Recently in Directed Writings Category

(written on December 8, 2010)

Note: The following words will be used in the essay with the given definitions.

Terrorism - "Terrorism is the unlawful use--or threatened use--of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies and governments, often for ideological or political reasons" ("Terrorism," Britain and the Americas).  Terrorist actions include hijackings, bombings, suicide bombings, random killings, armed attacks, kidnappings, and vandalism.  It often is directed towards random people ("Terrorism," World of Sociology).

Pre-emptive war - "To preempt means to strike first (or attempt to do so) in the face of an attack that is either already underway or is very credibly imminent. The decision for war has been taken by the enemy" (Gray v).

Wrong - "not appropriate or suitable; unjustifiable" ("Wrong").

Major Writing Assignment

            The question of whether or not war strategies are right or wrong in a given situation has been asked since any form of fighting between two individuals or groups began.  Debates over controversial topics regarding morality, intentional harm, weapons, the role of government, and the social good have all contributed to answering this question.  Over the last couple hundred years, the question seems to have been asked more often, particularly within the context of overcoming terrorism.  Of the many types of warfare, preemptive war is one such strategy that has been hotly debated.  In discussion, leaders address the security of the people involved based on the weapons, targets, and timeline of the terrorists.  They also attempt to anticipate future actions of the terrorists and discuss multiple strategies that can be used when faced with terrorism. Given the nature of terrorism, the tactic of preemptive war is not wrong when used to protect, prevent, or as a last resort.

            First, preemptive war is not wrong when it is used to protect citizens, particularly those who are innocent.  One of the functions of a government is to provide security for its citizens.  Society also has a responsibility to ensure that its citizens are protected.  Since terrorists target people who are usually part of a government or society, it follows that terrorism is one instance where citizens should be protected.  This is particularly true in the case of pre-emptive war.  If an attack is already occurring or impending, it is in the best interest of the government to take pre-emptive action because citizens will suffer either way.  Then, it is appropriate (that is, not wrong), for the government to choose the path that will give the citizens the most protection.  An attack on the enemy would result in less harm being inflicted upon the citizens because the enemy would not have a clear pathway to success.[1]  Not only citizens, but the innocent, in particular, should receive protection because they do not deserve the force or the violence imposed on them by the terrorists.  According to the definition of terrorism, it is often "random people" who are affected by terrorist action.  Since the majority of people in a society are usually innocent, the principles of statistics show that a random selection of people would contain mostly innocent individuals.[2]  Therefore, pre-emptive action, if successful, would limit the number of innocent people harmed by terrorism.  The effect of terrorist attacks on the innocent is depicted in a photograph found on the September 11 Digital Archive website (Nelson)[3].  This picture depicts a memorial wall found at St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan, which contains photographs and notes that reflect only a small sample of the thousands of people who died.  Most of the people killed were businessmen and women working at the World Trade Center, New York citizens and tourists walking along the street, or passengers of the airplane traveling for business or pleasure.  None, with the exception of the terrorists, probably had the intention of dying on September 11 because an airplane crashed into the World Trade Center.  As a result, one can conclude that the people who suffered and are depicted in the photograph are all innocent.  Pre-emptive war can lead to protection for the innocent because it blocks a terrorist's clear pathway to a successful attack.  The protection of citizens as a justification for pre-emptive war goes hand in hand with the prevention of future terrorist action.

             The goal of preventing further terrorism is to protect citizens, but prevention is worth exploring separately as being appropriate in a time of terrorism because it looks at the larger scope of the situation.  Prevention is justifiable because it has the potential to lessen the duration of the war.  Since preemption occurs only if the opponent's attack has already taken place or is forthcoming, it is inevitable that a battle will occur.  As a result, a group should have the mentality that if conflict is unavoidable, they might as well participate to the best of their ability and strive to end the fight once and for all.  If the pre-emptive action does overpower the enemy's strength and cause the enemy to surrender, then the pre-emptive action is justified by preventing further conflict that could be even more harmful to citizens.[4]  In addition, prevention is justifiable because it keeps more people from getting hurt.  Weapons of mass destruction, also known as nuclear weapons, are available to terrorist groups.  These weapons operate through nuclear fission or nuclear fusion, which "produce large explosions and hazardous radioactive byproducts [...with up to] thousands of kilotons of explosive force" ("Nuclear weapons").[5]  With so much energy, nuclear weapons can easily wipe out entire populations.  If terrorists were to use nuclear weapons, pre-emptive war would be an appropriate response because it could help prevent destruction that could affect such a vast number of people.  While terrorism causes physical pain, it can also cause psychological pain because its aim is to effect political or ideological change.  Pain, whether physical or psychological, is never pleasant.  Physical pain, though sometimes chronic, is often temporary due to the body's ability to heal itself.  Psychological pain, on the other hand, can be much more complex and require more attention.  It also affects people in a deeper way because it adds mental and emotional components.[6]  Therefore, pre-emptive war is justifiable because it not only prevents physical pain, but also psychological pain.  While protection and prevention are just reasons for pre-emptive action, one may ask if there are other alternatives to reach the same goal.

            Leaders can and should evaluate other strategies before turning to pre-emptive war in overcoming terrorism; however, when all other tactics prove ineffective, it is appropriate to take pre-emptive action.  Religious groups, especially Christian groups, have often used the Bible and Jesus' command to love other people as a reason for pacifism.  They believe that Christ's example of sacrificial love and silence at the painful cross should be followed by refraining from war, including pre-emptive war.  At the same time, while the Bible talks about loving others, it also points to sin and the fact that "Jews and Gentiles [(all people)] alike are all under the power of sin [...] There is no one righteous, not even one" (New International Version, Romans 3:9-10).  As much as Christians or other religious groups may hope for a world filled with perfect love, it will never happen because of sin.  Violence is a consequence of sin and will continue to exist as long as this world continues to be filled with sinful humans.[7]  As leaders are faced with an impending threat or a current attack, it is appropriate for them to take pre-emptive action because imitating Christ's love, unfortunately, will not stop the inevitable.  Another commonly suggested war tactic is diplomacy.  However, this tactic is ineffective when people are set in their ways and unwilling to make compromises.  Psychologists call this phenomenon "belief persistence" where people are "very resistive to change, even in the face of fairly compelling evidence that [a belief or opinion] is wrong" (Nickerson 187).  A group of scientists conducted an experiment whose results supported this concept.  Participants were told to judge between real and fake suicidal notes and received preplanned comments on their progress during the task.  After completing the task, the participants were informed that the comments were random and were then asked to fill out a self-assessment of their performance.  Those who were given positive comments, though arbitrarily, gave higher ratings, while those given negative comments, also arbitrarily, gave lower ratings.  The researchers explained how the individuals' initial beliefs of their behavior persisted even though they were told the beliefs were incorrect.[8]  The idea of belief persistence also applies to terrorism.  Since terrorism is often based on resolute political or ideological beliefs, diplomacy may be ineffective if the terrorists are unwilling to compromise because of their belief persistence.  In this circumstance, it follows that physical violence, such as pre-emptive action, is more effective than verbal discussion.  As can be seen from discussion of two other war strategies, it is likely that pre-emptive war will be necessary in response to terrorism.  Since terrorism involves ideological (often religious) as well as political motivation, there is more at stake.  United States Navy Commander Jonathan P. Wilcox thinks that "the changing nature of the enemy, the inefficacy of traditional deterrence, and the terrible consequences that accompany considerations of failure require new strategies specifically designed to deal with a new and nontraditional threat" (Wilcox 11).  Pre-emptive war, given its definition and that it is a means of protection and prevention, can and should be used when all other alternatives have been exhausted.

            Pre-emptive war is not wrong when used during an age of terrorism for the purposes of protection of citizens, prevention of further harm, and when all possible strategies have been exhausted.  A government's responsibility for its citizens is especially important during an imminent threat and pre-emptive war is often the best way to protect them.  The use of pre-emptive war also prevents additional destruction, including physical, mental, and emotional.  In addition, it is a final solution when other strategies such as Christ-like love and diplomacy are ineffective.  There is no doubt that the controversy about pre-emptive war will continue to exist.  However, it is important for leaders who are against the strategy to keep an open mind and evaluate all variables because there may be a time, such as in the age of terrorism, when pre-emptive war is appropriate.

Works Cited

Gray, Colin S. "The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A Reconsideration." Strategic Studies Institute. United States Government, July 2007. Web. 5 Dec. 2010. <http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/>.

Nelson, Patricia. "1023." Photograph. September 11 Digital Archive. 2001. Web. 5 Dec. 2010.

Nickerson, Raymond S. "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises." Review of General Psychology 2.2 (June 1998): 175-220. PsycARTICLES. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.

"Nuclear weapons." The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Credo Reference. Web. 5 Dec. 2010.

"Terrorism." Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2005. Credo Reference. Web. 5 Dec. 2010.

"Terrorism." World of Sociology, Gale. Farmington: Gale, 2001. Credo Reference. Web. 2 Dec. 2010.

Wilcox, Jonathan P. "Legitimacy in the conduct of Military Operations." Short of General War: Perspectives on the Use of Military Power in the 21st Century. Ed. Harry R. Yarger. Strategic Studies Institute. United States Government, April 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2010. <http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/>.

"Wrong." Chambers 21st Century Dictionary. London: Chambers Harrap, 2001.Credo Reference. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. <http://911digitalarchive.org/index.php>.

(written on November 8, 2010)

            Throughout history, individuals or groups have protested against situations or issues that existed in society.  These protests have taken a variety of forms with numerous driving forces, including religion, politics, and personal rights.  During the 1960s, several protests arose in response to the Jim Crow laws and segregational attitudes that dominated society.  In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., an African-American leader, wrote a letter to church leaders explaining his plans for civil disobedience in the form of militant nonviolence, driven by his religious faith.  Parallels between King's philosophies and actions can be seen in other famous thinkers in history, namely Martin Luther, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Jefferson.

            Martin Luther was a German monk who questioned the beliefs of the well-established Roman Catholic church.  On October 31, 1517, he posted what has come to be known as The 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.  Many of these statements questioned the existing practices of the church, particularly the purchase of indulgences, and the role of the church leaders.  Given the authority of the church during Luther's time, Luther took a large risk in making many of his statements, especially those like the 32nd statement, in which he said that "those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers" (Luther 2).  Yet, driven by his convictions that the Bible was the ultimate source, Luther was willing to speak against the popular teachings of the day.  Similarly, King spoke against the wide-spread practices of segregation between blacks and whites in the South.  King writes how some people "have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful 'action' antidotes to combat the disease of segregation" (5).  Just as Luther felt the need to write 95 statements about the teachings of the Catholic church, King believed it was the proper time to take action against the system of segregation.  His religious faith, as shown by his belief in following just laws, which are "man made code[s] that [square] with the moral law or the law of God," drove him to make such a decision (King 3).  This force reveals a dedication to Scripture, which contains the "law of God," that parallels Luther's beliefs.

            Another prominent European thinker was Immanuel Kant.  In his writings, he answered the question, "What is Enlightenment?"  Kant's basic answer was that enlightenment occurs when an individual moves away from automatically accepting others' beliefs to using his or her own reasoning (often in the form of questioning) to reach understanding (1).  Kant goes on to differentiate between private and public uses of reason.  Private use of reason occurs in a person's position, whether as part of the military, a church, or another entity.  Kant argues that one should not question the organization's practices while on the job because it is part of his or her duty to uphold the teachings.  However, through public use of reason as a citizen, an individual can and should express views on the practices of society.  King engages in the public use of reason in his attempts as a member of society to fight against the injustice between black and white Americans.  This reasoning is evident in his discussions about just and unjust laws, about which he claims that "one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws...[and] a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" (King 3).  King believed that civil disobedience, arguably ground in his religious faith because of the morality factor, was an appropriate response to the segregational issue at hand.  These views came about as a result of the public use of reasoning that Kant supports and encourages.

            Finally, Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, the document that stated the colonies' desire and reasons for removing themselves from under the control of King Britain.  There are distinct similarities between Jefferson and King in their adherence to religion.  Jefferson states that "all Men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" ("Declaration of Independence" 1).  King states as part of his reasoning for engaging in action against segregation that the blacks "have waited for more than 340 years for [their] constitutional and God given rights" (2).  These statements both look to a higher being - the Creator or God - as an explanation for the rights that all individuals should have.  The statements also tie into the theme of religious faith that King emphasized throughout his letter.  Also, in both cases, this belief in rights has caused action.  King lays out his goal of militant nonviolence by describing the "four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action" (1).  These four steps can be seen in the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson collects the facts by describing the different ways that Britain has exerted control over the colonies.  He then describes their negotiation, describing how they "petitioned...appealed...[and] conjured" with the king ("Declaration of Independence" 3).  Self-purification and direct action occur when the colonies assert themselves independent from Great Britain through the writing of the Declaration.

            It can be seen through thinkers like Martin Luther, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Jefferson that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s beliefs about civil disobedience and militant nonviolence as well as adherence to religious faith were not new.  However, according to his letter, these philosophies had not yet been applied to solving the problem of segregation.  King believed that his new approach would address the existing strategies of complacency and violence that were ineffective.  As seen through historical events that followed, King's plan, although it did not eliminate segregation, certainly contributed to the movement toward equality.

(written on September 27, 2010 as an in-class assignment)

           Art is all around us.  It's found in our homes, our schools, our hospitals, and even our bathrooms and janitorial closets.  The prevalence of art is, in part, due to the variety of media through which it occurs.  As discussed in class, art can be portrayed through words, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, and food.  Through these various media, art is a tool of communication that helps individuals express their ideas, understand others' ideas, and appreciate the beauty that God created in this world.

            Art is a tool of communication.  Aristotle claims that art communicates emotion through his explanation that tragedy should evoke fear and pity in the audience (Aristotle 7.4).  Even if the emotions are not new to the audience, there is a connection between the actors and the audience that is communication.  In class, Dr. Mahnke and Dr. Schenk continued to reiterate the idea that art conveys a set of universal truths, including ambition, love, beauty, a need for purpose, and shame.  Regardless of the medium or the background of the artist or audience, central ideas can be perceived through art.  Finally, Graham discusses the idea, proposed by Nelson Goodman, that art is a means through which we can gain understanding (44).  He contrasts this with the idea that art is meant for pleasure (Graham 47).

            As a venue for communication, art is extremely important.  Without communication, society ceases to exist because of our dependence on this form of connection with other people.  Communication in art is one-way, in that it is an expression of the artist to the audience.  This expression can have two main purposes: understanding and entertainment. 

Understanding occurs through the communication of basic truths and individual perspectives.  As Dr. Schenk and Dr. Mahnke stated, basic truths are communicated through art.  These universal ideas transcend time, place, and culture and therefore can be understood by all people.  At the same time, not all pieces of artwork communicate universal truths because some art is subject to cultural or personal ideas.  In other words, an audience must sometimes have prior knowledge about a certain topic or symbol in order to understand a piece of artwork.  In this sense, art also serves to communicate an artist's perspective.  Through observing the piece of art, an audience can gain a new point of view of the world as communicated by the artist.  It follows, then, that understanding on the part of the audience occurs.

Art is also a form of entertainment.  People take pleasure in attending art shows, music concerts, or theatre productions.  Art can be a source of recreation for some individuals, whether as an artist or as a member of the audience.  The essence of art - its beauty - can evoke a range of emotions, including the positive emotions of joy, contentment, love, and serenity.

Art helps us as individuals, a society, and children of God.  As individuals, we become more aware of our biases and backgrounds.  We realize the extent of our knowledge as we look at a painting or read a play that contains material that we have never been exposed to before.  Upon understanding others' perspectives, we begin to see that there is more to our world than just our opinion.  We begin to think globally and think of life as more than just our perception.

In seeing others' perspectives, we can gain a better understanding of the people around us.  We are made aware of others' hopes, dreams, struggles, and pain.  We see the differences in how other people live.  We also catch a glimpse of each person's uniqueness and range of talents and abilities.  At the same time, we also reach an understanding that we, as humans, are not all that different.  We still hold to the same basic principles (universal truths) and realize that we can still communicate across language and location barriers.

In gaining a better understanding of ourselves and others, we gain a truer picture of our Creator God.  We realize that life is a gift from Him and that He created us individually.  He gave us unique gifts and talents that we are to use to express our thoughts and our feelings, often through artwork.  Yet, He also created us to be the Body of Christ, a unified entity that is codependent and draws from each person's strengths and weaknesses.  Most of all, art reveals the beauty of God and His majesty.  We are often struck by a piece of artwork, and it is good for us to remember that it is only a small reflection of the beauty of God.  Perhaps, that is the most important part of all.

            It has fostered the creation-evolution debate and put tension between the scientific and religious community.  Scientists are at odds with the conclusions of theologians, and vice versa, as both attempt to justify their side of the argument with numerous examples and explanations.  The tension to reconcile science and religion, or the opposing conviction of some to make the two disciplines remain as separate as possible, continues to affect the world.  In much the same way, the medieval world of the thirteenth century struggled with the connection between faith and reason.  How could a person's mind that requires tangibility and concrete objects reach truth through faith?  Philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas sought to bridge the two approaches of faith and reason in his well-known work, Summa Contra Gentiles.  He argued his points through the use of the first principle of non-contradiction and the first condition of the mind's ability to know the truth.

            All individuals who search for truth and wish to discuss its implications must first assume three primary truths.  The first fact is that each person exists.  Without existing, individuals could not even begin discussions about truth.  The first principle is that statements cannot contradict each other.  In other words, truth cannot be reached if it is considered true and false at the same time.  For example, if one were to say that he had a blue coat, but his friend claimed that the coat was red, no one could come to a truthful conclusion about the color of the coat because a true statement and a false statement both exist.  Therefore, any discussions regarding truth must adhere to this principle.  Finally, the first condition to reach truth is that the mind has the ability to know the truth.  Just as a copy machine must have the capability of making copies to do its job, a person's mind must be able to comprehend and process truth in order to discuss it.

            Thomas Aquinas begins his argument that faith and reason are not contradictory by using the first principle of truth.  He premises with the widely-held belief that truth acquired through reason, as attained by means of the natural world, is true.  On the other hand, he claims that faith is also true because it comes from God, who is perfect, and is above all knowledge and truth.  As the principle of truth states, something cannot be true and false at the same time.  Therefore, as Aquinas points out, "it is impossible for the aforesaid truth of faith to be contrary to those principles which reason knows naturally" (Aquinas 333).

            Aquinas furthers his argument by using the example of a teacher and student.  He contends that a student receives knowledge from his teacher.  Since God is the teacher of humankind, all the knowledge that humans have comes from God.  This concept applies to knowledge both in the natural world and the spiritual world.  Therefore, since the source of knowledge is the same, "those things which are received by faith from divine revelation cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge" (Aquinas 334).  Once again, Aquinas employs the first principle to show that reason and faith are not contradictory.

            The next part of the essay focuses on the first condition of truth.  Aquinas asserts that human intellect is hindered when two ideas oppose each other.  When this intellect is obstructed, it is impossible for truth to be attained.  In other words, the search for truth is dependent on the ability of the mind to comprehend it (the first condition of truth), which cannot occur without the full use of one's intellect.  However, Aquinas reconciles this issue by saying that God, the creator of the universe, would not create conflicting knowledge.

            Aquinas ends his essay by returning to the first principle of non-contradiction.  He builds on the fact that nature is stable and therefore will not change.  In addition, based on the principle of non-contradiction, knowledge in a single domain cannot be conflicting.  As a result, faith and reason will not oppose each other since "God does not instil [sic] into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge" (Aquinas 334).

            By using the first principle and the first condition of truth, Thomas Aquinas shows how faith and reason do not need to be in opposition with each other.  He uses God as the creator of knowledge in both the natural and spiritual domain to show that truth cannot result from contradictory statements.  He also shows that God's creation of the human mind allows humans to understand and process truth, which is necessary to reach the ultimate truth.  While Aquinas' arguments may or may not have been accepted by the people of his time, he certainly made a case for the positive relation between faith and reason.  Perhaps there is also hope for those who wish to attempt similar arguments regarding science and religion.

The Irony of Postmodernism

            In the attempt to understand the ideas of postmodernism, the author has gained a better understanding of her own mental processing and belief system.  Ironically enough, it has been the realization that she thinks in a modernist perspective - the attempt to define all things through scientific reasoning and concrete terms - that has brought to light the principles of postmodernism.

            One of the difficulties in defining postmodern is that it is such a general concept.  As the Encyclopedia of Nationalism states, there are multiple definitions for postmodernism because it encompasses various "philosophies, methodologies, and practices" and includes "voluminous literature" ("Postmodernism" 1).  In other words, there are so many different aspects to postmodernism that it is hard to define it in one sentence or with one idea.  In many ways, as will be seen through a few of the main principles of postmodernism, this dilemma reflects the nature of the concept itself.

            One of the main ideas of postmodernism is that of deconstruction.  Explored by Jacques Derrida, deconstruction refers to the idea that a piece of writing can be interpreted in multiple ways.  It follows, then, that a text can "never exactly mean what it says or say what it means" due to the subjectivity of each interpretation ("Deconstruction" - Thames 1).  In addition, a text's meaning is not only derived from the actual words in the sentence, but also from what is not mentioned and extraneous to the sentence at hand ("Deconstruction" - Columbia 3).  Finally, deconstruction "resists logical definitions and explanations, opting instead for alinear presentations based on extensive wordplay and puns" ("Deconstruction" - Columbia 3).

These ideas of deconstruction are related to the sentence, "This sentence serves no logical purpose," in that each person who reads the sentence can walk away with an individual interpretation.  For example, one person could take the sentence literally and claim that the sentence has no logical purpose.  This statement appears to contradict the principle of deconstruction that claims that a text can never mean exactly what it says, but it is not contradictory because it is only one person's interpretation of the sentence.  The principle refers to an overall interpretation of the sentence that is held by all members of society.  In other words, deconstruction asserts that no sentence can be taken literally because there are individuals in society who do not take it literally. 

This occurrence leads to another possible perspective of the sentence, which is the claim that the sentence has a logical purpose because it demonstrates the use of proper grammar.  This interpretation is supported by the second aspect of deconstruction that information not included in the actual text can be used to derive meaning.  An individual can look at the sentence and, based on his or her knowledge of grammar rules (which are not mentioned specially in the text), come to the conclusion that the sentence has a purpose due to its adherence to proper grammar.  Another interpretation that claims the sentence has a purpose is based on the deconstructionist component of wordplay.  One could say that the sentence has a logical purpose - to show that "This sentence has no logical purpose."  In other words, the purpose of the sentence is to show that the sentence is illogical and has no purpose.

Another important aspect of postmodernism is described by the philosopher Richard Rorty.  Rorty claims that interpretations are not only different between individuals at a given time, but are also reconstructed over time.  In other words, one may interpret the sentence being explored one way at a particular time, but another may understand it to mean something else fifty or a hundred years later.  Perhaps, then, one could go so far as to interpret that the sentence indeed has "no logical purpose" because it is constantly subject to reinterpretations and therefore follows no rules of logic and accomplishes no purpose because it lacks a central meaning.

Postmodernism is also grounded in the ideas of consumer capitalism, most specifically the principle of choice.  Just as people are given the choice to buy the products they want or desire, people are also given the choice to apply their own meaning and interpretation to a given text.  For the sentence being explored, there is no authority figure that mandates how an individual should or should not interpret a sentence.  Rather, he or she has the freedom, the choice, to derive a personal explanation from the text.

Unlike the modernist focus on unity, postmodernism operates under the concept of disunity.  The various interpretations of the sentence given are proof that disunity exists.  After all, if three individuals, each holding one of the three views presented, were to discuss their interpretations, there would certainly be a level of disunity that exists.  In the article "What Exactly is Postmodernism?", Andy Crouch describes how "any claim to know or any attempt to commend truth to others is likely to be just a power play, [. . .] an attempt to impose one's own metanarrative in the guise of an absolute truth" (3).  Simply put, two people who attempt to convey their own meaning of truth are ultimately going to end up bickering.  Given that, it is safe to draw the conclusion that disunity does indeed result from opposing interpretations of a text.  The sentence being explored in this paper is no different.

As the author has already stated, it is ironically the exploration of postmodernism that caused the author to see her thought process from a modernist perspective.  Yet more ironic is the fact that in attempting to describe postmodernism in this paper, she also used a modernist perspective.  By picking apart the definition of postmodernism to seek concrete terms that could be applied to the sentence being explored, an understanding of postmodernism itself was formed and explained.  Of course, not all who read this paper would agree with the previous statement.  The ironic response: that is postmodernism!

 Works Cited

"Deconstruction." The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Credo Reference. Web. 25 September 2010.

"Deconstruction." The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Design Since 1900. London: Thames & Hudson, 2004. Credo Reference. Web. 24 September 2010.

"Postmodernism." Encyclopedia of Nationalism: Fundamental Themes. Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology, 2000. Credo Reference. Web. 24 September 2010.

Crouch, Andy. "What Exactly is Postmodernism?" Christianity Today. Christianity Today, 13 November 2000. Web. 24 September 2010.

A World in Pieces

            My world of turning to the academics, a solid foundation with no gray areas, to find facts is beginning to shatter. Science consists of theories that may never be proven. Literature contains the subjective opinions of authors that are prone to criticism and debate. Psychology and sociology continue to change with new discoveries and theories that often clash. Now, my concept of history, which is supposedly based on facts, has been altered because it also has no definite grounding.

            In the chapter "What is Evidence?" from the book Historian as Detective, Carl Becker defines history as "the memory of things said and done" (7). As I learned in my high school psychology class, memory can sometimes be a dangerous realm. Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has conducted extensive research on the nature of memories. Her work includes a well-known experiment that showed how memories can be altered based on the way a person is led to recall a memory. Though her research focused primarily on the validity of eyewitness accounts, it seems to apply to history as well, given Becker's definition. Consequently, the accounts of history may not be as accurate as some people like to believe.

            According to Becker, life and history are closely intertwined because history "is so intimately associated with what [people] are doing and with what [people] hope to do" (13). Therefore, each person, with his or her own background and memories, brings a different interpretation and perspective to history. With the wide range of opinions, it is nearly impossible to end up with a consistent and fully accurate account of historical events. Given this point, Becker also describes history as "an imaginative creation, a personal possession which each [person] . . . fashions out of his individual experience, adapts to his practical or emotional needs, and adorns as well as may be to suit his aesthetic tastes" (13). History thus becomes similar to an art, where each person portrays his or her ideals subjectively. The "cold facts" no longer exist and are instead shaped by the interpretation of the historian (13).

            Government agencies and other powerful organizations are also responsible for distorted history. In another chapter of the same book, C. Vann Woodward lists four ways that powerful groups can influence past events (36-37). By designating certain pieces of evidence as "confidential" or "top-secret," organizations can control the classification of documents and limit the number of people who have access to important evidence. Similarly, archives can be made inaccessible, keeping historians away from information the agency does not want in the public realm. Selective publication also contributes to a distorted history because society does not receive a full picture of events that took place. Finally, the simple fact that historians are employed by governmental agencies that can withhold a paycheck can lead to a history that is shaped by the organization. It is most difficult for historians to maintain an objective interpretation of history when governmental agencies are hindering the research and contributing to the bias.

            This idea of "historical relativism," where each individual self-interprets, can result in a dangerous situation. In the introduction to the chapter "On Believing What One Reads" by C. Vann Woodward, editor Robin Winks discusses a few implications of historical relativism. The interpretations that are made so easily in one's private life can easily be transferred into one's public life, thereby affecting society as a whole (24). The history of America includes several examples of factual manipulation where the public has received propaganda-like information. For example, during the Civil War, the North attempted to justify its actions against the South by claiming the South was conspiring to undermine the Constitution. Later on, the South portrayed the North's attempts of Reconstruction as "brutal, hypocritical, and corrupt" (32). Historical relativism not only distorts an individual's own perspective of history, but can completely change a country's stance on an issue or a significant event.

            While no solution will be absolutely perfect, educating historians, politicians, and all members of society about the risks of historical relativism is a place to start. I personally had never heard about this phenomenon and am already a college student who has been told throughout my school career that history is based on facts. Educating students about the implications of biased interpretation, the flaws of memory, and our human tendencies will at least bring awareness. Perhaps the awareness will then turn into a standard by which members of society can hold each other accountable.

            Change must also occur in the governmental agencies of our nation if indeed they are responsible for a large portion of the slanted history. Removing laws that limit access to important evidence is one tangible way to make improvements in this area. Publications, news broadcasts, and other types of mass media can also strive to tell all sides of a story rather than being selective with the evidence. A system of open files for all people to further investigate events may be another option.

            Though we can discuss the flaws of history and attempt to become more objective in our interpretations, there is a root problem that we will never fix. That root problem is human corruption, which has been passed through humankind since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. It is because of our selfishness and our desire to make ourselves look good that we distort facts, hide important evidence, and let our memories wander. Yes, my perfect intellectual world has shattered--but it was never perfect in the first place.