Satyagraha

I really enjoyed reading Gandhi’s Satyagraha. I agree with a lot of the points he made. Passive resistance, or the use of the soul-force, is a powerful tool against those who rely on brute force. If you are facing a much stronger enemy, then there is no point in trying to use physical strength against him. However, soul-force is an unexpected tactic that confuses opponents and makes a strong message.

            The reader/editor parts were especially interesting. I’m not sure if Gandhi actually took those reader comments from people he’s dealt with, or if he made up those counter-arguments. Either way, they were very effective in proving his point. Though the reader seemed to know what he was talking about, the editor used many different examples to prove him wrong. Not to sound like a hippy, but peace, love, and positive emotions are always stronger and healthier than war, hate, and negative emotions. 

The Concept of Discourse Communities

            This was a very tough read. The language was very dense and I had to sometimes read over certain passages several times just to get the gist of it. However, once I got through it, I enjoyed several aspects of discourse communities. I also appreciated the introductory “Framing the Reading” part, because it helped explain and prepare most of the reading for me. It defined some of the terms Swales used, which helped when trying to decipher the piece.

            The six criteria Swales outlined made it a bit easier to understand what exactly a discourse community is. These six characteristics: goals, mechanisms, transfer of information, genres, lexis, and changing membership, define what can be a discourse community. It was interesting to read about the different groups that Swales classified. The Hong Kong Study Circle and café owners are discourse communities, but political parties and people who work at a certain university, are not discourse communities.

            Now I wonder what groups I may be involved in that are considered discourse communities. One example that I can think of may be musical composers. I write music for my band, but I have written music for all types of instruments, so I consider myself a composer. The goal of all composers is to write and share music. We use mechanisms of intercommunication like different musical terminology. The music that we write could be considered the information that we try to communicate with these mechanisms. When I first read genre, I immediately thought of musical genres, but composers have their own genre (in Swales' definition) that they understand rhetorical situations with. There are many lexis and terms specifically created for the composition of music. Last but not least, there are always new and upcoming composers, such as myself, slowly replacing the modern and experienced composers, such as Eric Whitacre (I could only dream). Going through the six requirements, I believe I have correctly established musical composers as a discourse community. 

Writing Assignment 1: Introduction

            My brother, my father, and I used to watch a show called “Deadliest Warrior”, where scientists, historians, and weapons specialists, tried to see which two historical warriors, or groups of warriors, would win in combat. The matches ranged from Viking vs. Samurai to Green Berets vs. Spetsnaz. This historical “versus” situation could be applied to other questions, such as “who was the best leader?” One particular example is the comparison between Lao- Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli.  Both have written works concerning the topic of leadership, although they are dramatically different. They could both be applied to modern society and analyzed to see who would better run a country in the Western world.

            Lao Tzu’s style of leadership incorporated Taoist ideals. Many of these ideals could be useful to the modern government, especially with the financial crisis we are currently in. However, ideals are not always applicable to the real world. Lao Tzu endorses a lot of passive leadership, which can be difficult to enact in a large Western government with many factions. Machiavelli’s style of leadership is much more centralized and requires a strong ruler. His Prince is an expert of war and would put the protection of his people as his number one priority. This exceptional familiarity with wartime history and strategy would be helpful in the current times of our nation sending soldiers to places that may hardly concern us. On the other hand, Machiavelli’s rule comes with a complete lack of morality that, although would be hidden from the general public, makes him unfit to lead a nation into a future of social and technological progress. Even though the versus situation calls for a winner, this question is not so simple. Both Lao Tzu’s Master and Machiavelli’s Prince have definite flaws that would hinder them from becoming successful leaders in a modern Western country. 

Lao-tzu and Machiavelli

Lao-tzu’s “Thoughts from the Tao’te Ching” spoke mostly about how a Master should lead, or better yet, not lead, his people. Lao-tzu stresses the importance of several ideas. One of them is that government should play a small to non-existent role in society. He believes that humans are peace loving creatures that work best under no restrictions. If you try to tell people to do something, if it is something good, then those people will go astray. To do this, Lao-tzu says that a good leader must rely on the Tao: in other words, go with the flow. Do not try to control the situation; just let things happen naturally and everything will turn out alright. Another idea that Lao-tzu mentions often is that of non-violence. He says that nothing good comes from violence. Violence only erupts in fear, so a strong leader must rely on peace and hope, rather than war, to resolve conflicts.

Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince” was a completely different read. He had many different points to make as to what qualifies a good leader. He says a prince, or a successful ruler, should be a military man who is always ready for war. He also lists other qualities a prince should have, such as knowledge of history, charisma, power, reputation, etc. Overall, a prince should be someone who is thought of as very charming and good, while they should always be ready to make difficult choices that may seem evil. This embodies Machiavelli’s most famous idea, “the ends justify the means.”

After reading these two works, I was not sure which one I agreed with more. Even though Lao-tzu paints humanity in a positive light, I am not sure that the simple mindset of a Taoist leader would actually be successful, especially in this day and age. On the other hand, Machiavelli’s prince seemed like a two-headed snake that would thrive in the modern world of government conspiracies, mass media conglomerates, and multi-billion corporations. However, there seems to be little moral or ethical guidance in this prince. All actions are taken out of necessity to stay in power. Even though it may seem like they are acting for the good of the people, the prince is actually acting just so they stay “happy” and won’t overthrow him. The people that he rules over aren’t actually free or truly happy. As interesting and pondering as both leaders were, neither the Master nor the Prince seemed to fulfill my requirements as a righteous and successful leader. 

Globalization: The Super Story

"Globalization: The Super-Story", by Thomas L. Friedman, discusses how everything is connected in today’s society. I find his organization of the global system very interesting. The balance between superpowers, supermarkets, and super-empowered individuals, shows how humanity has developed technologically and ideologically into the 21^st Century. With the advances of the internet and mass media, people have been able to find a voice to spread their thoughts. Along with technology, we now consider the idea that one person can make a difference in the world. Hundreds of years ago, people could only consider royalty of such importance. The everyday human would not feel like they were of much significance to the world. Nowadays, most people think that everyone is important and anyone can make a difference.

          The super-empowered individuals that Friedman talks about are on par with nation-states. Osama Bin Laden organized the largest terrorist attack in American history. Jody Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize by organizing an international coalition against land mines. However, most people are not on par with Nobel Prize winners or superpowers. Still, we like to think that everyone makes a difference in their own way. Whether it’s helping society progress or actually hindering progress, every person has the potential to make the world a radically different place. I like to think that my pursuit of an education towards computer science will help me be able to change the way computers work and innovate our technology so that it may become more useful or more relevant in the future. On a different note, I am also a musician and a writer because I enjoy communicating my feelings into words and sounds that other people can relate to. I feel that this other contribution towards the arts is just as important as advancing our technology.

          The concept of super-empowered individuals is what really caught my interest in this reading. Although I understand that the main point is about globalization, and I comprehend the impact that everything has upon everything else, I feel like sometimes we forget that we are all connected into the grand scheme of life. Every day that we spend, every moment that we live, every decision that we make: it all matters.