The Author brings p the idea that many of our "causes" as a society, such as civil rights and the war, are short lived fads. The reasoning she gives is they are over simplified dilemmas that through a sense on impatience and "short-lived enthusiasm" are not correctly or effectively addresses. I think this can be true because many times i see people rise up against things they feel "strongly" about but instead of taking responsibility to correct the issue themselves, they just make a fuss and push other organizations to take action. On the other hand though, were not things still accomplished by the so called "fads" she mentioned? The civil rights movement made great gains even if the effort was not as prolonged as it should have been. I think that while a more genuine and personal concern for a cause would be great, most of the general public would not even be aware of causes without fads to inspire them and get the information out here. If i concern in not generated for a cause, people might not even notice it at all. More specifically, i feel that modern environmental concerns are not just fads because there have been many privatized organizations tat take a legitimate interest in it. Also, since modern media, on which our society is dependent, has created an awareness of problems, even if the fad fades, the awareness will not, which is key in gaining continued support by agencies. I also think that a large part of it has to do with the eclipsing of our values by an addiction to convenience which modern technology has created. While at first we might see the concern and want to take action, its not that its merely just a fad, but that we have aqired a reliance, or even an addiction, to the easier way of life that distracts us and deters us from the more difficult conquest of value.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment