Concern
In Democracy in America, Alexis expresses his concern about possible tyranny in the absence of administrative centralization. Without a sole power controlling, or without a group of experts as Socrates might proffer, decisions made by majority can lead to disaster. Is it the case that the multitude are sometimes so blind and easily misguided by their own desire, that they are driven by emotions and impulse when they are making decision? Will it mean the common will can somehow be a problem? What will happen if someone thinks they can ignore the common will? Will it be the case that, minority will join the majority for multiple reasons even the minority realizes that the majority are wrong? I think I was exposed to a possible answer for all these question though a movie when I was young.
Movie <Malèna>
Malèna
Directed by Giuseppe Tornatore, one of "Home" trilogy
Compared to other two movies in this trilogy, "cinema paradiso" and "the legend of 1900", "Malèna" seems less known but appears to be more acute. It deeply touched my heart at my age of 14 and revealed the power of majority in front of my eyes. I was shocked by the scene in the later part of this movie, which depicting a woman, the main role in this movie, besieged, insulted and beaten up by almost all the other women in that small town, when other man just silently stands aside and watches. The others beats her in the name of punishing the slut, when practically the whole town envied her beauty. But no one stops the fanatic multitude! What should we say? What can be said? In the case of the beauty, she is minority. She can not even fight back because she is facing so many people. She wants to justify herself but no one cares. In the other case of the multitude, they hides their jealousy and selfishness under the mask of righteous judgement, along with the unintentional conspiracy of men, executing the power of majority.
Get back to topic
How bad the consequence can a awful decision-making majority result? No worse than an innocent woman beaten up by others. Hence, I personally think suggestions from experts are needed when the situation loses control, or so to speak, needed all to time to prevent that situation from occurring.
When do we know when the situation loses control? And then what are 'experts' supposed to do to stop a majority?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn my opinion, for democracy if the majority decides to do something then nobody can stop them except themselves. Plato did have his point two thousand years ago.
DeleteIf most people think that legalizing marijuana is right, then it will be made into law until the majority realize it is wrong and abandon it.
In the movie, it is obvious that beating up the beautiful woman is the majority's interest. They would probably stop beating her when they find out she is old and ugly. In this case, beating her up would not be their interest anymore since it wastes their time what not. After all, she lives in an ill and inhumane society.
It is hard to say, I don't really think there is any 'experts' can intervene in this situation. Maybe what a real 'expert' will do is to suggest the woman not to be so 'beautiful'. The majority beats the woman in the name of "slut". If someone argues and even proves she is not a "slut", it will affect nothing, insomuch as majority beats for jealousy. No one can prove 'jealousy' wrong. Jealousy is a normal that everyone has had before. Just the thing is getting crazy if so many people holds the same 'jealousy' and it is towards the same people. However, I thing in reality it might not be the case, because there will be more beautiful woman, and 'beauty' will not be as 'minority' as what is depicted in the movie.
DeleteIt is hard to say, I don't really think there is any 'experts' can intervene in this situation. Maybe what a real 'expert' will do is to suggest the woman not to be so 'beautiful'. The majority beats the woman in the name of "slut". If someone argues and even proves she is not a "slut", it will affect nothing, insomuch as majority beats for jealousy. No one can prove 'jealousy' wrong. Jealousy is a normal that everyone has had before. Just the thing is getting crazy if so many people holds the same 'jealousy' and it is towards the same people. However, I thing in reality it might not be the case, because there will be more beautiful woman, and 'beauty' will not be as 'minority' as what is depicted in the movie.
DeleteWhen do we know when the situation loses control? And then what are 'experts' supposed to do to stop a majority?
ReplyDeleteIdeally the "experts" would step in before a majority got "out of control," but that still leaves the question of when the situation is "out of control." Do the experts define that too? Does the layman? I want to say that the latter should; that some sort of morality should be invoked, but I also don't believe that a universal morality exists. Therefore, a system of checks and balances is the best way to prevent an out-of-control situation--because once a situation reaches that point, it cannot always be de-escalated.
DeleteIt is important to question the legitimacy of the who are "experts" in the first place, but I think that in most cases whomever happens to be in a position of governmental authority should suffice in argument. Beyond this, it is important to understand the radical effects of both negative and positive liberty, as discussed in class to include either communism or a degree of tyrannical rule. This brings into focus the need for a federal, centralized government to exist for every state. There are additional checks and balances that can be implemented, and while a central government is no less corruptible, it may at the very least open up more discussion in practice.
DeleteIf a system of checks and balances is put to work, and the multitude is convicted of crime of jealousy, then all of time are brought to the jury? I don't think it is the case. It is always the best to stop the thing at the every first place. Instead of 'check and balances' after things happened or in the middle of a situation, it will be more reasonable to educate people firstly that 'beating up a woman in public is wrong' and 'people should not abuse their power even when they are in majority'. I would rather believe that building up the morality standards will work more efficiently.
DeleteIf a system of checks and balances is put to work, and the multitude is convicted of crime of jealousy, then all of time are brought to the jury? I don't think it is the case. It is always the best to stop the thing at the every first place. Instead of 'check and balances' after things happened or in the middle of a situation, it will be more reasonable to educate people firstly that 'beating up a woman in public is wrong' and 'people should not abuse their power even when they are in majority'. I would rather believe that building up the morality standards will work more efficiently.
Delete