The euphoria was palpable. Not just on the streets of Cairo, but across the American political spectrum, the joy that Hosni Mubarak resigned bordered on delirium. On both the left and the right, commentators waxed lyrical about how democracy had finally arrived thanks to the brave Egyptian people.
Everyone seems to have become an advocate of universal human freedom. We are told (today by Barack Obama, but previously by George W. Bush) that this is a basic human desire, no less prevalent in the Middle East than in our own land. But is it?
People seem to forget that it was the Egyptian military that deposed Mubarak. Nor are they distressed that the generals subsequently dismissed the parliament. Free and honest democratic elections have been promised, and they are confident these will occur.
People seem to forget the American Revolution. George Washington was offered the monarchy, but refused. He even persuaded his officers not to march against congress for unpaid salaries. American believed then, and certainly now, that the military should be under civilian control.
Yet is this what the Egyptian generals believe? Remember, Mubarak was a general who once promised free and fair elections. Without a tradition of democracy, people can dance in the streets, mouth the correct words, and yet what they desire never come to fruition.
Democracy has several prerequisites. The first is that when elections occur, the losers step down. No matter how much they despise the winners, they must allow them to take office. In the Untied States this happens every few years, but in the Arab world it almost never does. Politicians like Mubarak routinely rig elections, or, as occurred in Algeria, when they lose they simply declare the results null and void.
Then there is the matter of compromise. Compromise is difficult. Giving up part of what you want so that the other side can get some of what it wants can feel like a defeat. People who fight for a cause can be very stubborn. This is true in America, but is even more true where democracy has never existed.
When the U.S. Democrats won an historic electoral victory two years ago, they were in no mood to compromise. They decided that they had to votes to steamroller through any legislation they desired—irrespective of the opinions of the opposition or the public. And they did, as with the stimulus and ObamaCare.
But then there was another election. In it, the American public expressed its judgment of this lack of compromise. It decided that extremism was not wanted. Moderation may seem wishy-washy; nevertheless it is built into our political DNA.
The same is not true in Egypt. Not long ago a poll asked Egyptians what they thought of apostasy. By a margin of four-to-one, they affirmed their belief that individuals who convert out of Islam deserve the death penalty. If they decide to become Christians, they must be killed.
This is not democratic tolerance. This does not demonstrate a willingness to compromise. In Europe and America, people are free to become Muslims, but the reverse is not possible in the Middle East. In the Middle East, there is only one correct choice, hence Egyptian Copts are right to worry about their future.
Does anyone actually believe that the crowds in Egyptian cities were inclined to tolerate opposing opinions? Does anyone believe that their rock-throwing, chanting, and Molotov cocktails will disappear in favor of reasoned arguments between political parties if there is an election of which they disapprove?
Tolerating a loyal opposition and making compromises are cultural accomplishments that take time to evolve. They did not take root in Germany after World War I with the result that Hitler took power. They are currently having a difficult time taking root in Iraq where home-made bombs continue to take lives—this despite the presence of American troops.
Why then the optimism that democracy has suddenly blossomed in the hearts of millions of Egyptians?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The Fein Rule
Universities are liberal places. My college, Kennesaw State University, is no exception. Its classrooms and politics are as dominated by left-wing sensibilities as almost any other institution of higher education in the United States. Just how far this tendency has gone was illustrated by what happened to me when I served as a member of our Faculty Senate.
Let me begin at the beginning. I had myself appointed to the senate after several of its senior members persuaded me that I had something special to offer. They were liberals, and perfectly aware I was not, but they knew me and believed that my perspective might be beneficial—as a minority voice.
At first all went well. But after many months, a quintessential liberal issue rose to prominence. Several gay professors came before the senate to ask its support for a policy they preferred. They wanted university endorsement of gay marriage, and the benefits this implied.
When I argued that this was not something with which an academic body representing the entire faculty should be involved, I got a polite hearing. Note, however, that at no time did I contend that gay marriage was wrong or that gays did not deserve health benefits. I merely suggested that if faculty members favored these policies, they should do so as individuals.
At first, this tack made no visible waves. Nevertheless, when I repeated its essence after the advocates of gay marriage intensified their campaign, the annoyance of many of my fellow senators became palpable. Their disapproval was written on their faces and the way they peremptorily dismissed my arguments. They were especially exasperated when I was at my most articulate.
And then the shoe dropped. Out of nowhere a new policy was proposed for the senate. This was a rule that had never before been operative and one that I subsequently learned was directed expressly at me. But let me digress. I am not merely articulate. I am very assertive. When I have something to say, I am never shy about seeking the floor. Nor am I easily intimidated. When I am told I am wrong, I do not timidly fold my tent, but seek to demonstrate why I might be right. While I realize I am sometimes mistaken, and can be persuaded of this, I do not back down simply because others disagree.
To return to the matter at hand, this new speaking policy was simple. From now on no senator would be allowed to talk for more than two minutes and for no more than twice on any given subject. Statements would be timed and monitored, and violators no longer recognized irrespective of what was at stake.
For my own part, I did not mind the two-minute limitation on particular assertions. I am fairly succinct. While I can be dramatic, I rarely require much time to make my points. No, it was the limitation of two statements on any subject that struck a nerve.
Consider what this meant. If I offered a minority opinion—and bear in mind that as a non-liberal I was often apt to be in the minority—and then someone rose to differ with me, I could present a rebuttal. But then if another senator presented a second counter-argument, I was obliged to remain silent. The other side, of course, if it had many subscribers, could continue to bombard the forum with its beliefs.
The upshot of this Fein Rule was that genuine dialogues were forbidden. No longer could the senate operate as a deliberative body. It now became the captive of any well-organized majority. Minority rights and unpopular perspectives became a relic of the past. If it happened that the majority was wrong, the odds were that this would not be discovered until the policy failed.
Liberals are fond of describing themselves as democratic. Indeed, they did so when I objected to this procedure. Their rebuttal was that it allowed more people to speak before the body. When I responded that it was up to the chair to recognize speakers; that I could not just rise as the spirit moved me, this argument was cut off. I had my two bites of the apple and was declared out of order.
Liberals believe in democracy—for liberals. We saw this in the U.S. House of Representatives when Nancy Pelosi repeatedly refused to allow Republicans to offer competing legislation. Her attitude was, “We won the election. We’ll do as we want.” Of course, when the Democrats lost control of the House, they suddenly became advocates of bipartisanship.
Democracy, if it is to exist, must be defended. This is true even on college campuses. But do not expect liberals to join in this campaign if they perceive it to be detrimental to even a momentary desire of their own. It is up to the rest of us to be on the alert.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Let me begin at the beginning. I had myself appointed to the senate after several of its senior members persuaded me that I had something special to offer. They were liberals, and perfectly aware I was not, but they knew me and believed that my perspective might be beneficial—as a minority voice.
At first all went well. But after many months, a quintessential liberal issue rose to prominence. Several gay professors came before the senate to ask its support for a policy they preferred. They wanted university endorsement of gay marriage, and the benefits this implied.
When I argued that this was not something with which an academic body representing the entire faculty should be involved, I got a polite hearing. Note, however, that at no time did I contend that gay marriage was wrong or that gays did not deserve health benefits. I merely suggested that if faculty members favored these policies, they should do so as individuals.
At first, this tack made no visible waves. Nevertheless, when I repeated its essence after the advocates of gay marriage intensified their campaign, the annoyance of many of my fellow senators became palpable. Their disapproval was written on their faces and the way they peremptorily dismissed my arguments. They were especially exasperated when I was at my most articulate.
And then the shoe dropped. Out of nowhere a new policy was proposed for the senate. This was a rule that had never before been operative and one that I subsequently learned was directed expressly at me. But let me digress. I am not merely articulate. I am very assertive. When I have something to say, I am never shy about seeking the floor. Nor am I easily intimidated. When I am told I am wrong, I do not timidly fold my tent, but seek to demonstrate why I might be right. While I realize I am sometimes mistaken, and can be persuaded of this, I do not back down simply because others disagree.
To return to the matter at hand, this new speaking policy was simple. From now on no senator would be allowed to talk for more than two minutes and for no more than twice on any given subject. Statements would be timed and monitored, and violators no longer recognized irrespective of what was at stake.
For my own part, I did not mind the two-minute limitation on particular assertions. I am fairly succinct. While I can be dramatic, I rarely require much time to make my points. No, it was the limitation of two statements on any subject that struck a nerve.
Consider what this meant. If I offered a minority opinion—and bear in mind that as a non-liberal I was often apt to be in the minority—and then someone rose to differ with me, I could present a rebuttal. But then if another senator presented a second counter-argument, I was obliged to remain silent. The other side, of course, if it had many subscribers, could continue to bombard the forum with its beliefs.
The upshot of this Fein Rule was that genuine dialogues were forbidden. No longer could the senate operate as a deliberative body. It now became the captive of any well-organized majority. Minority rights and unpopular perspectives became a relic of the past. If it happened that the majority was wrong, the odds were that this would not be discovered until the policy failed.
Liberals are fond of describing themselves as democratic. Indeed, they did so when I objected to this procedure. Their rebuttal was that it allowed more people to speak before the body. When I responded that it was up to the chair to recognize speakers; that I could not just rise as the spirit moved me, this argument was cut off. I had my two bites of the apple and was declared out of order.
Liberals believe in democracy—for liberals. We saw this in the U.S. House of Representatives when Nancy Pelosi repeatedly refused to allow Republicans to offer competing legislation. Her attitude was, “We won the election. We’ll do as we want.” Of course, when the Democrats lost control of the House, they suddenly became advocates of bipartisanship.
Democracy, if it is to exist, must be defended. This is true even on college campuses. But do not expect liberals to join in this campaign if they perceive it to be detrimental to even a momentary desire of their own. It is up to the rest of us to be on the alert.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, February 6, 2011
A Democratic Egypt?
Some people have gotten their hopes up. They view the recent disturbances in Egypt as an opportunity to plant democracy in the heart of a truly ancient part of the world. Nevertheless, the Obama administration has been appropriately cautious. It sensibly fears that things might go drastically awry.
And they may! The Middle East has not been fertile ground for Western style democracies. Time and again, we have seen tyrants arise, even as they promise to be champions of the people. Not long ago, Hosni Mubarak was himself one of these “reformers.”
The difficulty is that the Middle East is not like us. We live in a techno-commercial society, whereas nations in that part of the world cling to an agrarian-military tradition. As a result, democracy is integral to our history, but not theirs.
True, some non-Western nations have in recent years made enormous strides toward democratic institutions. Japan and South Korea immediately come to mind. But these countries have also moved toward techno-commercial institutions. Both have roaring market economies grounded in technological sophistication.
The Middle East is different. Most of it (save Israel) is still grounded in a medieval mindset. Its people’s have neither the skills, the attitudes, nor the economic resources to sustain governments over which they are allowed veto power.
Consequently, when ordinary people rise against oppressive regimes, the outcome is usually the imposition of an equally repressive government. The outstanding contemporary example, of course, is Iran. But this tradition also existed in medieval Europe. Back then, popular insurrections, called Jacqueries, invariably gave way to the re-imposition of aristocratic rule.
The reason was simple. The ordinary people were not organized to rule. However optimistic their hopes, they did not have the staying power to implement these. We may well be witnessing the same sort of deterioration in Iraq. Despite American encouragement—and the horrendous example of Saddam Hussein—Iraqi politicians are by habit intransigent and its average citizens are given to violence when frustrated.
Into this sort of vacuum generally rides the military or the clergy. Either the army takes over and re-imposes order or the clerics do the same and impose a theocracy. Sometimes—as was the case in the Middle Ages—religious and military power is combined in a single source. Then, as occurred in Iran, the repression becomes truly draconian.
So what is to be done? The first step is to realize that our ability to control events is limited. We can encourage democratic elements, as well as provide limited assistance in organizing, but as outsiders with an alien tradition we are liable to spark opposition merely because we are different. From the point of view of the indigenous people, we will appear to be invaders bent on conquest. Moreover, our very successes will remind them of their own failures.
This means that sometimes our only option is to do nothing, while hoping for the best. We can mouth words intended to offend none of the participants and cross our fingers that those who hate us are not provided with an excuse to impose a regime hostile to our interests.
But we can do something more. We can turn to a “containment” policy, much as we did with Stalinist Russia. Our goal then was to protect ourselves by limiting the ability of a potential opponent to harm us. We did not actively attempt to control the Soviet Union, but sought to limit the contagion.
If a similar policy is followed with respect to the Middle East, it is doubtful there will be meaningful reforms for the foreseeable future—by which I mean at least a century. Samuel Huntington was correct in describing this as a clash of civilizations and further implying that civilizations do not change quickly.
If so, our best hope is to become less dependent on foreign oil. If this resource ceases to be a source of wealth for those who hate us, they may sink back into an impotent poverty. And if they do, we may not need to worry about how they choose to govern themselves.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
And they may! The Middle East has not been fertile ground for Western style democracies. Time and again, we have seen tyrants arise, even as they promise to be champions of the people. Not long ago, Hosni Mubarak was himself one of these “reformers.”
The difficulty is that the Middle East is not like us. We live in a techno-commercial society, whereas nations in that part of the world cling to an agrarian-military tradition. As a result, democracy is integral to our history, but not theirs.
True, some non-Western nations have in recent years made enormous strides toward democratic institutions. Japan and South Korea immediately come to mind. But these countries have also moved toward techno-commercial institutions. Both have roaring market economies grounded in technological sophistication.
The Middle East is different. Most of it (save Israel) is still grounded in a medieval mindset. Its people’s have neither the skills, the attitudes, nor the economic resources to sustain governments over which they are allowed veto power.
Consequently, when ordinary people rise against oppressive regimes, the outcome is usually the imposition of an equally repressive government. The outstanding contemporary example, of course, is Iran. But this tradition also existed in medieval Europe. Back then, popular insurrections, called Jacqueries, invariably gave way to the re-imposition of aristocratic rule.
The reason was simple. The ordinary people were not organized to rule. However optimistic their hopes, they did not have the staying power to implement these. We may well be witnessing the same sort of deterioration in Iraq. Despite American encouragement—and the horrendous example of Saddam Hussein—Iraqi politicians are by habit intransigent and its average citizens are given to violence when frustrated.
Into this sort of vacuum generally rides the military or the clergy. Either the army takes over and re-imposes order or the clerics do the same and impose a theocracy. Sometimes—as was the case in the Middle Ages—religious and military power is combined in a single source. Then, as occurred in Iran, the repression becomes truly draconian.
So what is to be done? The first step is to realize that our ability to control events is limited. We can encourage democratic elements, as well as provide limited assistance in organizing, but as outsiders with an alien tradition we are liable to spark opposition merely because we are different. From the point of view of the indigenous people, we will appear to be invaders bent on conquest. Moreover, our very successes will remind them of their own failures.
This means that sometimes our only option is to do nothing, while hoping for the best. We can mouth words intended to offend none of the participants and cross our fingers that those who hate us are not provided with an excuse to impose a regime hostile to our interests.
But we can do something more. We can turn to a “containment” policy, much as we did with Stalinist Russia. Our goal then was to protect ourselves by limiting the ability of a potential opponent to harm us. We did not actively attempt to control the Soviet Union, but sought to limit the contagion.
If a similar policy is followed with respect to the Middle East, it is doubtful there will be meaningful reforms for the foreseeable future—by which I mean at least a century. Samuel Huntington was correct in describing this as a clash of civilizations and further implying that civilizations do not change quickly.
If so, our best hope is to become less dependent on foreign oil. If this resource ceases to be a source of wealth for those who hate us, they may sink back into an impotent poverty. And if they do, we may not need to worry about how they choose to govern themselves.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The Next Presidential Election
It is not too early to begin thinking about the next presidential election. Senator Mitch McConnell is absolutely correct that the most important task confronting conservatives is to see that Barack Obama is not re-elected. As long as he is in office, he will prevent the imperative reforms needed to return us to prosperity and freedom.
It is, of course, important that groups like the tea party hold Republican feet to the fire. Efforts, even if not immediately successful, must be made to control the budget and dismantle ObamaCare. Excuses should not be tolerated, even if compromises are occasionally required.
But with regard to the next president, it is crucial that those who want responsible change, themselves be responsible. Too many of those who are disturbed by Obama have an unfortunate tendency to be almost as idealistic as he is. And make no mistake, it is his idealism that is among his greatest faults.
One of my previous books is called The Limits of Idealism. In it, I made the point that idealism is for the very young. In their inexperience and romanticism, they imagine that the world can become what is not possible. They, for instance, champion a complete equality that is neither feasible nor potentially beneficial.
Adults must learn the lesson of Clint Eastwood’s Harry Callahan. They, like Dirty Harry, must be aware that “a man’s got to know his limitations.” Despite its implicit sexism and personal orientation, this is advice that should apply to society as a whole. The world—including its political systems—are replete with limitations.
Dreams are good things, but if detached from reality, they have a way of leading us over a cliff. Our aspirations must therefore be tempered by what we learn is doable. Even when what we would like turns out to be fantasy, we need the courage and reasonableness to accept what we can attain.
Which brings me back to the impending presidential election. Sarah Palin is in many ways an admirable and much maligned person. Despite her detractors, she is intelligent and fairly well informed. Moreover, she cleverly and energetically expresses many of the opinions of those eager to dismantle the Obama legacy.
Unfortunately, former governor Palin has a serious drawback. She is egregiously inexperienced. Much like Obama himself, she has not been seasoned in the realities of governance. Having spent very little time in high office, much like him, she is not familiar with what can be done, or how it should be done.
What is needed is someone more like Ronald Reagan and not like Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was not the madman he was made out to be, and he very articulately expressed the views of many conservatives. But he was an idealist. Not for him the gradual improvements of the meliorist, but rather the broad strokes of the radical reformer.
Some thought Reagan was made from the same clay, but they were wrong. Although a very consequential president, he rarely went beyond what was practical. That meant he often settled for half a loaf, because he knew this was all he could get.
Reagan learned these lessons running a trade union and serving two terms as governor of California. In both capacities, he was successful. In both, he also learned the tools of his eventual trade. Reagan could give a stem-winder of a speech, but he also knew how to be an effective administrator.
Palin, and others of her idealistic ilk, also know how to be inspirational. This, of course, includes Obama, who in recent days has reconfirmed his rhetorical eminence. But being presidential means knowing how to do more than sound presidential. It entails pragmatic skills and knowledge grounded social facts.
It is for this reason that conservative activists must be careful. The Republicans have a strong bench that boasts many experienced leaders. It is from these that their eventual candidate should be chosen. Mere flash should not be the criteria. What is needed is substance. Given the magnitude of the problems we face, we need someone with the expertise and the gravitas to implement changes that work; changes that do more than merely sound good.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
It is, of course, important that groups like the tea party hold Republican feet to the fire. Efforts, even if not immediately successful, must be made to control the budget and dismantle ObamaCare. Excuses should not be tolerated, even if compromises are occasionally required.
But with regard to the next president, it is crucial that those who want responsible change, themselves be responsible. Too many of those who are disturbed by Obama have an unfortunate tendency to be almost as idealistic as he is. And make no mistake, it is his idealism that is among his greatest faults.
One of my previous books is called The Limits of Idealism. In it, I made the point that idealism is for the very young. In their inexperience and romanticism, they imagine that the world can become what is not possible. They, for instance, champion a complete equality that is neither feasible nor potentially beneficial.
Adults must learn the lesson of Clint Eastwood’s Harry Callahan. They, like Dirty Harry, must be aware that “a man’s got to know his limitations.” Despite its implicit sexism and personal orientation, this is advice that should apply to society as a whole. The world—including its political systems—are replete with limitations.
Dreams are good things, but if detached from reality, they have a way of leading us over a cliff. Our aspirations must therefore be tempered by what we learn is doable. Even when what we would like turns out to be fantasy, we need the courage and reasonableness to accept what we can attain.
Which brings me back to the impending presidential election. Sarah Palin is in many ways an admirable and much maligned person. Despite her detractors, she is intelligent and fairly well informed. Moreover, she cleverly and energetically expresses many of the opinions of those eager to dismantle the Obama legacy.
Unfortunately, former governor Palin has a serious drawback. She is egregiously inexperienced. Much like Obama himself, she has not been seasoned in the realities of governance. Having spent very little time in high office, much like him, she is not familiar with what can be done, or how it should be done.
What is needed is someone more like Ronald Reagan and not like Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was not the madman he was made out to be, and he very articulately expressed the views of many conservatives. But he was an idealist. Not for him the gradual improvements of the meliorist, but rather the broad strokes of the radical reformer.
Some thought Reagan was made from the same clay, but they were wrong. Although a very consequential president, he rarely went beyond what was practical. That meant he often settled for half a loaf, because he knew this was all he could get.
Reagan learned these lessons running a trade union and serving two terms as governor of California. In both capacities, he was successful. In both, he also learned the tools of his eventual trade. Reagan could give a stem-winder of a speech, but he also knew how to be an effective administrator.
Palin, and others of her idealistic ilk, also know how to be inspirational. This, of course, includes Obama, who in recent days has reconfirmed his rhetorical eminence. But being presidential means knowing how to do more than sound presidential. It entails pragmatic skills and knowledge grounded social facts.
It is for this reason that conservative activists must be careful. The Republicans have a strong bench that boasts many experienced leaders. It is from these that their eventual candidate should be chosen. Mere flash should not be the criteria. What is needed is substance. Given the magnitude of the problems we face, we need someone with the expertise and the gravitas to implement changes that work; changes that do more than merely sound good.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Legacy of C. Wright Mills
Not long ago, a student in one of my classes told me he had discovered C. Wright Mills. So enraptured was he by Mills’ theories as recorded in The Power Elite, that he recommended them to me. He was therefore a little deflated when I told him that I had read Mills and considered him an economic illiterate. I could also have added I thought him “a dangerous political illiterate” as well.
As it happened, I had recently read an intellectual biography of Mills written by Irving Lewis Horowitz. Sympathetic to his subject, Horowitz portrayed Mills as well meaning, but habitually given to confronting authority. In his early years, tolerated by his professors because they recognized his potential, he later came to be despised by colleagues whose work he regularly dismissed as inadequate.
One of the things the biography made clear is that Mills was an academic innocent. Almost completely bereft of direct experience in the world, he nevertheless felt entitled to write books that characterized the social universe in bold and apparently authoritative stokes.
How far this was from reality was confirmed by his judgment of the Castro regime in Cuba. While it was still new and untested—but after it had already executed many so-called counter-revolutionaries without a trial—he, on the basis of a few interviews with some of Castro’s cronies, decided that the Cuban Revolution was the wave of the future.
Ironically he, in print, boasted of the enormous economic achievements of the communists, based on the claims of Cuban officials that their citizens had already multiplied agricultural output thanks to their revolutionary ardor. What made this assertion particularly strange was that the island nation would eventually become an economic basket case, largely sustained by aid from the Soviet Union.
In any event, Mills was no less shy in evaluating the government of the United States. He decided that the country was ruled by a tripartite arrangement wherein politicians, military officers, and business leaders governed for their own advantage. These parties were described as forming an iron triangle from which ordinary citizens were excluded.
How absurd this was, was later revealed by the dramatic turnover in all of the players he cited. In Mills time one of the participants was U.S. Steel. It was a huge corporation that was presumed to be eternal. But where is this company now? It has been done in by foreign competition and the advent of plastics and other metals such as aluminum.
And how about the military officers who were theoretically so powerful that they dictated American foreign policy and domestic budgets. The individual officers have long since retired, but more than that, the military was not able to prevent its subsequent downsizing. Nor was it able to get all of the weapons it sought.
And as for the politicians, they really do get rotated by the electoral process. Sometimes Democrats are up, but at other times it is the Republicans. Some say these are interchangeable; nonetheless the advent of Barack Obama would argue otherwise. People complain of the vitriolic language endemic to contemporary politics, yet that is because the parties disagree. The one wants to expand government, while the other is intent on contracting it.
Mills was wrong—not only because times have changed, but because he was essentially addicted to conspiracy theories. This is a common failing of those who do not have direct experience with the operations of power. The poor, in particular, are wont to assume that a small band of individuals manipulate events from behind the scenes. But this is not true. Nor given human nature, could it be.
I am reminded of what Harry Truman said of Dwight Eisenhower. Just before he turned over the presidency to his successor, he observed that Ike was in more trouble than he realized. Ike, he opined, would give order as he did while a general and expect tit to be obeyed as formerly. The presidency, however, was different. He would give orders and nothing would happen. Then he would not know what to do.
But Truman too was wrong. Even though he had been an officer during the First World War, he was mistaken if he believed that military orders are always obeyed with alacrity. Human nature is such that people often do as they please—even in the military. People are not automatons. If they are able to, they assert what control they can over their own lives.
This means that no conspiracy, grand or small, can be as effective as the uninitiated imagine. Actual bosses know their power is circumscribed. Most also know that they cannot give preemptory orders; that their subordinates require some wiggle room. If they do not provide it, they can expect overt, and/or covert, insubordination.
The scary fact, the really scary fact, is not that conspiracies control the world. No, it is that no one is in charge. Some people have more power than others, but no one (or group) is so powerful as to determine everything that gets done. In the real world, not even children are reflexive pawns. Just ask their parents.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
As it happened, I had recently read an intellectual biography of Mills written by Irving Lewis Horowitz. Sympathetic to his subject, Horowitz portrayed Mills as well meaning, but habitually given to confronting authority. In his early years, tolerated by his professors because they recognized his potential, he later came to be despised by colleagues whose work he regularly dismissed as inadequate.
One of the things the biography made clear is that Mills was an academic innocent. Almost completely bereft of direct experience in the world, he nevertheless felt entitled to write books that characterized the social universe in bold and apparently authoritative stokes.
How far this was from reality was confirmed by his judgment of the Castro regime in Cuba. While it was still new and untested—but after it had already executed many so-called counter-revolutionaries without a trial—he, on the basis of a few interviews with some of Castro’s cronies, decided that the Cuban Revolution was the wave of the future.
Ironically he, in print, boasted of the enormous economic achievements of the communists, based on the claims of Cuban officials that their citizens had already multiplied agricultural output thanks to their revolutionary ardor. What made this assertion particularly strange was that the island nation would eventually become an economic basket case, largely sustained by aid from the Soviet Union.
In any event, Mills was no less shy in evaluating the government of the United States. He decided that the country was ruled by a tripartite arrangement wherein politicians, military officers, and business leaders governed for their own advantage. These parties were described as forming an iron triangle from which ordinary citizens were excluded.
How absurd this was, was later revealed by the dramatic turnover in all of the players he cited. In Mills time one of the participants was U.S. Steel. It was a huge corporation that was presumed to be eternal. But where is this company now? It has been done in by foreign competition and the advent of plastics and other metals such as aluminum.
And how about the military officers who were theoretically so powerful that they dictated American foreign policy and domestic budgets. The individual officers have long since retired, but more than that, the military was not able to prevent its subsequent downsizing. Nor was it able to get all of the weapons it sought.
And as for the politicians, they really do get rotated by the electoral process. Sometimes Democrats are up, but at other times it is the Republicans. Some say these are interchangeable; nonetheless the advent of Barack Obama would argue otherwise. People complain of the vitriolic language endemic to contemporary politics, yet that is because the parties disagree. The one wants to expand government, while the other is intent on contracting it.
Mills was wrong—not only because times have changed, but because he was essentially addicted to conspiracy theories. This is a common failing of those who do not have direct experience with the operations of power. The poor, in particular, are wont to assume that a small band of individuals manipulate events from behind the scenes. But this is not true. Nor given human nature, could it be.
I am reminded of what Harry Truman said of Dwight Eisenhower. Just before he turned over the presidency to his successor, he observed that Ike was in more trouble than he realized. Ike, he opined, would give order as he did while a general and expect tit to be obeyed as formerly. The presidency, however, was different. He would give orders and nothing would happen. Then he would not know what to do.
But Truman too was wrong. Even though he had been an officer during the First World War, he was mistaken if he believed that military orders are always obeyed with alacrity. Human nature is such that people often do as they please—even in the military. People are not automatons. If they are able to, they assert what control they can over their own lives.
This means that no conspiracy, grand or small, can be as effective as the uninitiated imagine. Actual bosses know their power is circumscribed. Most also know that they cannot give preemptory orders; that their subordinates require some wiggle room. If they do not provide it, they can expect overt, and/or covert, insubordination.
The scary fact, the really scary fact, is not that conspiracies control the world. No, it is that no one is in charge. Some people have more power than others, but no one (or group) is so powerful as to determine everything that gets done. In the real world, not even children are reflexive pawns. Just ask their parents.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Sex and the Young Adult
Sometimes the world is not as we would prefer. Sometimes the facts lead to unwelcome conclusions. I have recently found this to be the case with respect to my attitudes toward premarital sex.
Let me explain. I am not a child. I came to maturity many decades ago. My views of sexuality were consequently shaped in very different times from today. Indeed, my ideal of demure femininity was Doris Day. No; not the Doris who succumbed to the charms of Rock Hudson, but the squeaky pure one courted by Gorgon MacCrae.
Nevertheless, I am a college professor and as such I do research. Recently this has concerned marriage and dating. Much to my surprise, the ways these are managed nowadays differ considerably from what was once the case.
To be more precise, men and women are marrying much later than previously. As of now, the average for women is twenty-six and for men twenty-eight. No longer are couples meeting in high school or even college. No longer are they finding a first love while still in school and then making a match that lasts a lifetime.
Everyone knows that divorce has become common, but not everyone realizes that individuals who wait until their respective careers are well underway are currently forming the strongest unions.
This means that men and women are marrying over a decade after they achieve sexual maturity. This implies that if the Doris Day model were followed, people would have to exercise iron-will for a very long time if they were to be sexually innocent when they finally tied the knot.
As might be expected, this is not what is happening. Almost everyone, male and female, has some experience with coitus before this is officially condoned. If anything, those who remain completely abstinent until their late-twenties are today considered deviant. They are certainly not the norm.
Mind you, promiscuity remains a problem. People who play musical beds in a manner suggested by the media are scarcely good candidates for stable matrimonial bonds. Those who treat intercourse as if it were the same as a handshake do not make reliable partners for committed relationships.
This puts us in a quandary. If marriage is a good thing—and I am certain it is—and if sexual exploration is virtually inevitable before marriage, how do we keep the sex act sufficiently valued so that it is not indiscriminately indulged in?
The good news is that most people cherish marital fidelity. They also tend to disparage sleeping around. In particular, despite an increasing tolerance of pre-marital sex, women who have too many partners continue to be regarded as “sluts.” Like it or not, there remains a “double standard.”
But why shouldn’t there be. Freud has been reviled for asserting that “anatomy is destiny,” but he was right. Women become pregnant; men don’t. As a result, women have more to lose if they are careless in bestowing their favors.
So where does this leave us? For one thing is makes efforts to promote complete abstinence problematic. These may serve to delay sexual activity, but cannot stop it. They may help to limit the number of partners, but will not reduce them to zero.
In other words, whatever our personal preferences, premarital sex must be accepted as a fact of life. If we are to be realistic, we need to encourage the young to delay sexuality and then to indulge in it with circumspection. They have to be taught that sex is a potent form of human interaction and therefore should not be taken lightly.
Most especially, unprotected sex that results in unwanted pregnancies must be kept to a minimum. Whatever the hormonal drives of young adults, these must not be allowed to produce misery in children who do not ask to be born.
Times may have changed, but free love continues to be a contradiction is terms. If love is interpreted as sex—as it frequently is—then broad freedom cannot be confused with irresponsibility. There must still be limits to when and with whom.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Let me explain. I am not a child. I came to maturity many decades ago. My views of sexuality were consequently shaped in very different times from today. Indeed, my ideal of demure femininity was Doris Day. No; not the Doris who succumbed to the charms of Rock Hudson, but the squeaky pure one courted by Gorgon MacCrae.
Nevertheless, I am a college professor and as such I do research. Recently this has concerned marriage and dating. Much to my surprise, the ways these are managed nowadays differ considerably from what was once the case.
To be more precise, men and women are marrying much later than previously. As of now, the average for women is twenty-six and for men twenty-eight. No longer are couples meeting in high school or even college. No longer are they finding a first love while still in school and then making a match that lasts a lifetime.
Everyone knows that divorce has become common, but not everyone realizes that individuals who wait until their respective careers are well underway are currently forming the strongest unions.
This means that men and women are marrying over a decade after they achieve sexual maturity. This implies that if the Doris Day model were followed, people would have to exercise iron-will for a very long time if they were to be sexually innocent when they finally tied the knot.
As might be expected, this is not what is happening. Almost everyone, male and female, has some experience with coitus before this is officially condoned. If anything, those who remain completely abstinent until their late-twenties are today considered deviant. They are certainly not the norm.
Mind you, promiscuity remains a problem. People who play musical beds in a manner suggested by the media are scarcely good candidates for stable matrimonial bonds. Those who treat intercourse as if it were the same as a handshake do not make reliable partners for committed relationships.
This puts us in a quandary. If marriage is a good thing—and I am certain it is—and if sexual exploration is virtually inevitable before marriage, how do we keep the sex act sufficiently valued so that it is not indiscriminately indulged in?
The good news is that most people cherish marital fidelity. They also tend to disparage sleeping around. In particular, despite an increasing tolerance of pre-marital sex, women who have too many partners continue to be regarded as “sluts.” Like it or not, there remains a “double standard.”
But why shouldn’t there be. Freud has been reviled for asserting that “anatomy is destiny,” but he was right. Women become pregnant; men don’t. As a result, women have more to lose if they are careless in bestowing their favors.
So where does this leave us? For one thing is makes efforts to promote complete abstinence problematic. These may serve to delay sexual activity, but cannot stop it. They may help to limit the number of partners, but will not reduce them to zero.
In other words, whatever our personal preferences, premarital sex must be accepted as a fact of life. If we are to be realistic, we need to encourage the young to delay sexuality and then to indulge in it with circumspection. They have to be taught that sex is a potent form of human interaction and therefore should not be taken lightly.
Most especially, unprotected sex that results in unwanted pregnancies must be kept to a minimum. Whatever the hormonal drives of young adults, these must not be allowed to produce misery in children who do not ask to be born.
Times may have changed, but free love continues to be a contradiction is terms. If love is interpreted as sex—as it frequently is—then broad freedom cannot be confused with irresponsibility. There must still be limits to when and with whom.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Dr. Dan Papp for Chancellor
Rumor has it that KSU President Dan Papp was a shoo-in for Chancellor of the University of Georgia System until the recent brouhaha over illegal immigration at the university. It is said that this event made him radioactive and removed his name from consideration.
If this is true, it is an injustice of the first magnitude. Indeed, it is a potential tragedy for the future of higher education in Georgia. I, for one, can think of no one better qualified to lead the state toward a world-class array of colleges and universities.
First, Dr. Papp has been a breath of fresh air at Kennesaw State University. His intelligence, political skill, and moral principles have produced an atmosphere that is remarkably conducive to learning. He has set an example for faculty, staff, and students, the emulation of which is bearing fruit for all concerned.
Second, President Papp’s handling of the immigration matter was exemplary. No doubt some of those distressed by the prevalence of illegal immigration perceived KSU’s mini-scandal as a tool for advancing their cause. While I am sympathetic with their goal, giving the university over to a witch-hunt would have served little good—particularly for the school.
Third, universities are liberal places. Faculty members, especially in the humanities and social sciences, are overwhelmingly left of center in their politics. So are a significant proportion of students—even here in the South. This circumstance was not created by Dr. Papp, but is something with which he must contend.
Lest it be forgotten, universities are hothouses of idealism. Those who teach within their precincts have rightly been accused of residing in ivory towers. Often themselves lifelong students, they are frequently detached from the realities of everyday life. As such, they habitually advocate social solutions that were they implemented would make things worse.
Even so, academic idealism serves all of our interests. As a conservative academic who has regularly been victimized by this tendency, I must nonetheless step forward to defend it. The freedom to think silly thoughts sometimes generates arrant nonsense, yet is also productive of intellectual breakthroughs.
As to student idealism, it is a part of the growing up process. The young are often burdened by the errors of their elders and wish to see these corrected. Unfortunately their lack of experience tends to lead them astray. Unfamiliar with the complexities of the adult world, they naturally gravitate toward attractive simplifications.
This too is a negative side effect of higher education, but one that has long-term benefits. Youthful idealism, were it to guide our political choices, would be disastrous. Were it reflexively implemented, it might even encourage totalitarian regimes. And yet, in the hands of the young it is merely a way station on the road to maturity.
Which brings me back to Dr. Papp. Unlike the atmosphere at many universities, that at KSU is what others only claim. The university really does maintain an open marketplace of ideas. It allows competing ideas to flourish without any being squelched by administratively enforced political correctness.
The participants, that is, the professors and the students, can sometimes be vociferously intolerant, but the university itself is not. This should not be unusual, yet in the contemporary scene frequently is. Dr. Papp ought to be commended for resisting pressures to allow this to happen, not castigated as an enemy of good government.
This said, the downside of President Papp becoming Chancellor Papp is that he would be lost to our university. Under his tutelage, we have gone from being a good regional university to knocking on the door of becoming a great one. This is a remarkable achievement in the few short years he has been at our helm.
Georgia deserves a great university system. As a potentially great state, it can only benefit from a well-educated population. I can think of no one better than Dan Papp to shepherd us in this direction.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
If this is true, it is an injustice of the first magnitude. Indeed, it is a potential tragedy for the future of higher education in Georgia. I, for one, can think of no one better qualified to lead the state toward a world-class array of colleges and universities.
First, Dr. Papp has been a breath of fresh air at Kennesaw State University. His intelligence, political skill, and moral principles have produced an atmosphere that is remarkably conducive to learning. He has set an example for faculty, staff, and students, the emulation of which is bearing fruit for all concerned.
Second, President Papp’s handling of the immigration matter was exemplary. No doubt some of those distressed by the prevalence of illegal immigration perceived KSU’s mini-scandal as a tool for advancing their cause. While I am sympathetic with their goal, giving the university over to a witch-hunt would have served little good—particularly for the school.
Third, universities are liberal places. Faculty members, especially in the humanities and social sciences, are overwhelmingly left of center in their politics. So are a significant proportion of students—even here in the South. This circumstance was not created by Dr. Papp, but is something with which he must contend.
Lest it be forgotten, universities are hothouses of idealism. Those who teach within their precincts have rightly been accused of residing in ivory towers. Often themselves lifelong students, they are frequently detached from the realities of everyday life. As such, they habitually advocate social solutions that were they implemented would make things worse.
Even so, academic idealism serves all of our interests. As a conservative academic who has regularly been victimized by this tendency, I must nonetheless step forward to defend it. The freedom to think silly thoughts sometimes generates arrant nonsense, yet is also productive of intellectual breakthroughs.
As to student idealism, it is a part of the growing up process. The young are often burdened by the errors of their elders and wish to see these corrected. Unfortunately their lack of experience tends to lead them astray. Unfamiliar with the complexities of the adult world, they naturally gravitate toward attractive simplifications.
This too is a negative side effect of higher education, but one that has long-term benefits. Youthful idealism, were it to guide our political choices, would be disastrous. Were it reflexively implemented, it might even encourage totalitarian regimes. And yet, in the hands of the young it is merely a way station on the road to maturity.
Which brings me back to Dr. Papp. Unlike the atmosphere at many universities, that at KSU is what others only claim. The university really does maintain an open marketplace of ideas. It allows competing ideas to flourish without any being squelched by administratively enforced political correctness.
The participants, that is, the professors and the students, can sometimes be vociferously intolerant, but the university itself is not. This should not be unusual, yet in the contemporary scene frequently is. Dr. Papp ought to be commended for resisting pressures to allow this to happen, not castigated as an enemy of good government.
This said, the downside of President Papp becoming Chancellor Papp is that he would be lost to our university. Under his tutelage, we have gone from being a good regional university to knocking on the door of becoming a great one. This is a remarkable achievement in the few short years he has been at our helm.
Georgia deserves a great university system. As a potentially great state, it can only benefit from a well-educated population. I can think of no one better than Dan Papp to shepherd us in this direction.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
