty and correlations, this study takes an intersectional approach. Social status, demographic, alcohol consumption, and poverty are the main aspects focused on. Minorities are noted to have a greater chance of developing alcohol-related liver disease and other consequences when compared to Whites. Like in other articles I have cited, this one touches on the health disparity between minorities and whites. Poverty happens to be a determinant of this. There is also reason to believe that poverty serves as a stressor and alcohol consumption is used to cope; further, poverty has been linked with higher rates of alcohol-related problems. The study’s results found that Black men and women were more likely to have heavy episodic drinking and suffer from alcohol-related diseases as a result.

Haveman, Robert, Blank Rebecca, Moffitt Robert, Smeeding Timothy, and Wallace Geoffrey. “The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later.” 2015. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management 34(3):593-638.

…

Hoynes, Hilary W., Page Marianne E., and Stevens Ann Huff. 2006. “Poverty in America: Trends and Explanations.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(1):47-68.

Poverty rates and trends are examined here. Cyclical poverty, labor market opportunities, unemployment rates, real median wage, and disparity in employment are some factors that explain the poverty rates and trends in the United States. Some correlations to increased and decreased poverty rates are included. The poverty rate has mostly stayed the same in the United States in the last few decades, but Native American poverty trends have drastically changed for the better. Government tax and transfer programs have a minor effect on poverty rates. Higher real median wages tend to correlate with a lower poverty rate.

To no surprise, income and wealth determine your social class and where you live. It also seems to determine how likely you are to have a lower quality of health. When lead paint was relevant, lead chips became hazardous for children who would eat them. This article includes data regarding how many children were found with excessive levels of lead in their blood. Since 1995, there has been evidence of black children being more likely to suffer from lead poisoning. Minorities in Rhode Island and most of the United States are less likely to regularly see a doctor or having a healthcare provider at all. A part of the reason as to why minorities develop health complications at higher rates than their white counterparts is due to how they are more susceptible to (racial) stress, poverty, low education, and less available medical care. Further, minority babies tend to weigh less than their white counterparts as well. Poverty, violence, and stress are cited as the causes. How poverty affects minority groups in particular is noteworthy for the paper.

This article is a mixture of a narrative with personal stories and research-backed observations. In the beginning, Philip Aston notes that 41 million people live officially in poverty and of the 41 million, nine million have no income whatsoever. Aston works in the UN monitor or a sort of human rights investigator. Despite the impoverished needing increased aid, it is not uncommon for Congress to slash social service funding, increase taxes on the lower and middle class, but decrease the taxes on the wealthy. So, wealth inequality increases as a result and California makes for a good example in how the upper class lives next to some of the poorest of people on Skid Row. Streets like Skid Row exemplify how poverty can cause for the rise of infectious diseases as has happened in Los Angeles. The author gives a history of how welfare policy has changed since the Reagan years as well as the growing individualistic attitude that seems to come along with the changes in welfare. This article really attempts to illustrate how America is not as different from the third world countries we like to point at as failed nations.

Population Reference Bureau. 2002. “American Attitudes About Poverty and the Poor.” Retrieved October 27, 2018(https://www.prb.org/americanattitudesaboutpovertyandthepoor/).

This article is rather straightforward as it explains a national poll. The poll asked what are the major, minor, or not causes of poverty; do poor people have higher, lower, or same moral values; whether circumstances or the self is the larger cause for poverty; and whether welfare recipients want to work. Results of the poll suggest that the poor simply lack aspiration or motivation as if it is an individual’s problem. With the poll suggesting that Americans believe welfare recipients are not willing to work, perhaps that is why welfare cuts are favored by many. When you ask impoverished people however, they often state they do not like to be on welfare and or distrust programs made to help them. So, there is a disconnect between what the poor say and what the non-poor say. This also can serve to highlight the difference in opinions or attitudes Americans have towards the poor.

Pressman cites a national poverty data for 2017 that finds about 12 percent of the United States’ population is in poverty. He breaks down the demography on who is poor as well. One issue with estimating how many people are indeed living in poverty in the United States is that there are different competing definitions and requirements regarding who is living poverty. This will be briefly touched on in the paper. Pressman’s article also mentions how the poverty level in the United States has fluctuated since 1960. There are also some comparisons made between the United States and other developed nations. All in all, this article can serve as a buffer and help define what poverty is.

The authors of this article write about how Trump stated only 3 percent of the American population is poor. Part of the reason as to how Trump’s administration put this forth is that they were using outdated data and method for defining the poverty line. Nonetheless, a part of America’s poverty issue is due to how unaware a lot of people are in the country about poverty. Further, there is mention of how the Congressional Budget Office found that about half the social safety net payments are given to what the government recognizes as middle class. Combine this with the low-funding of poverty-related systems put in place and we can see how the poor are getting less and less of what they are supposed to receive. Again, part of the is due to outdated data and methodology. The authors note that if we broaden the category of what it means to be in poverty, we of course find that there are more poor people than expected. Parameters such as failure to pay medical bills, total savings, inability to pay rent, and so forth suggest a much higher poverty percentage that will be mentioned in paper. What will also be mentioned is the legislative conflict between the rich and the poor.

As education is a major predictive factor of income, there will be some articles that highlight factors that perpetuate a generational cycle of poverty. A lack of education happens to be one of those factors. Racial discrimination and inequality further exacerbate poverty among minority groups. The author uses Charlottesville as an example of how white children are more likely to be placed in a gifted program while black children are four times more likely to be held back. In general, blacks fall behind in academics when compared to whites. A part of the issue is socioeconomics and another part is the city’s history of segregation that affects which students get into which schools. Further, there is reason to believe that there is an incentive to segregate students. These sorts of factors hinder blacks from achieving a good education, good jobs, and social mobility.

Saturday, August 26, 2017

On Democracy and the Overman

The present potential of man is upon a rope tied between servitude and freedom or individuality and utter baseness. The rise of equality as the preeminent characteristic of the contemporary age has put man in this current trajectory as Nietzsche and Tocqueville argue. How to save man from the worst outcomes of the rise of equality is where these two authors radically diverge from one another. For Tocqueville, the rise of equality and the equality of conditions is tantamount for the foundation of a (liberal) democracy but it is also the outcomes caused by this equality that temper, hinder, compose, and ruin a democracy if a balance is not kept or man does not heed Tocqueville’s warning. Nietzsche however sees the outcome of the equality of conditions to bring about a feeble and unhistorical breed of man; the solution he proposes is not quite the refinement of democracy as Tocqueville advocates but an alternative: a different perspective on the usage of history for life and the overman.

Democracy, best exemplified in America (i.e., the United States), in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is made possible by the generative fact that is the equality of conditions (Tocqueville 3). The equality of conditions—being a generative fact—then influences the course of society as Tocqueville found that it was the central point at which all his observations came to an end (Tocqueville 3). This generative fact was the result of, in a sense, the trajectory of history as Tocqueville argues. Nations like France were divided among few families and could govern those that lived on their possessed land. The sole manner of which this power and capability to rule was transferred by inheritance. Those that were not born in the ruling families also had one action available to them to be given this power and landed property and that is by force. The clergy however opened itself to all man, rich and poor. As Tocqueville sees it, “equality begins to penetrate” or, that is, originates from within the church and influences the governments ruled by the noble families as some of the clergy found themselves to “take a seat above kings” (Tocqueville 4). As time continues, society becomes more civilized and stable and there are more roles to be played by man as relationships between man grow in number and complication; during the growth of these new roles, “kings ruin themselves” and nobles too ruin themselves with their private wars, thus allowing for those whose potentials were pent by nobles and kings to take new roles in society and gain both influence and wealth (Tocqueville 4). Further, this encroaching towards the modern equality of conditions is pushed by the enlightenment of man. Literature and the arts become prevalent within society and the mind “becomes an element of success; science is a means of government, intelligence a social force” (Tocqueville 4). New routes of power become available to man in contrast to the two methods in times previous: inheritance or force. Now all previous historical developments hitherto have served as a leveler for humanity and a general equality has been brought about and since it would seem the last 700 years of French history have all profited equality, Tocqueville claims that Providence itself has brought about equality; for the “gradual development of equality of conditions is providential fact and all events and man serve its development” (Tocqueville 6). The Protestantism of Europe especially has fueled a democratic spirit and the revolution “continuing in all the Christian universe” (Tocqueville 6). Towards where this gradual development of equality of conditions will bring the Christian West is not definite— “no one can say”—but democratic nations will be “less brilliant, less glorious, less strong” but more peaceful and scornful of authority (Tocqueville 6-9). The results of this change in power from the few to the whole of a society are pervasive and have never been seen before.

One outcome Tocqueville highlights can be a problem for those with specific tastes. If one wants give man loftiness to the human spirit, inspire them to contempt material goods, maintain conviction and devotion, polish mores, make and enjoy poetry, renown, and glory, and undertake great ambitions, then they ought not to reside in a democratic society; if however one wants to devote their intellect and moral activity towards the material life and would rather focus on peaceful habits instead of heroic virtues, then one need not look further than a democratic regime (Tocqueville 234-235). This furthers what Nietzsche takes problem with the modern world and the outcomes of democracy. For him, these outcomes bring about a contemptible sheepish breed of man with small souls. Even Tocqueville notes how men of democracies shy away from great ambitions and compel the soul in its entirety in doing mediocre things (Tocqueville 601). All Americans, he observes, are “devoured” by the desire to rise but none of them want to “nourish” vast hopes or aim high but they are in constant want to acquire material “goods, reputation, [and] power” (Tocqueville 599). Before the times of the equality of conditions when there was inequality and misery, one could still observe “souls” that were not “degraded” as they are now (Tocqueville 8). There are however more outcomes apart from the degradation of the soul.

For instance, democratic peoples love equality at all times and sometimes this love of equality comes at the expense of freedom (Tocqueville 481). The love of this equality stems from the aversion of anyone having more tyrannical power over one another and once equality is established in civil society one is given the right to indulge in the same pleasures, enter the same professions, and meet in the same places as any other citizen can (Tocqueville 479). Man, however, cannot be entirely equal and free at the same time Tocqueville argues (Tocqueville 481-482). Further, this love of equality turns man towards himself, an individual, and thus individualism flourishes, for individualism is of democratic origin. He is confined “wholly in the solitude of his own heart” (Tocqueville 484). Individualism first “dries up” the only source of public virtues and, in the long term, destroys the other virtues and man will be utterly absorbed in selfishness (Tocqueville 483). The counterbalances to this individualism, Tocqueville observes, are the free institutions. Despotism is at its strongest when man is isolated in their individual ways and does what it can to keep man isolated; equality, too, places man besides one another “without a common bond” and thus isolates one from another (Tocqueville 485). The free institutions within America have those who would otherwise be focused on themselves towards one another and for the public good despite their individualistic instincts. This ties into Tocqueville’s observation of what use the Americans make association in civil life. Since democratic peoples are “independent and weak, they can do almost nothing by themselves” (Tocqueville 490). This condition the democratic people have given rise to both institutions and associations that prevents their individualistic ways from being encroached upon by despotism. Nonetheless, there is a kind of despotism that democratic nations have a right to fear.

After some centuries of enlightenment, Tocqueville states, it would seem possible for a despotism to be established (Tocqueville 662). It will however be one not seen before: one more extensive, milder, and “degrade” man without physical harm (Tocqueville 662). This kind of despotism stems from the tyranny of the majority—both an inherent danger and spawn of democracy—and Tocqueville expresses much concern over the possibility of it ever taking root in America. For the “moral empire of the majority” is based on the idea that there is more enlightenment and wisdom in the majority than there is of one man alone; a democracy caters and operates more so in the favor of the majority (Tocqueville 236). So, this new kind of despotism is not far removed from a democratic nation but it must be fought against if one like Tocqueville favors the balanced democracy without a tyrannical majority. One manner of which to combat this new kind of despotism is to create national representation and diminish the “evil” that extreme centralization can produce or else the spirit is extinguished and all man is servile (Tocqueville 664-665). Man then would lose their faculty of thinking, acting for themselves, and fall below a level of humanity (Tocqueville 665). With this, Tocqueville departs with the sober warning against this new kind of despotism that would turn men to sheep or, as Nietzsche would call this new breed of sheepish men: the last man.

“All beings so far have created something beyond themselves,” Nietzsche’s Zarathustra states (Kaufmann 124). At best the modern age, defined namely by democracy and the quality of conditions, cannot create anything more than furthering of democracy. For Tocqueville, the humanity of a democratic people is only lowered once the new kind of despotism takes hold of its society. Nietzsche, in response, takes advantage of the observations from Tocqueville relating to how democratic nations will bring about “less brilliance” than within an aristocracy, “sciences less great”, and, essentially, a homogenizing of man into a moderate state (Tocqueville 9). The result of this is the “popularization”, “feminization,” and “infantization” of science as well as a weakened personality; further coupled with how history is often taught as being “it was” instead of how it can be now and an unhistorical man is spawned (Preuss 42, 28, 9). Much like the degraded spirit of a democratic people, the unhistorical person focuses on the material present and no longer seeks answers to questions such as “what is love? What is longing? What is a star?”; when confronted with such a question, they blink and claim they have invented happiness (Kaufmann 129). In this sense, men like the last man and the audience Zarathustra preached to in vain are dead. They are not the ones that go under in order to cross over the rope or man and not the men that Zarathustra loves. This being so, Zarathustra or, rather, Nietzsche decides to search for living companions: those that he is able to lure away from the herd (Kaufmann 135). To them he will preach the overman and the importance of the advantage and disadvantage of history for life.

On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, serves as a critical kind of history. Critical history is in the “service of life” and is used sometimes to “shatter” and “dissolve” something to enable one to live (Preuss 21). It is important to note that life is nearly synonymous with creativity, love of his virtue, has not too many virtues, holds his spirit back not, justifies the future, redeems the past generations, has a deep soul, and so on (Kaufmann 127-128). The unhistorical man is too forgetful and too dead; and the historical man is too much like the true pupil Heraclitus and hardly dares to lift a finger (Preuss 9). To be the kind of man that Zarathustra loves, one must be able to act and all acting requires forgetting, for there is a degree of “insomnia” of historical sense that would injury every living thing and finally destroys life (Preuss 10). So, Nietzsche’s critique focuses on how man must balance both their historical and unhistorical senses. Learning history as we do now, he critiques, as indigestible knowledge stones does man no good and leaves him in struggle, suffering, boredom and a “never to be completed imperfect tense” (Preuss 24, 9). Consider this, Nietzsche tells us, the unhistorical and historical sense are both necessary for the health of an individual, people, and culture (Preuss 10). The “vanity” of the historian parades his indifference towards history as objectivity and this is harmful for the individual and culture; instead, use the standpoint you are given so to interpret the past and preserve the noblest qualities found in the past through your own examination of history. Interpret the past and bring what you like into the present. Be remembered as one who fought against his time and satisfy your souls on Plutarch and his heroes— “dare to believe in yourself when you believe in his heroes” (Preuss38). The excess of the phrase memento mori from mediaeval Christianity has held its grip on modernity for too long when instead one must rather heed the phrase memento vivere, Nietzsche continues (Preuss 44-45).

Now as to who between Tocqueville and Nietzsche has the best treatment of democracy, it would be Tocqueville, for Tocqueville accepts democracy and his book serves to be a guide for democratic people. Nietzsche, on the other hand, preaches sentiments that are rather anti-democratic such as contempt towards last man, overcoming man, and the wanting to asks questions with no answer. This is not to say that one or the other is wrong but that one treats democracy well. Nietzsche’s preaching towards the overman, in a sense, only serves to attract straying sheep from the democratic herd with small souls; Tocqueville only observes the outcomes and causes of the democratic revolution and attempts to defend it from itself as the reactants and products of democracy both hinder and temper it. The equality of conditions slowly birthed by all previous historical events are in the favor of the modern era and the natural result is democracy and all the outcomes aforementioned.

Works Cited

Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Ed. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 2000. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life. Ed. Peter Preuss. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 1980. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Portable Nietzsche. Ed. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1968. Print.

Art: Eugène Delacroix (1798-1863) La liberté guidant le peuple (1830)