Students in Government class in their senior year of high school at Heritage in Harlem are eager to participate in a play about the social contract. Why is this subject interesting to a kid from Harlem who is about to bust out of the nyc education machine? The hook could be tacit consent. That theory, written by Locke, focused on the benefits that we accept from a source creating a relationship based on constant reciprocation. Whether we choose the benefits or not, when we are granted something, do we owe something of equivalent value to pay for what we have received? Perhaps that is a good question to ask. I can see how the attitudes of an individual about this might be linked to their generation and cultural heritage as well as every other factor.
A social contract is silent and understood in most cases. And different contexts, social atmospheres, and time connotes different readings of the same invisible rules. A sense of national pride might not translate to the same cycle of benefit and service on an interpersonal level or vice versa.
Leaving the educational system with or without an education (these kids have been awarded an honest education from Heritage), some growing up with State 'benefits' to supplement their family's basic needs, or at least being surrounded by the monuments to governmental benefits all up and down 106th st could/should have induced some strong feelings for or against the 'generosities' of the state and nation. Do they feel like they owe anybody anything? I don't feel like I owe anything for my free public education.
No comments:
Post a Comment