Role Of The Enlightenment In American Society
When we think of challenging institutions we first think of the Enlightenment and the role the movement played in completely changing the course of human reason and thinking. Religion is and has been a central part of people’s lives throughout history, it dominated how many people thought and felt about the world around them. Before the Enlightenment, the Christian Church was an absolute power and domineering institution that persecuted people as heretics if they attempted to discredit or disprove the teachings of the Church or of God. This conduct by the Church only allowed for a select set of ideals and thought, with no incentive to deviate from everyone else’s collective beliefs. Enlightenment thinkers began to question the power and influence
…show more content…
of the Church and instead began to focus on rational thought and scientific inquiry. Kant along with many other Enlightenment contemporaries encouraged free thinking rather than just accepting the ideals of the majority.
However, the necessity of free thinking is not exclusively an Enlightenment ideal but continues into modern society.
More modern thinkers like Foucault highlight the need to continue the fight towards Enlightenment and free thinking in both the public and private spheres. There have been many institutions of power over the course of history that have affected/ limited the views of the masses including the Christian Church and slavery in the Americas. An institution that is now playing a large role in current American society is the police. The police are sworn to protect America and its citizens and yet they have been brutalizing and suppressing certain groups of Americans. We have been taught that police are combatants of danger and defenders of justice and we are intended to accept this as fact. As information arises that is contrary to this belief, many are not willing to veer from the traditional opinion or willing to question whether or not they actually agree and instead rely on what is known and familiar. The evidence of police brutality challenges the institution of the police and urges the people of this country to form their own opinion on whether the institution is right or wrong and whether or not it needs reform. There is the question of if people are going to construct their own view as the Enlightenment encourages or just agree with the common …show more content…
perspective.
Kant describes Enlightenment as, “man's release from his self-incurred tutelage.” This idea expresses that there is a piece of everyone that holds themselves back from exploring different thoughts and once they overcome this they will become enlightened. Kant highlights laziness as a reason that people remain under self-incurred tutelage, it is easiest for them to just follow the majority over taking the time to formulate their own opinion. He also attributes cowardice to blocking humans from reaching enlightenment. Kant writes, “Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.” This idea coincides with how it has been proven that humans as a species desire company and would prefer be a part of a group then have to be or act alone. Naturally, humans want to feel community and be surrounded by similar people and would rather not express an opinion opposing the mass, in fear of being rejected or exiled. About someone escaping their self-incurred tutelage Kant states, “He has come to be fond of his state, and he is for the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for no one has ever let him try it out.” Making a personal change of any kind is a difficult and disquieting feat and Kant understands this so he continues to say that few have been able to achieve this. Kant takes on a slightly cynical perspective when talking about revolution by saying, “perhaps a fall of personal despotism or of avaricious or tyrannical oppression may be accomplished by revolution, but never a true reform in ways of thinking.” He writes that revolution can cause small changes but not a real revision of thought. This is quite disheartening because we tend to think of revolution as a strong fight that results in a groundbreaking change. Kant was an important Enlightenment thinker and many others have since responded to Kant’s ideals.
One of the more recent thinkers and philosophers to respond to Kant and his work is Michel Foucault. Foucault writes his own piece under the same title as Kant, What is Enlightenment. He brings up questions raised by Kant and calls his work ambiguous and attempts to clarify points made by Kant. Foucault brings up Kant’s idea of public vs. private use of reason and states, “when one is reasoning only in order to use one's reason, when one is reasoning as a reasonable being (and not as a cog in a machine), when one is reasoning as a member of reasonable humanity, then the use of reason must be free and public.” Both Kant and Foucault promote the use of free thinking in the public realm but Kant believes that in private, like in their career, they should foremost follow their duty. Foucault seems to take issue with this and writes, “the question, in any event, is that of knowing how the use of reason can take the public form that it requires, how the audacity to know can be exercised in broad daylight, while individuals are obeying as scrupulously as possible.” He argues how it’s contradictory that Kant encourages people to argue freely in public while individuals in their jobs and other private domains are still expected to subscribe to authority. An interesting point is made when Foucault discusses moments when society claims we have altered our way of thinking, “we know from experience that the claim to escape from the system of contemporary reality so as to produce the overall programs of another society, of another way of thinking, another culture, another vision of the world, has led only to the return of the most dangerous traditions.” It’s similar to saying that if we believe we have moved on from history and ignore it, it will eventually repeat itself. We need to be constantly moving forward through the process of enlightenment towards free expression to receive positive results like Foucault writes, “They may be actors in the process to the extent that they participate in it; and the process occurs to the extent that men decide to be its voluntary actors.”
The importance of free thought is as important as ever and you would think that within this age of technology everyone would already be enlightened according to Kant’s definition, with all of information available to the vast majority of people, but it still remains a problem. There are a series of problems plaguing our society today that could use the help of individualized thinking but a primary issue is the problem of police brutality. This issue is currently a source of division in our country and is particularly challenging because it goes against a central institution within our government, the police. The police are given the authority to uphold the laws of our country to serve and protect American citizens. Many people respect and regard police officers very highly for the risk that they take with their lives to protect others. It is admirable that these officers do sometimes endanger their well-being on the job and many are fiercely dedicated to fighting for all Americans. However, over the past few decades the abuse of power by some members of the police force have continuously come to light and there is a growing feeling of doubt surrounding police. A large amount of this abuse perpetrated by police officers is toward members of non-white groups like African Americans and Latinos/as.
An underlying issue in the division of opinions on police is very much based on race.
When discussing the merciless beating of Rodney King in 1991, Darlene Ricker writes, “Minorities, and particularly blacks, have complained for years about police abuse in their communities. So long as it remained in those communities, out of the public eye, it was unofficially tolerated as the price we pay for maintaining law and order,” As we have begun to investigate police brutality is has become more apparent that incidents like the bashing of Rodney King had been happening in marginalized communities for many decades before we had the technology to show evidence of these attacks. These incidents had never been addressed because the public outside of these communities was unaware that it was even occurring. It wasn’t until these issues began to be broadcast on TV’s across America that people took notice and the division of opinions began. Many believed that the police were just doing their job and they were justified to use excessive force while others began to wonder where the line between force and brutality
was.
This pattern of incidents has continued from 1991 and the frequency has increased tremendously. There is a new highly publicized video of police mistreating the mentally disabled, youth and women and men of color every few weeks. Now the issue of police brutality is almost impossible to ignore and the difference between opinions has only grown stronger. Many still firmly believe police are just working tough jobs and are under too much pressure, they think they should just accept the way things are done. Carl Dix brings up this point and writes, “the power structure maintains, and many people are led to believe, that the police are needed to control street crime.” People believe this is what needs to be endured in order to keep America safe. Therefore, this brutality has become normalized and part of the institution that is the police. This is shown through another Dix quote, “the systematic and systemic nature of police violence is revealed by the support and protection of the entire legal system: by the district attorneys that refuse to prosecute, by the hearings that exonerate guilty police, and by the judges and juries that acquit killer cops.” In many ways the current political and criminal justice systems disregard the problem of police brutality and show strong support for police officers even when there is evidence of wrong-doing. On the issue of race, because many of the people in discriminated communities have actually experienced or know people that have experienced the crude tendencies of some police officers they understand that there is a problem and that reform is needed. There is a clear discrepancy between the opinion of African Americans and white Americans towards the idea of police brutality. According to data collected from Gallup Inc., “Combined 2011-2014 data measuring Americans' confidence in the police shows that 59% of whites have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police, compared with 37% of blacks.” Gallup Inc. did another study and discovered that, “The police are among the three highest-rated institutions out of 17 tested in terms of whites' confidence, behind only the military and small business.” Even with physical evidence of police brutality and misconduct white Americans still hold a high level of trust in the police, why is that? Partly, it is due to their inability to relate because their racial group suffers the smallest ratio of police brutality, but still that doesn’t mean there are no white Americans who have suffered from police brutality. Since they are not direct victims they maintain the collective belief that police are necessary and are only trying their best, because of their privilege white Americans are not pressured to challenge their initial beliefs about police and many continue to blindly defend them.
The problem here is that many Americans notice police brutality but they are unwilling to shift or rethink the views that they were raised to believe. In relation to this Darlene Ricker states that police brutality, “challenges our society's willingness to reassess its values and to make reforms where they are most needed.” In modern America there is a lack of individualism and individual thinking, you’re either on one side or the other. Due to this, many Americans fear losing the community of people that share the same beliefs as them and are averse to even questioning the logic behind their beliefs. Congruent to the people of era of pre-Enlightenment, many will not ponder their collective beliefs in relation to a powerful institution but in order to move forward we need to think for ourselves instead of in a group, and actually question authority to solve the large problems facing this country.
of the Church and instead began to focus on rational thought and scientific inquiry. Kant along with many other Enlightenment contemporaries encouraged free thinking rather than just accepting the ideals of the majority.
However, the necessity of free thinking is not exclusively an Enlightenment ideal but continues into modern society.
More modern thinkers like Foucault highlight the need to continue the fight towards Enlightenment and free thinking in both the public and private spheres. There have been many institutions of power over the course of history that have affected/ limited the views of the masses including the Christian Church and slavery in the Americas. An institution that is now playing a large role in current American society is the police. The police are sworn to protect America and its citizens and yet they have been brutalizing and suppressing certain groups of Americans. We have been taught that police are combatants of danger and defenders of justice and we are intended to accept this as fact. As information arises that is contrary to this belief, many are not willing to veer from the traditional opinion or willing to question whether or not they actually agree and instead rely on what is known and familiar. The evidence of police brutality challenges the institution of the police and urges the people of this country to form their own opinion on whether the institution is right or wrong and whether or not it needs reform. There is the question of if people are going to construct their own view as the Enlightenment encourages or just agree with the common …show more content…
perspective.
Kant describes Enlightenment as, “man's release from his self-incurred tutelage.” This idea expresses that there is a piece of everyone that holds themselves back from exploring different thoughts and once they overcome this they will become enlightened. Kant highlights laziness as a reason that people remain under self-incurred tutelage, it is easiest for them to just follow the majority over taking the time to formulate their own opinion. He also attributes cowardice to blocking humans from reaching enlightenment. Kant writes, “Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.” This idea coincides with how it has been proven that humans as a species desire company and would prefer be a part of a group then have to be or act alone. Naturally, humans want to feel community and be surrounded by similar people and would rather not express an opinion opposing the mass, in fear of being rejected or exiled. About someone escaping their self-incurred tutelage Kant states, “He has come to be fond of his state, and he is for the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for no one has ever let him try it out.” Making a personal change of any kind is a difficult and disquieting feat and Kant understands this so he continues to say that few have been able to achieve this. Kant takes on a slightly cynical perspective when talking about revolution by saying, “perhaps a fall of personal despotism or of avaricious or tyrannical oppression may be accomplished by revolution, but never a true reform in ways of thinking.” He writes that revolution can cause small changes but not a real revision of thought. This is quite disheartening because we tend to think of revolution as a strong fight that results in a groundbreaking change. Kant was an important Enlightenment thinker and many others have since responded to Kant’s ideals.
One of the more recent thinkers and philosophers to respond to Kant and his work is Michel Foucault. Foucault writes his own piece under the same title as Kant, What is Enlightenment. He brings up questions raised by Kant and calls his work ambiguous and attempts to clarify points made by Kant. Foucault brings up Kant’s idea of public vs. private use of reason and states, “when one is reasoning only in order to use one's reason, when one is reasoning as a reasonable being (and not as a cog in a machine), when one is reasoning as a member of reasonable humanity, then the use of reason must be free and public.” Both Kant and Foucault promote the use of free thinking in the public realm but Kant believes that in private, like in their career, they should foremost follow their duty. Foucault seems to take issue with this and writes, “the question, in any event, is that of knowing how the use of reason can take the public form that it requires, how the audacity to know can be exercised in broad daylight, while individuals are obeying as scrupulously as possible.” He argues how it’s contradictory that Kant encourages people to argue freely in public while individuals in their jobs and other private domains are still expected to subscribe to authority. An interesting point is made when Foucault discusses moments when society claims we have altered our way of thinking, “we know from experience that the claim to escape from the system of contemporary reality so as to produce the overall programs of another society, of another way of thinking, another culture, another vision of the world, has led only to the return of the most dangerous traditions.” It’s similar to saying that if we believe we have moved on from history and ignore it, it will eventually repeat itself. We need to be constantly moving forward through the process of enlightenment towards free expression to receive positive results like Foucault writes, “They may be actors in the process to the extent that they participate in it; and the process occurs to the extent that men decide to be its voluntary actors.”
The importance of free thought is as important as ever and you would think that within this age of technology everyone would already be enlightened according to Kant’s definition, with all of information available to the vast majority of people, but it still remains a problem. There are a series of problems plaguing our society today that could use the help of individualized thinking but a primary issue is the problem of police brutality. This issue is currently a source of division in our country and is particularly challenging because it goes against a central institution within our government, the police. The police are given the authority to uphold the laws of our country to serve and protect American citizens. Many people respect and regard police officers very highly for the risk that they take with their lives to protect others. It is admirable that these officers do sometimes endanger their well-being on the job and many are fiercely dedicated to fighting for all Americans. However, over the past few decades the abuse of power by some members of the police force have continuously come to light and there is a growing feeling of doubt surrounding police. A large amount of this abuse perpetrated by police officers is toward members of non-white groups like African Americans and Latinos/as.
An underlying issue in the division of opinions on police is very much based on race.
When discussing the merciless beating of Rodney King in 1991, Darlene Ricker writes, “Minorities, and particularly blacks, have complained for years about police abuse in their communities. So long as it remained in those communities, out of the public eye, it was unofficially tolerated as the price we pay for maintaining law and order,” As we have begun to investigate police brutality is has become more apparent that incidents like the bashing of Rodney King had been happening in marginalized communities for many decades before we had the technology to show evidence of these attacks. These incidents had never been addressed because the public outside of these communities was unaware that it was even occurring. It wasn’t until these issues began to be broadcast on TV’s across America that people took notice and the division of opinions began. Many believed that the police were just doing their job and they were justified to use excessive force while others began to wonder where the line between force and brutality
was.
This pattern of incidents has continued from 1991 and the frequency has increased tremendously. There is a new highly publicized video of police mistreating the mentally disabled, youth and women and men of color every few weeks. Now the issue of police brutality is almost impossible to ignore and the difference between opinions has only grown stronger. Many still firmly believe police are just working tough jobs and are under too much pressure, they think they should just accept the way things are done. Carl Dix brings up this point and writes, “the power structure maintains, and many people are led to believe, that the police are needed to control street crime.” People believe this is what needs to be endured in order to keep America safe. Therefore, this brutality has become normalized and part of the institution that is the police. This is shown through another Dix quote, “the systematic and systemic nature of police violence is revealed by the support and protection of the entire legal system: by the district attorneys that refuse to prosecute, by the hearings that exonerate guilty police, and by the judges and juries that acquit killer cops.” In many ways the current political and criminal justice systems disregard the problem of police brutality and show strong support for police officers even when there is evidence of wrong-doing. On the issue of race, because many of the people in discriminated communities have actually experienced or know people that have experienced the crude tendencies of some police officers they understand that there is a problem and that reform is needed. There is a clear discrepancy between the opinion of African Americans and white Americans towards the idea of police brutality. According to data collected from Gallup Inc., “Combined 2011-2014 data measuring Americans' confidence in the police shows that 59% of whites have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police, compared with 37% of blacks.” Gallup Inc. did another study and discovered that, “The police are among the three highest-rated institutions out of 17 tested in terms of whites' confidence, behind only the military and small business.” Even with physical evidence of police brutality and misconduct white Americans still hold a high level of trust in the police, why is that? Partly, it is due to their inability to relate because their racial group suffers the smallest ratio of police brutality, but still that doesn’t mean there are no white Americans who have suffered from police brutality. Since they are not direct victims they maintain the collective belief that police are necessary and are only trying their best, because of their privilege white Americans are not pressured to challenge their initial beliefs about police and many continue to blindly defend them.
The problem here is that many Americans notice police brutality but they are unwilling to shift or rethink the views that they were raised to believe. In relation to this Darlene Ricker states that police brutality, “challenges our society's willingness to reassess its values and to make reforms where they are most needed.” In modern America there is a lack of individualism and individual thinking, you’re either on one side or the other. Due to this, many Americans fear losing the community of people that share the same beliefs as them and are averse to even questioning the logic behind their beliefs. Congruent to the people of era of pre-Enlightenment, many will not ponder their collective beliefs in relation to a powerful institution but in order to move forward we need to think for ourselves instead of in a group, and actually question authority to solve the large problems facing this country.