Philosophy of Politics - Keeping to the Code.

Haha, it seems I'm getting lazy and letting Storyteller Knight take over for me with a multitude of guest posts. (Speaking of which, there will be another one coming up in a few hours... and I will be sharing my formal guest post policy, should anyone else want to submit something. I've actually had requests! Imagine that! By the way, if you're reading this, I do plan on emailing you back as soon as my ADD permits me!)

As previously mentioned, I've been busy with NaNoWriMo, and work, among other things, and I just have not gotten around to writing anything for this blog lately. So I thought now would be a good time to share some (very, very random, unpublished) thoughts regarding the Philosophy of Politics. (Yea, I know-- it's been a while, right?) Forgive me if this starts to sound too Cosmo. I was probably a little bit drunk. And there's totally a point to it... somewhere.

How do I put this... I was bored and wrote all of this up way back in September. I had been thinking back on on childhood fads and oral traditions passed on to us by the older girls on the playground...  So I thought we could examine the philosophy of politics and law from another angle... Keeping to the Code. Girl's Code, that is.

For example, most women are aware of an "unwritten" moral code by which we are supposed to conduct ourselves, in order to maintain peace within the Girl World. (The Code has been written down occasionally, but has always been considered oral tradition.) Rules may vary by region or age group, but the general message is the same. (Unlike the Rules of Dating, the Girls' Code is pretty concrete.) This sounds silly, and yes, to some extent it is, but believe me, it matters more than many realize. Men have a similar code as well. (I will be getting around to gender issues later...)

Girls' Code of Honor (and how it compares to the men)-
1. This is the most important (and most complicated) rule of them all -- You do NOT mess with the guy your friend likes, is dating, has recently dated, guys who have used her, etc. This includes hanging out (without the friend present), extensive conversations, etc. You do NOT hook up with a friend's ex. It is completely off limits-- unless it was a one-time hookup. After an extensive time period, for any of the above situations, you may ask your friend. If she says it's ok, you may consider it, but don't be surprised if it's weird afterwards. However, if she is not dating a guy and claims she doesn't like him [i.e. a guy she used to like] but he likes you, he is fair game.
To simplify this - if your friend has any sort of history with a guy, for the sake of your friendship, it's best to avoid getting involved with him unless she insists that she's ok with it (& even then, tread carefully). It's already complicated enough, and you would be hurting your friend in the process. Which means more to you, a guy or true friendship?
(Guys' code- an ex is an ex and therefore fair game any time.)

2. If you and your friend like the same guy, he is OFF LIMITS. If one person indicates she likes him before the other person does, then we refer to rule 1. If it is discovered at the same time, refer to rule 2. If guy asks for your number, and Rule 1 is in effect, you are required to "campaign" for your friend first. (Guys' code - whoever gets the girl wins, unless friend was first to admit he liked her, a.k.a. called dibs.)

3. Do NOT let your friends do stupid things while drunk. This includes hooking up with random, shady guys, table dancing, going home with shady guys, (Guys' code - "Feel free to make your own stupid mistakes. In fact, we'll encourage you.")

4. Do not choose a guy over your best friend. You should find equal time for both. Friendships come before relationships. (Guys' code - "Bros before hoes.") Friends should be understanding, but ample notice should be given before breaking off plans with your girls to hang out with your guy! Not cool.

5. Do not ever diss a friend's crush or boyfriend unless said guy has done something absolutely worthy of it (i.e. cheating, dumped friend). You may politely nod along if she says something about him being a jerk/asshole/bastard, but you CANNOT initiate such language. Upon a breakup, you are obligated to remind your friend that she deserves better. (Guys' code- If you don't like the girl your friend is dating, you should always tell him.)
6. Never insult your friend, but give honest advice (tastefully, of course) and don't share each other's secrets.
7. If you want to date a friend's brother (or other close relative), you must first ask your friend for permission.
8. A Girls' Night Out is for girls only- no inviting boyfriends.


As we can see, it begins with issues of ethics and social justice (and respect). It is all based very loosely on a "do unto others" type of morality, rather simplistic, yet favors a complex egalitarian system of ethics. (How would you feel if your best friend asked out someone she knew you really liked?) Girl code exists as a means of protection for (and from) each other. It's safer to follow the laws than it is to disobey, because of indirect consequences-- e.g. causing conflict between 2 female friends would lead to more harm than the direct consequences of table dancing while drunk. These laws are designed to minimize and avoid tension. Girls are socialized to use psychological means of warfare instead of displaying physical aggression. However, as we are also socialized to be in tune with our emotions (and openly display them), this type of battle has the potential to be more harmful. Aggression is internalized by both parties, and can lead to far more emotional scarring than physically fighting. Consequences can lead to bullying, exile, shunning/social rejection, etc.... and in many cases, suicide.

The men's code, however, is far more simplistic in that it literally advocates an "every man for himself" type of system. Interfere if you want to, but it's fair game.

So what does this have to do with politics in general? If you really need me to answer that, you weren't paying attention... But the point is that everything we do is politics, and politics are all philosophy in action. Without it, we might be a bit of a mess, but maybe not-- after all, these here are unofficial laws. Anarchy does not have to mean chaos. All animals & organisms, whether tiny ants or humans, create for themselves systems of acceptable behavior that can be either implicit or explicit, and self-government is not only entirely possible, but instinctual-- provided that all are in agreement with only engaging in "appropriate" behaviors... (And as we can see from our own society... that's kind of impossible right now.) It's not a matter of rulers and constitutions, etc, but one of conducting ourselves in a manner that is conducive to our survival as a species, and as a society. (Is it just me, or do I kind of sound like a textbook today? Sorry, must've been the tofu...) Differing opinions without regard for conducting oneself in a constructive manner leads to the sad sort of tribal warfare it seems our nation has been reduced to, at least as far as the MSM is concerned. Maybe one of these days the pathetic in-group/out-group dynamic will fizzle out when we realize that we're all the in-group this time around...

I'm a live and let live kinda girl, except when someone's hurting someone else. That's my code - do no harm. (Well, irreparable harm... Some things in life are unavoidable.) And at the base of most laws not tainted by one group's idea of morality, that seems to be the case. When we think about what the world used to be like, and how it is now, how is it that some universally "bad" behaviors survived while "good" behaviors were suppressed? Hurting others for convenience, vs. expressing & enjoying natural human behaviors. (Think  insurance companies vs. sex outside of marriage, and the argument that one is just the "free market" and "the American Way" and the other is "perversion" that means a person will spend all of eternity in unbearable agony. Yay.) In losing our instinctual roots and codes of behavior in favor of "religious values" and whatnot, we've suppressed our potential not only for equality and true passion for life, but for unequivocal peace. (Do not take my words as an attack on religion; I may not be fond of the subject, however that's not my point. Today.) We as humans know the difference between right and wrong without needing to be told. Children understand right and wrong at a very young age -- I should know, I've read at least 3/4 of the literature on morality for my senior thesis! At the age of 4, children can definitively identify what is "good" and what is "bad." We learn from our parents, from our teachers and friends, through word of mouth, not law. From how it feels, not from what a judge has decided. But as a result of some ideologies, especially those descendant from the Abrahamic religions, we have lost far more than what's been gained. Anyone not copulating within "wedlock" with a member of the opposite sex (provided you were both also socialized to follow the "correct" behaviors of your genders as well), became inferior and reviled; our bodies were covered up in shame of our natural beauty; our own rights to our own bodies were now the property of others; the substances we choose to put into or onto our bodies are now marks of inferiority and "sin," even though the vast majority of us cause less harm to others than those who condemn. I do have to wonder, if we were left to our own devices, to follow our own natural codes of law, what would our society have become? Would we still be fighting each other for equality? Would it be worse? Would ethnocentricity have had such a profound effect on history? (Need examples? Slavery; World Wars I & II... the Holocaust...)

What bothers me isn't that it probably wouldn't be much better, if we take into account the full history of slavery worldwide, and women's rights, etc, but that it isn't much better now. We are supposed to have evolved from those sorts of things. The Western World is supposed to be the most advanced in terms of rights, and law, and politics. Yet everywhere in the world, and within our own borders there is still some form of slavery, and women are still being subjugated, and anyone not exclusively in a heterosexual, monogamous, "married" relationship is still being punished, whether it's by bullying, or by denial of rights given to all others--  or by death, or tortured, or raped as a "corrective" measure. What is it that is inside of us that allows these things to happen? How did this become our idea of "justice?" More importantly, what the fuck is it inside of us that does these things to our fellow human beings? What is it that allows us to not care? Where has all the empathy gone? And somehow, it all leads back to politics...



Anyway, I suppose that was me rambling through things as usual. I need to get back to NaNo now. (But again, awesome guest posts to follow!)

Philosophy of Politics - What part of Legal Immigration Don't You Understand?

Well, this is informative. I've mentioned many times before that the legal immigration process is long and complicated... It's a pretty shitty system, to be perfectly frank.

I had this long post typed up, but you know what, it doesn't really matter. I want to keep this short, because there's just so much that could be covered, and frankly, I don't feel like it. So, where do we begin? Literally, I guess, in this case. Where do we come from, how did we get here, what is our point in life? Existentialism aside, there are millions of answers for each question that are not only relevant to the political sphere, but directly influence law and society. Let's face it-- the "world" as we relate and attempt to understand it is more metaphysical than physical. Borders, countries, towns, etc. exist because we say they do; they are "real" because we collectively believe them to be. Language aside, a country is as "real" as the boundaries and people that comprise it. Therefore, it exists. However, who is to decide these arbitrary boundaries? Who gets to decide who gets to cross the lines and for what reasons?  History says might makes right, and maybe that's how things have been, but that doesn't mean it's how it should be. You can say something is yours, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

Part of the issue is also identity- determining where one belongs, who one is, is based on so many dimensions of being. As much as we would like to pretend it doesn't matter, or move past it as a means of identification, skin color and geographic region of ancestral origin have a great deal of influence on one's identity. Where one lives, who one associates with... How one comes to exist in a location! The very term "immigrant" refers to a person who used to live in another geographic region bound by symbolic lines on a sheet of paper, under the rule of a different sovereign "state." However, immigrants existed long before those lines or states. (Definitions do change over time, remember?) Migration itself is a natural part of human existence. However, we've made it into a legal issue, when in reality, it has little to do with justice.

Anyway, those are just a few brief thoughts on the subject... I would rather not get too into this tonight. My point is, it's not as simple as we would like to pretend it is. It isn't as simple as "fill out this paperwork, take a test, and BAM! You're a citizen now, here's your flag & passport." It's just as much as a political process as anything else. Where you come from, how old you are, who you know (family, friends, & "friends in high places"), how much money you have, your occupation. No matter where you go in the world, these are the things that matter to them more than what's in your heart, who you really are, & what you're trying to do with your life. To live on the other side of a "natural boundary" such as a river, which may be just a few hundred feet away... if one side has a greater chance of survival & safety, and the only thing you have to do is get across the river to have a better life for your children, who wouldn't do it?

Philosophy of Politics & Law - Attempt #1

I seem to have lost my voice again-- both literally and figuratively. So I ask you to please forgive me as I try to find it.

My mind has been spinning from all of the information being thrown at me. Introvert + ADD + Sensory overload= ... I wonder if it really was that easy in school to have a single train of thought at a time simply because the syllabi organized everything so neatly... I think perhaps it's time for me to go about this in another manner. While my mind is always so unusually disorganized and "jumpy," I'm going to try to keep this simple and follow a single directive-- like a thesis.

I've noticed in recent weeks that there have been several new attempts to redefine what it means to be "liberal" or "progressive" in modern times, especially considering the rise of New Left and neo-conservative movements. I thought it would be interesting to trace the roots of modern thought to define how and why we as liberals/progressives came to believe what we do, and why they are closely related but are not the same thing. So over the next few weeks, I want to examine not only current events but the philosophy behind them—why is it such a controversy; what are the arguments and the reasoning behind them; how do we go about solving these problems, and why do we choose what we do? Things in life are never as simple as we try to make them.

(Again, here is where one of those mandatory classes I never thought would be useful actually has a purpose...) Someone once claimed to me that law has nothing to do with philosophy, that enforcing laws and borders “isn't all that philosophical." Such a claim to me shows great naïveté about not only law but also philosophy as a whole-- though then again, I spent a great deal of time studying philosophy during my life, so perhaps I am just overly sensitive to these things. Politics, law, and social thought are all derived from philosophy, the study of existence, knowledge, values, etc. How we define the world and other beings determines what we perceive to be right and wrong, which is translated into politics (the process by which we make collective decisions), which is then translated into laws (collective decisions that are then formally enforced as rules). Changes in the political structure reflect changes in social thought, which are motivated by philosophy -- after all, political ideology is a set of ideas and expectations based on common sense and philosophical thought. For example, the need for economic recovery in terms of employment is based on several core principles: 1) humans need food, shelter, etc. in order to survive; 2) In order to fairly obtain our basic needs, we use a system of bartering in which we trade something (to which we have ascribed a value) for what we need; 3) In order to fairly obtain that "something of value," we have created an exchange system in which we provide a service or "goods." This seems basic and common sense so far, right? Now, take note of all of the philosophy behind it-- ethics, in terms the notion of fairness and justice derived from "natural law"; ethics, in terms of hunger and homelessness; sense of purpose and community, in terms of providing what others need; sense of self, being, and empathy, in terms of recognizing ourselves in others. As a result of this philosophy and common threads, we as a society have created rules to govern our Employment and the economic system are first and foremost not about "every man for himself" but how we all help each other to provide for our basic needs. It is a system, a set of interdependent bodies amalgamated to create a whole. And that is precisely what a society is.

I will leave you with this, for tonight… I have a lot to think about over the next few days… What does a society mean to you? What is the purpose of that society, and how has it affected who you are and what you believe? What would you think about the world if you were born into a different culture?