EXTRA CREDIT JOURNAL

** The grade you receive on this grade may replace your lowest journal grade, if you are unsatisfied with a specific grade you've received. If you're satisfied with your journal grades, you're done with journals! :) **

In Green's final "wrap-up" of her book, she writes, "Of course, as Dewey pointed out, general transformative strategies are not like cookbook recipes that can simply be applied universally without attention to the particular situation. Rather, their contextualized function is to suggest how to look at a particular situation, focusing on the relevant characteristics that must be taken into account while drawing upon information and experience-based insights about other communities' struggles that may suggest some of the elements of a specific, situationally adequate transformative solution" (216).

We talk a lot about big "universal" principles and concepts in this class - so much so that it's easy to forget about context, situations, and specifics. It's important to remember that solutions to problems must be well-suited to the specific context.

Think about the specific context of our situation -- the students in our class, the content of the course, UNC, community dynamics of Chapel Hill, the year 2010 -- and explore how this context shapes the way in which we have approached addressing the issue of fair trade. What obstacles does this context bring? What about this context makes the campaign run more smoothly?

Journal Question Five

In defining the “public square,” Green writes:

“The public square is no singular place. Rather, it is shaped by many social actors in many places, including government agencies at all levels, large-scale economic actors operating at a distance, and participants in the kinds of localized voluntary organizations Sara Evans and Harry Boyte call 'free spaces,' where people develop civic skills and virtues as well as a sense of 'somebodiness' within cooperative, democratic, cross-difference efforts through which they aim to solve problems, to improve their lives, and to realize at least some of their hopes” (199).

For the Fair Trade campaign to be successful, our class has to mobilize and gain the cooperation of several different sectors of the public sphere - institutions of public education (our class and broader student support), town government, portions of the business sector, the media, etc. On a global scale, Fair Trade requires the participation of international or national labeling agencies, foreign workers, retailers and distributors, etc.

Think critically about the links between these institutions, and choose at least one of the following questions to explore: Which alliances do you think are easiest to form, and which require the most struggle? Which alliances require the presence of some sort of intermediary? Which actors stand to gain, and who will have to make sacrifices? What is the best way to link the local sphere to the global sphere?

Journal #4

Here is journal 4, due March 25th. Again, please remember to include your full name. Also, remember that grades may be found at: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AuNqcZipjcc5dHhEcFRwN2l5NUVLdzMzTUp0Tm83UkE&hl=en. If you don't see your PIN, e-mail it to me. If you're unsatisfied with a grade, remember that there will be a make-up at the end of the semester. If you see a blank slot where you did something, let me know and we'll get it fixed!

In Green's discussion of Martin Luther King as a prophetic pragmatist, she notes that King “realized that there is generally less deep agreement in American political life about specific goals to be achieved than about the unacceptability of specific present realities” (139). She then goes on to explain that King was not only critical (of an unacceptable current situation) and idealistic (holding an image of the world as a better place), but that he recognized the importance of attainable goals that are grounded in reality.

It is easy to be critical (poverty is bad) and have a vague idea of what the world would look like if it were a better place (we need more education, equality, human rights, etc.). It is much more difficult to find widespread agreement of specific and realistic goals to work towards, as well as ways of reaching those goals.

Think about the social problem that your APPLES organization is addressing. Do you think that their method and goals are the most effective way to address this problem? If so, why do you think their model works? If not, what method or model do you think would work better, and why?

Journal 3

Here is journal #3, due March 4th. Please make sure your FULL name is on the comment!

Green paraphrases some of Alaine Locke's thinking in writing : "rival absolutisms must be abandoned in favor of a negotiated, cross-cultural process of progressive understanding, trust-building, and trust-based democratic collaboration in areas of mutual benefit ... a cosmopolitan unity that respects areas of nonabsolutist value diversity ..." (46).

In somewhat dense language, Locke (and Green) are making the case that we should work towards tolerance of values -- not unity of values. In other words, it's neither possible nor desirable to work towards a universal value-system.

In your APPLES assignment, have you noticed any differences between your own value system and that of the organization, volunteers, or the people you're serving? (For example, if you're working with children perhaps you've noticed that you seem to value sharing more than the kids do. Or, perhaps you feel that you value education/training and the organization you work with values charity, etc.) When you encounter these differences, what has been your inward response? Confusion? Anger? Relativist interest? Discuss a difference in values you've noticed at your site, then critically evaluate the way you respond to these differences in values. How tolerant do you think you are?

Journal Question Two

In her discussion on the importance of mutual understanding in building democracy, Green writes: “It requires actual conversations, collaboratively aiming for mutual understanding about self and world, with others who are differently located than oneself within a shared culture ...” (24).

Green's been talking a lot about diversity and democracy – the fundamental point, I think, being that deep democracy requires letting all voices be heard, including those on the margins. This doesn't mean just that the government or state should hear all voices, either, but rather that we have to listen to each other. Real conversations, as basic as this might sound, are the building blocks of democracy.

Briefly recount a conversation you've had at your APPLES site – either with a fellow volunteer, supervisor, or someone to whom you're providing services. What did you learn from the encounter? How did it change you, or change the way you thought about something?

Journal Question One

In chapter one of Green's book, she paraphrases Iris Marion Young in the following quote:

“Both Western theorizing and everyday language exhibit a misguided urge to characterize things in terms of overarching wholes and subordinate parts as way of representing and thus grasping reality. This way of thinking leads inevitably to hierarchical oppositions between the pure and impure examples of things of a kind … giving privileged attention to certain characteristics that are widely shared among favored examples and by marginalizing other characteristics in which things of the kind differ” (2).

In other words, we have a tendency to define particular groups with certain characteristics – at the expense of recognizing internal diversity within the group.

Think about the group or population that your APPLES organization is serving. Do you think that mainstream society defines this group in a way that is simplistic or homogeneous? Is this a negative or positive stereotype? Have your recent encounters with members of this group changed the way that you define or “see” that group? How so?