Peter Levine - Latest Comments

Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:06:20 -0000

Being a union person, my natural tendency is to agree 100%. I do see and know, however, that unions vary in their effectiveness, organization, etc. This is contingent on not only the people that form them, but their history, and the industry itself that they are connected to. In general, I would prefer to see a world in which people in a workplace are comfortable organizing to get problems addressed with management. Management is not always bad, just as unions are not. Ideally, workers could sit down either individually or as a group with their bosses and both get results that they can at least live with.

Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:01:18 -0000

I agree more than my summary implies. I certainly share your critique of Habermas. However, I am pushing back against the now-dominant behavioral science approach that treats moral and political opinions as completely determined by latent psychological factors or context, and not rational or discursive at all. These strong claims against rationality are being driven, I think, by research methods that cannot detect explicit reasoning. For instance, people are given discrete survey items instead of being asked whether they see connections among ideas--which they do.

Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:01:22 -0000

I think that's a great addition, not included in skepticism. Thanks.

Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:42:50 -0000

A most instructive post, for which thanks.
Re 10: In addition to trust, support, skepticism, and critique, I would suggest: withholding
judgment, (i.e. suspending judgment, saying “not proven”.)
Maybe this is included in scepticism? Or do you think “withholding judgment” is not
a useful element of media literacy?

Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:04:12 -0000

Would've been nice if McLuhan was mentioned considering he stressed the need for this his entire career in boyds bit or yours however his omission is kinda of why this is an issue SIXTY years later, no rush, maybe the next president will be Alexa.

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:24:56 -0000

Thank you!

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:12:37 -0000

See Chapter 4 of "Everyone Leads" by Paul Schmitz (2012), who clearly documents Lisa Sullivan's attribution of the slogan to June Jordan.

Tue, 06 Feb 2018 14:59:02 -0000

Some caring and thoughtful ways to discern cultural appropriation outlined here https://theanchorandthestar...

Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:43:40 -0000

in today's political environment it is especially important, and clearly impossible, to be able to argue with your opponent, be able to sway and to be swayed. Important, but nearly impossible. Paul Bloom, I think, gave the most unconvincing argument against empathy I ever encountered. (grossly oversimplifying), making rational choices only works as a means to a goal; to set the goal we need empathy. As far as the everyday life is concerned, I think we just recently discovered the irrational side of it. So the 'rationalists' and 'irrationalists', not surprisingly, in their discussions show the very confirmation bias they discuss.

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:05:23 -0000

And the meaning of which can be applied to most any group left or right believer or nonbeliever ad nauseam.

Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:32:36 -0000

this helped :))

Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:43:21 -0000

Sure--although email may be the easiest way to start. I'm at peter.levine@tufts.edu. You might also check out:

www.civicyouth.org
www.civxsummit.org/
www.civicmissionofschools.org/

Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:36:50 -0000

Could we talk? This is such an important moment (what moment isn't?) for our youth to engage. DK

Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:30:36 -0000

Thanks!

Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:01:32 -0000

We facilitate elementary school children to organize improve their school in tangible ways that they identify as lacking. We use inquiry and collaboration to make democratic practices and processes both tangible and nuanced – and with positive results these students go on to secondary school as active citizens. If they qualify they become eager and informed voters at 18. Thank you Peter Levine. Your research and insights are very helpful and most needed. If you can point us to more to read, please don't hesitate to contact me at dk@inquirngmindsusa.com

Fri, 08 Dec 2017 07:54:14 -0000

Thanks, Kevin. Those authors are behind this: especially Ostrom.

Fri, 08 Dec 2017 04:31:20 -0000

I thought that the most compelling counterpoint to deliberation, which you put forward in the Institute for Civic Studies was the work of Arendt, Horton, and Alinksy. Surprised you didn't mention them in this excellent synopsis of your position.

Wed, 06 Dec 2017 11:09:18 -0000

Great article. Thanks. I appreciate the inclusion of various kinds of institutions and communities which, by their very nature, are not deliberative in a broad way, yet do incorporate gathered widsom... if sometimes VERY slowly. (One big drawback of religion, for example, though I participate in a church, and try to help move it along.)

Tue, 05 Dec 2017 16:33:11 -0000

It may be useful to distinguish between varieties of deliberative democracy. The problem of the Habermasian model, as I see it, is the idea of the ideal speech situation -- that is, that is possible and desirable to achieve something close to perfect consensus on the common good. It is, if you will, a reformulation of the utopian strain of Marxism. One can conceive of an important role for deliberative practices in a politics which acknowledges that difference, even antagonism, is at the core of politics.

Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:56:11 -0000

Really enjoyed this!

Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:24:00 -0000

Hayden was in active dialog with faculty in Ann Arbor as well as with Michael Harrington. I suspect that Arnold Kaufman had some influence on him.

Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:31:58 -0000

I am warming to a government shutdown strategy as a response to the Republicans’ unrelenting hardball. I hope Democratic leaders are thinking it through as you are.
“Going high when they go low” seems less and less appropriate given the current small d “democratic emergency.”

Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:15:40 -0000

No, I didn't expect to see this in my lifetime, either. For me, now the question is, is there something that can be done about it, or is this the forces of history (paraphrasing Hegel)? For myself, I think the latter to be too fatalistic.

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 21:20:16 -0000

This made me think of Hanna Arendt. "There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking it-self is dangerous." And “The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any.” We might not have historical "data", but we have history, and it does rhyme. Trust should always be qualified. Trust to do what? Some will trust the government to ensure all women wear head scarves, or all black people drink from separate fountains. In these cases, we trust the government to oppress those people we wish oppressed. Some people think that Liberal Democratic governance is oppressive and distrust it, due to public policy that is egalitarian and not in alignment with their desire to persecute others, or maybe they just desire more homogeneity in their daily lives... a good gate on their community. They distrust the government and feel oppressed and persecuted by concepts of diversity or fairness, and would much more trust a government that keeps "those people" in their place. Trust should be qualified. The nature of the trust should be made explicit by characterizing the culture in which it emerges. I just thought of a good Grateful Dead lyric, but my square is certainly full by now.

Fri, 03 Nov 2017 17:52:14 -0000

You say "Yet hardly anyone experiences the rules and limitations of English as an infringement on liberty." And immediately Louisiana says "hold my beer".

https://www.washingtonpost....