Hey it's Jenn
Today in class we discussed about the diverse interpretations of the American Dream. Although the definition of the phrase may vary to everyone, in the end all the arrows are directed toward the question 'who made it and who didn't?' There are numerous ways to acheive what one would call a 'success', but everyone agrees that competition follows every success.
The word competition often has a negative connotation. We, as a society, denounces those who reach the top after defeating all the competitors. Yes, sometimes people who are above the rest use brutal methods to crush the rivals, but we all have self-interest. Jealousy and fear are just embedded in human nature. Honestly, if those people who haven't yet achieved their goals were granted the opportunity, they would compete as brutally and have no problem when they later become successful. However, we still call others 'overachievers' or 'ruthless barons'.
Even in the U.S. Constitution, equality is strongly emphasized. If equal opportunity is that important, then why are we still pursuing capitalism? The Constitution obviously implies that getting ahead for you own benefit is bad since you are almost discriminating those who are below you. Isn't the Consititution contradicting itself and also being hypocritical?
Why is the society believing that competition is bad(and why does it impose its view on us...i.e.Constitution)? After all, without competition, there will be hardly any progress. Is fighting for what you want really that bad?
Good night!
(Jennifer Park)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The Constitution, in my opinion, is not contradictory. It never provides for "equality" among its constituents at all. After all, the crafters of the Constitution made it clear that they wanted a form of government that, instead of providing for general "equality," would protect their own economic/capitalistic interests. (wikipedia the Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, the theory has been brought up before). Furthermore, 3/5 Compromise, anyone? Valuing the life of different human beings at difference "prices" seems to strike me as the pinnacle of inequality.
What I'm trying to get at is that the Constitution does endorse competition as does the general American society. Look at the American Dream.
In fact, I would argue that America promotes fighting for what you want. We initiated (sort of) the Revolutionary War due to high taxes. We wanted to achieve an economic goal (with some lukewarm patriotism of the majority backing it) and we fought for it. Where else can we look for a better example? Our very nation was founded upon the principle of competition/getting what you want. And we did not call them overachievers, we called them "patriots" and our "Founding Fathers." Sure, we make fun of them and knock them off their pedestals once in a while, but their reputations and the positive connotations attached to their names remain.
Who cares that John Hancock made his money as a smuggler? He was a "patriot!"
To the contrary, in my view the Constitution throughly supports competition, and in our society it is looked upon as a healthy academic and economic component. With no competition there would be no incentives for progress or innovation. As Grace mentioned, the Constitution does not condemn competition nor does it provide for "equality" in the sense used above.
The Constitution does not "impose" views at all, it provides guidelines and regulations, a literal "social contract" between the government and its people.
The very foundations of our country and government were meant to foster competition, which is the window for opportunity.
Heres a hypothetical. Say there's a product(x) out there. But you think you can make/do it better and you create your own version (y). You release(y) into the free market where you can regulate it according to our free market principles. Your superior product outsells the competition, driving you to success. This is the kind of competition and opportunity the economy has its basis on, and the same general idea our moral code is based on in other regards as a nation.
(Of course this might become a moot point if the government intervenes to support inferior products and businesses in Detroit.)
Steve Szumski
I agree with Grace's point that the general American society endorses competition. Capitalism would not exist if it were not for competition between people and companies. Throughout the country, people are specifically suggesting ways to make America even more economically diverse. For example, most people who are not supporters of welfare argue that poverty-stricken Americans should not be rewarded for "laziness", which explains their lack of money. If the government made sure that all Americans were "equal" in the economic sense, it would directly contradict the free market economy that we take pride in.
In addition, lack of competition would contradict the American Dream. Many people define the American Dreams as "the widespread aspiration of Americans to live better than their parents did." If everyone always had the same amount of money and material possessions as all of their neighbors (and parents), how would they ever accomplish this dream? Even if you don't define the American Dream in this specific way, would this not also be true for almost all interpretaions?
(Paige Schlesinger)
Jenn's thought regarding the Constitution reminds me of To Kill a Mockingbird during the court scene. Atticus makes a point of basically saying that social equality is a myth and is impossible to acheive, because every person has different talents, interests, etc. The significance of "equality" in the Constitution, according to Atticus (and I agree), is not that everyone have exactly the same opportunities, but that everyone have equal opportunity to have a fair trial in court. If "equality" is defined in this way, I think it makes a little more sense in the context of the Constitution.
Emily T.
Post a Comment