Cold, dry, dead fish. Seemingly rotten and sm
elling of a hot day at the dock, this tasty Russian snack goes well with warm beer. Next time you see a dead fish on the road, don't think of it as trash--instead think "Fish Jerky." Like potato chips, salty, and yet probably somewhat healthier. Maybe.
If you can believe it after reading that vignette things are much better than they were in the previous post. I would stop short of describing my acculturation as adapting, but I am finding some kind of balance. Last night I cooked my specialty for the whole household--BBQ shrimp. Despite their negative expectations at the supermarket, everyone liked it very much. I had to make some significant ingredient adaptations, but it worked fairly well.
I've been thinking about a possible additional consideration f
or the DPM: art. It seems that art might be an indicator of the level of freedom that people enjoy. St. Petersburg's Church of The Savior on the Blood was shut down throughout Communism's stronghold on the area. The Church with its magnificent artwork went uncared for and deteriorated to the point that it had to undergo major restoration. As a warehouse, its marble faded and the beautiful artwork lost its luster. Without freedom, I think that art is stifled and people are less likely to pride themselves in the talents and treasures of their own people. Russian people seem to treasure even their Imperial era much more so than Sovietka.
I am sorry for the long delay between posts--it was difficult to get to internet in Saint Petersburg. Now I am in a little town in Russia's southern region and I have regular internet access. This post is also somewhat outdated. Next post will address Russia's micro-business economy which flourishes and my thoughts about region-specific operatives in future missions to condense the acculturation process.
Why Build Foreign Democracies?
Strong Democracies support the national security not only of the United States, but of the whole world. I'll explain this in terms of psychology: most people are in many important ways fundamentally similar. Natan Sharansky' book, The Case for Democracy, outlined an argument for freedom that relied on this belief. Essentially, people everywhere want the same things: peace, security, satisfaction, etc. Free societies will support these ends because people can act toward achieving what is in their best interest. Wars are truly not in the general interest of people. Free societies are safer because people will choose to be safe. When confronted with a simple choice between death and life, in a free society people will choose life.
I can already hear everyone shouting at me: "But they're different! If those people are free, they will all want war--they'll want the destruction of the United States and all the civility and culture of the West!" This doomsday scenario is actually a perfect example of the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE). Look it up on Wikipedia. Don't feel bad if you feel this way, but you are not looking at the whole picture. We all have a tendency to overemphasize the role of the person and under-emphasize the power of the situation. It's impossible to judge what people who are living a fear-based society would do if they were living in freedom. But why would you jump to the conclusion that they are somehow fundamentally different from us? I think people see themselves in a wholly separate manner from the way they see anyone else. Just assume with me for the moment that other people want the same things from life that you do. They want to survive, they have fears, they want to succeed, they want some modicum of happiness, etc. What would the world look like? Probably very similar to the world that we already live in, right? People are placed in different situations. It's hard to imagine someone who would want an ultimately different set of goals in life. And everyone wants to be free. And everyone wants to be safe. And war does not fit into this picture at all. Free societies support everyone's security.
Aside from our own collective security, some have mentioned that strong liberal Democracies have a moral duty to spread liberal Democracy to other countries. I find this argument weak so I won't go there. But you certainly can.
And aside from both of those, liberal Democracies support the progress of science, industry, and economic development. If you think these are bad, then A) I feel sorry for you, and B) ignore this argument and take one of the above. Free societies liberate the innate creativity, ingenuity, and curiosity of humanity. This is what fosters development in these areas.
Proposing "Conditioning Democracy"
After nine years in the Gulag, Natan Sharansky might have conclusively refuted the self-evident nature of inalienability of Liberty in the USSR. Instead, he emerged triumphant, voicing the universal appeal of freedom in his seminal book, The Case for Democracy. With the moral clarity of America at stake, Sharansky writes about the inevitable rise of freedom and Democracy with moral authority like Andrew Jackson spoke about Manifest Destiny and like Karl Marx wrote about Communism: people in every country yearn to be free, and non-democratic governments prohibit this freedom. However with growing resentment toward the War in Iraq, criticisms of the expenditures of the United States on democratizing foreign countries have grown vociferous. The United States is past due for an policy overhaul: Americans want to maximize the impact of every resource allocated to promoting Democratic initiatives. John Prados’s Safe for Democracy identifies five tools that the United States has utilized to promote Democracy: behavior examples, diplomacy, economic sanctions, military force, and covert operations (propaganda). Each of these tools relies on Sharansky’s argument in a large measure for their success; each tool requires that people yearn for their own Democracy.
“Conditioning Democracy” proposes Democratic Propensity Theory to shape the much-needed policy overhaul. With a unique focus on individual endorsement of Democracy, “Conditioning Democracy” relates psychological principles to Democracy initiatives. The United States is missing a sixth tool from its toolbox: conditioning people for Democracy, creating the yearning for freedom from within individuals. Exposing individuals from emerging Democracies to successful Democratic deliberation experiences increases the individual’s propensity for Democratic government. Conditioning Democracy proposes policies that incorporate professional “operational” psychologists into missions that “condition” denizens of emerging Democracies, whole communities at a time, to accept the potential both for participation in Democratic government and Democratic rule of law. If policy-makers consider the evidence that I will present in “Conditioning Democracy,” new policy should both more efficiently use resources and perhaps also save lives.
elling of a hot day at the dock, this tasty Russian snack goes well with warm beer. Next time you see a dead fish on the road, don't think of it as trash--instead think "Fish Jerky." Like potato chips, salty, and yet probably somewhat healthier. Maybe.
or the DPM: art. It seems that art might be an indicator of the level of freedom that people enjoy. St. Petersburg's Church of The Savior on the Blood was shut down throughout Communism's stronghold on the area. The Church with its magnificent artwork went uncared for and deteriorated to the point that it had to undergo major restoration. As a warehouse, its marble faded and the beautiful artwork lost its luster. Without freedom, I think that art is stifled and people are less likely to pride themselves in the talents and treasures of their own people. Russian people seem to treasure even their Imperial era much more so than Sovietka.
Posts
2 comments:
I'm not sure if you've thought about this yet, but what about using citizens' access to information to help judge their "level of freedom". For example, some middle eastern countries have reportedly blocked Google Maps from internet users because of the up-to-date satellite images the site provides. This is in stark contrast to our society where there's a great deal of access to just about anything we can think of.
Art is a really good factor because of how subjective it is. "Anything" can be considered art, which therefore means that essentially "anything" can be restricted in the name of art.
- Hersh
THanks for the suggestion, Hersh. I'm not sure how much you were able to get from the little bit of information I've put on here, but just to let you know--the DPM is a model that includes many variables to predict scores on the DPS (which essentially measures a person's aptitutde for Democracy). Variables in the DPM include things like a person's educational level. Hypothetically, highly educated people would more likely support Democratic affairs because they would likely know the past failures of Communism. I'll use the DPS scores combined with Demographic data to create the DPM.
On to your comment--I agree that accesss to information would be a great way to measure levels of freedom (relatively easy to research and I think it is a valid indicator). So essentially I gather that you suggest that with greater access to information, people would more likely to accept Democracy. I definitely agree.
On to art--I think the big problem is how to incorporate art into the model. How do you measure a level of art? And also, I wonder whether art could be either an outlet for suppressed people or a demonstration of freedom. Think prison tatoo artists...
Post a Comment