The two topics I wanted to cover regarding this weeks lecture are the advantages and attractions of liberalism, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, the attractions of caudillaje. The main attraction behind liberalism is how idealistic it is. Liberalism ideally, sounds peaceful, beneficial, and preaches about equality being its main focus. There's a big emphasis on the freedom of the individual from restrictive, harsh laws. While certain groups thrive under this ideology, others don't. For instance, equality and individuality are a vital part of liberalism, but can equality really be reached? Perhaps under the law, yes, but in practice, it's obviously not so easy. Even today, countries that are considered liberal still struggle with inequality amongst its citizens. Specifically, people of colour still struggle for their equality. Inequality includes a plethora of issues, ranging from police brutality, to microaggressions that we don't even realize we're partaking in. This leads me to my next topic of why people would be less attracted to liberalism and more attracted to caudillaje. My first discussion question for this topic is as follows: do you think liberalism is the best way to go about governing a society? If not, what do you see as a better fit?
The first reason people may be happy to engage with caudillaje, is because of wealth. People with lower socioeconomic status (SES) may feel that they're not actually taken care of when it comes to liberalism. This can come about when they experience inequalities at the hand of someone with a higher SES, and that person faces no punishment for their actions. Another perk of the caudillo system for someone with a lower SES, is the ability to take rival groups, and potentially make money from their feud. As mentioned in the lecture, people had the possibility of getting money if they were to show their support for a certain group. When struggling to make ends meet, an offer like that can prove to be greatly beneficial. My discussion question for this topic is what other social group may have a problem with liberalism, and why?
Hey Jenniah!
ReplyDeleteYour arguments regarding liberalism are all really valid issues! I think one group that would’ve had a big problem with liberalism are the elite. Since liberalism advocates for equality for all, I think many of those who were higher up on the hierarchy would’ve been against the idea of being seen as an equal as those who are 'lower' than them. I feel like those who are ‘on top’ would not like to associate themselves with people of lower class or a different race.
I think that the Caudillo system was the best fit for the post colonial society. I think this because we know how much racism there was during the colonial era. For example the casta paintings were made to define people based on their race, and ultimately make assumptions about their lives. This discrimination, would have never worked in a liberal system. I believe that this is why the caudillo system was so well received. Even though I don't believe it offered any prospects for those of lower SES, as you refer to them. I don't think this system was made to help them grow, because you had to have some sort of power or status to thrive.
ReplyDeleteSarita :)
As you said, I think those who are more disadvantaged would be more attracted to the Caudillo system. Liberalism has big promises, but it doesn't always follow through, which leaves people having to fend for themselves. If liberalism is able to be implemented properly and is actually followed through then it is amazing, but when it is only applied partially then people fall through the cracks and resort to other methods e.i. the Caudillos. I think that societal elites would have a problem with liberalism. The concept to liberalism is in essence to make a collectivized middle class with equitable distribution. People who are more elite would have more issue with this. - madeleine k.
ReplyDelete