Category: American Values

America…Home of the brave land of the free and home to many different beliefs and opinions. One example of America’s diverse belief system is the topic of Anti Americanism vs Pro-American Attitudes. I am writing about this topic because it’s a big problem across the world today and so many people have different ideas and sides on this matter. Two articles that go in depth and give real life examples of Pro/Anti Americanism would be ‘The Children Will Keep Coming’ by Oscar Marteinez, which focuses on Pro-American Attitudes, and ‘Why I Could Never Hate America’ by Mehdi Hasan, focusing on Anti-American Attitudes.

In Oscar Martinez’s article Pro-Americanism is shown when he wants all the children in Central America to come to the US for a better life. As thousands of children like Auner, Chele and Pitbull arrive at the US border, it is important to remember the role the United States has played in creating this mass migration (Martinez). With this it shows that Oscar thinks good of America in that it’s a great place to start a new and healthy life which in turn promotes Pro-Americanism. Oscar thinks highly of America in this segment of the article while also advising other kids and other adults to want to migrate to the U.S. In the article ‘Why I Could Never Hate America’ by Mehdi Hasan Anti-American attitudes are displayed throughout it especially knowing the past between the U.S. and The Middle East/Muslims it’s not hard to see why blood boils at the thought of each other. A piece of evidence to support it is “I condemn the actions of the U.S. government in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, without attacking my American friends in Houston, LA or New York” (Hasan). Here Mehdi is showing his distrust and disdain for the USA government due to the treatment against his country.

There’s tons of examples of Pro/Anti Americanism displayed in each article. Hasan illustrates the Anti attitudes when he says “Time and again we have been told that the ‘war on terror’ is at its core a struggle for hearts and minds’. Not so on U.S. borders, where foreigners are met, in Hertzberg’s words, with “delays, ugliness, sullen contempt and near chaos while being treated alternately as cattle or potential terrorists”. Despite Hollywood’s best efforts, millions of people across the world no longer consider the U.S. to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave” (to quote the national anthem), the “shining city upon a hill” (Ronald Reagan), or the “indispensable nation” (Madeleine Albright)” (Hasan). Here Hasan is telling us that Anti-Americanism is developed through the U.S. discriminatory acts by its government and people and you cant blame them for having this mindset. Switching to a lighter tone, examples of Oscar Martinez Pro-American attitude is shown when he states “Central American mothers and fathers will continue to seek ways to be reunited with their children; they will continue to try to get them out of violent places and keep them safe” (Martinez). Here it’s known that Central American families leave for the U.S referring to them as safe areas where they can start new lives as citizens and away from violent crimes.

The factors that contribute to these attitudes are heavily influenced by the treatment of the individuals by the US Government. In ‘Why I Could Never Hate America’ Mehdi gives a statement that influenced anti Americanism amongst his country saying “I married an American in 2003, and each time we return to her homeland I’m reminded of the New Yorker journalist Hendrik Hertzberg’s description of the “brutal fuck-you that greets foreigners arriving in the United States”, and his call to U.S. immigration officials to stop making ‘preventive war’ on innocent tourists” (Hasan). As an immigrant and this being your first impression of Americans how could you learn to like the country if they treat you so terribly.

Prior to the War of Independence, America was not yet a set of united states. Everyone had different aims and there was not one cohesive group. But what is Americanness? There can be no answer to the question until this has been defined. I believe that Americanness relates to a large group of people having a sense of belonging to an area and being prepared to fight for their country. This feeling should be shared among populations. In relation to the War of Independence, I believe that there was no sense of Americanness – the country was too fractured. In this essay I will attempt to explain why there was a lack of Americanness based upon a fractured society and that only after war broke out and the Declaration of Independence was published did these feelings arise.

Fight Against Taxation

How could there be a sense of Americanness when most members of the colonies were still loyal to the British? It is important to remember that war did not break out because American’s wanted to be independent; rather they opposed the taxation they were facing. As the British began to rigorously enforce the Navigation Acts, the colonists quickly began to realize that they were still under British control and the independence they had experienced under Walpole’s neglect was quickly disappearing; policies regarding limiting expansion also created resentment. Had the British not enacted the despised Townshend Acts and Sugar Tax then there may not have been the tensions between Britain and America. These taxes led to petitions from people from all classes, yet the majority of their aims were not yet for independence, instead they wanted to return to the same levels of taxation prior to 1763. Even when war broke out and as late as 1775, most colonists were remaining loyal to Britain. The idea of Americanness was still in its infancy among small proportions of the country. The fight for independence stemmed from the British reaction to the call for representation. The popular phrase “no taxation without representation” highlights how taxation was the primary reason for Americans uprising rather than the demand for independence. It was not a great belief in America and feeling patriotic towards their country that led to independence, rather they were feeling used by the British. Even during uprisings against taxation, such as the Boston Massacre, neither side believed a war would break out and independence achieved; there did not seem to be the unity needed. Even though the Boston Tea Party was an act against British rule, it was more against the taxation remaining on tea rather than an act against the British government for independence; they only wanted to have fair representation in return for paying the high taxes. Despite such hatred for the taxes, many still thought of themselves as British and even once the revolution broke out, many wanted to remain British. Very few called themselves American – they still had the feelings of patriotism and connection to Britain. Only when the British retaliated and war broke out did many colonists start wanting independence and the sense of Americanness finally started to develop.

Divisions in Groups

Prior to the Revolution, America was far too fragmented for a sense of Americanness to occur; there was no unity or sense of cohesion between the thirteen colonies. With different groups having conflicting ideas, it made it increasingly difficult for a sense of mutual connection to the land to arise. These colonies were not part of a united America in which a sense of Americanness could develop – each state had different interests which prevented a cohesive group from forming. If the thirteen colonies had been united from the beginning, then there would have been that sense of Americanness rather than each colony having a different connection to America with some feeling more British than others. This fragmentation of the colonies helped to cement a sense of Britishness rather than Americanness as it became easier to communicate with Britain than between each other. Only once these colonies became united during the War of Independence did that sense of Americanness appear and the demand to be independent began. That said, there were still divisions within the states as the war continued. The nation became close to a civil war as different factions were created. The nation became split into loyalists who made up 20% and patriots who made up the remaining 80%. Even once independence was achieved and a sense of Americanness had developed, there were still proportions of the population who thought of themselves as British. However, can it be claimed that there was a distinctive sense of Americanness before the war when there were people fighting to prevent independence and who strained loyalty to the British. The fact that the American government had to offer financial enticements to encourage people to fight the British indicates that there was no sense of Americanness and that the colonists felt little loyalty to their land to fight for it.

Role of Slaves and Native Americans

The role played by Native Americans and slaves in the war of independence is of vital important in explaining how and why there was no sense of distinctive Americanness. These groups were completely split between fighting for the British, the Americans or not fighting at all. These three factions all prevented Americanness from developing. Those who fought on the side of the British prevented a united America from forming – when large proportions of your country are fighting against you, then there cannot be that unified feeling of belonging to America. The main reason why slaves supported the British was they offered freedom after the war; had the colonists treated their slaves better, they could have supported them instead. Those who refused to fight on either the British or the Americans are prime examples of how the country was divided and a sense of Americanness would never develop. It would be impossible to have a distinctive sense of Americanness if large proportions of the population were either kept as slaves in poor condition or were being screwed over and having their land taken from them. In fact, the Second Continental Congress issued a statement to Native Americas that “This is a family quarrel between us and Old England. We do not wish you to take up the hatchet against the king’s troops. We desire you to remain at home and not join either side, but keep the hatchet buried deep”. This implies that Native Americans are not seen as part of America and they should remain passive. This would prevent Americanness from developing as they’re clearing marking a difference between them and us. Furthermore, the majority of slaves and Native Americans were fighting more for their own independence rather than that of America; even those which fought on one side or the other were mainly trying to guarantee their freedom.

An Indistinctive Sense of Americanness

It can be argued that there was a sense of Americanness prior to the War of Independence. Certain groups were beginning to claim that they were no longer Englishmen and should not be called so. Following the Stamp Act, the Virginia Resolves were passed which generally claimed that only if the colonists had the same representation as Englishmen could they be taxed the same. Whilst in direct relation to taxation, this implies that they no longer saw themselves as English otherwise they would be being taxed themselves. Prominent figures such as Patrick Henry claimed, “I am not a Virginian but an American”, highlighting the fact that the colonies were beginning to come together into one united group rather than separate factions. As the war progressed, more colonists began to adopt this view that being an American and that all the colonies could work together was better and made America stronger than if they were working independently. Even prior to the war, there were still some people who wanted independence rather than just reduced taxation. These people, such as Liberty Boys and the Sons of Liberty, had already adopted being American rather than British. These groups actively fought against British colonial rule and were the founders of Americanness – they helped define it as loyalty and patriotism towards America over Britain. That being said, these were only a small percentage of the population and even though they adopted Americanness, the majority of the country had not yet done do. Not until the war had begun and colonists were beginning to be killed did this sense of Americanness spread to the rest of the colonists.

The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence was the turning point in the development in a distinctive sense of Americanness; highlighting to the people that they were in fact one nation, rather than made up of individual colonies. It was the first step towards independence where the majority of people relinquished their loyalty to the British and began to believe the people were united under the banner of being an American. This was the turning point, following attacks against Americans, in which people realized that in order to be successful in gaining independence, there needed to be a united America – rather than 13 single colonies. Had the fighting continued without independence then perhaps the colonists would not have developed that feeling of connection to America rather than Britain. The declaration itself listed 27 charges against King George III and demanded American independence. Finally, there was enough support to become united; the idea of Americanness was beginning to form. No longer were people feeling patriotic to Britain – reading about how they had suffered under the British turned public opinion towards the idea of being a united nation. That said, it can be argued that even though this was signed and there was a more distinctive sense of Americanness there were still divisions within America. Even following the end of the war, there were still divisions in society with groups continuing to support the minority. However, loyalty to America was now the majority.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there was distinctive sense of Americanness before the War of Independence. In fact, it was only during the war that any sense developed, and it only became more cohesive following independence. America was too fractured prior to the war and all the opposing groups prevented that distinctive sense of belonging and patriotism to the county from developing. Whilst there were groups which shared a sense of Americanness, it was not reflective in the rest of the country; there was still a sense of loyalty towards the British that only failed once the fighting broke out. It can be said that had the war not broken out, then people’s opinions towards the British would have remained positive and Americanness would never have developed. It relied on a dramatic shift in people’s ideas towards loyalty to the new America for a nation, unified feeling of Americanness to occur. In order for all Americans to be united under one name, they needed to act as one cohesive group.

Since 1492, when Christopher Columbus first stepped onto the new land, he had values and laws. Many of which we still have today. Some of these values were good, while many were not. Some of the values that Columbus had was their selfishness, forcefulness, greediness, dishonesty, and they forced their religion and ways on the natives. The main three are their want and gain for wealth, how selfish they were, and how they forced assimilation upon the natives. Today these are values/things that still exist today greatly.

First Columbus and his crew only cared about wealth. Columbus and his crew did go over to America for other reasons, such as for land, but one of the other reasons that people do not talk about his wealth. They went over hoping that they would gain wealth and valuables. One of the first things that Columbus did when he stepped on the new land and when he saw the natives is he traded with them. He traded with them hoping he would get something good in return for something of little value. However, he did have self-control when he came up to their huts when the natives ran away. Instead of taking all of their things he just left it there untouched. He wanted to leave a good first impression on the natives so that they would be able to trade more things together. In one of Columbus’s journal entries, it says, “I would not allow a thing to be touched, even the value of a pin. Presently some men among them came to us, and one came quite close. I gave him some bells and glass beads, which made him very content and happy. That our friendship might be further increased…”. This quote shows exactly what Columbus was trying to do. He did not want to make the natives mad so he tried to be nice to them, hoping to get valuable things in return. In today’s society that is still what everyone only cares about. They only care about money and how rich they are. People do not care if they are kind, loving, and honest. Americans only want money. People now look at people as good or bad on whether they have a lot of money or not. It’s not on if they are kind, compassionate toward one another, and honest. People also only do things if they get money in return, or something valuable. They won’t do things for people just to be nice anymore, they want money in return. As you can see, money is a major value that both the explorers and Americans now have.

Another attribute that both the explorers and Americans have is their selfishness. Both the people then and now have this thing in common, both only care about themselves and what they have. Christopher Columbus and his crew members search the island to find gold, which is the original reason why they set sail in the first place. They had heard that there might be another land and they wanted to be the first to find it and get the riches and gold from it. One quote that directly shows this about Columbus says, “I desired to set out today for the island of Cuba, which I think must be Cipango, according to the signs these people make, indicative of its size and riches, and I did not delay any more here nor…round this island to the residence of this king or lord, and have speech with him, as I had intended”. This shows exactly Columbus’s thoughts and what he values most. He only values what benefits him and values what he can gain from things. He is not looking to go to the other island because he wants to see the people and see what they are like, he wants to go to see what he can get from them. Also, he wants to see if there are any good riches there and to claim the land as his own. This is what people today do so much. They only care about what benefits them and they don’t care how it affects the other people around them. People will put others down just to make them feel good about themselves. People today care so much about themselves and forget that sometimes it is good to help other people just to be kind. Today if there is like one donut left, one person will just go and take it, instead of asking if anyone else wants it and if they do share it. He will just go up there and take it all to himself. That is how pretty much all of the population in America is now.

Finally, both the explorers and Americans today value that everyone has the same language, and beliefs. The explorers at first when they get to the new place, they just let the natives live the way they are. Then after they have been there for a while, they decide to try to get them to believe the same things as they do and to live the same way. When they let them live the same way they don’t bother them except for trading with them. The explorers are wandering the land and do get help from the natives but they do not try to change their way of life. But soon after they decide that if they take a few natives then they can take them back to England so they can learn their way of life and then they can bring them back so that they can show everyone else. This though is not what the natives think is happening. Because the Europeans just took the people and did not explain what was happening. A quote that shows this happening says, “A canoe came alongside us yesterday with six young men. Five of them came aboard, and I ordered them to be seized and brought them away with me…Men have often been taken from Guinea to Portugal to learn the language, and given good treatment and gifts…”. This quote displays forced assimilation very well. It shows how Columbus is forcing his views and religion upon these new people. He is taking a few of them captive so that they can learn his ways. People do this today in modern America as well, just not to the same extent. Americans are doing this to any immigrants. They are requiring them to learn English and follow the ways of the other Americans. Politicians are also trying to do this with religion and their ways of life. They try to convince other people that whatever they say is the right thing, and when they convince so many people then they can force other people to do or believe the same thing. People now want everyone to believe and do the same things. As you can see, the force of language and religion is also a value that both modern-day Americans and the explorers in the 1492’s had.

The explorers and Americans are very similar in their beliefs of wealth, selfishness and forced assimilation. Both Americans and the explorers only care about wealth, this is one of the main reasons why the Europeans went to the new lands. Americans are also very greedy toward wealth, but differently, they only worry about gaining money and wealth. They will work all day just to get wealthier. Both groups of people also are very selfish. They will both do anything to benefit themselves at other people’s costs. Europeans did this in taking people and things just for themselves, not caring how it affected the natives. Americans today also do this; they just take things and don’t ask if anyone else wants it. The final major thing that both the Europeans and the natives do is force assimilation. The Europeans did this by taking thirteen natives with them just so that they could learn to ways of Europeans and then go back and teach the rest of their people what they learned. The natives did not have a choice on whether to go with the Europeans or not. They were forced to go with. Americans do this same thing but in a different way. Americans are doing this with immigrants, they are not allowing them to take their ways and beliefs, they are forcing them to speak a certain language and to act a certain way. This shows that both Americans and the explorers act in very similar ways. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, and why have we not learned from their mistakes? Why do we keep making the same mistakes over and over again?

In the past decade, social media such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube have become dominant in everyday life and have radically changed the way people interact and communicate with one another. As of 2019, Facebook has registered 2.37 billion active users, followed by YouTube with 2 billion active users (Clement, 2019). Even organizations such as businesses, governments, and law enforcement agencies are increasingly recognizing and utilizing this opportunity to engage with their customers and citizens more effectively (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Given the ubiquitousness and proliferation of social media, the motivations, behaviors, and effects of using social media have emerged as a topic of interest among many scholars (Sheldon, Herzfeldt & Rauschnabel, 2019). While much of this research has predominantly been conducted in Western countries, there is a small but growing literature on the cultural differences in social media use (Chu & Choi, 2010). The current paper will present the theoretical framework and a review of the current literature on the cultural differences in the motivations and behaviors for social media use. Subsequently, a discussion of limitations and suggestions for future research will be put forward.

Theoretical Framework

Individualism and Collectivism

Within cross-cultural research, Hofstede’s (1980) individualism – collectivism dimension is one of the most widely used dimensions of cultural variability. In individualistic cultures, people tend to view themselves as autonomous individuals where self-reliance and self-esteem are valued as positive social traits (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai & Lucca, 1988). These traits encourage people to pursue their personal goals, make their own decisions, and thereby, feel proud of their personal achievements. Furthermore, individualistic people do not make strong distinctions between out-group and in-group members, but rather, maintain a consistent and independent identity irrespective of the external environment (Hofstede, 2011). Conversely, people from collectivistic cultures tend to identify and align themselves with in-group values, norms, and goals (Triandis et al., 1988). Humility, self-efficacy, and harmony are valued whereas expressing one’s self, opinions and preferences are undesired and regarded as selfish. Socializing is usually limited to only in-group members and thereby, in-group bonds are more intimate and stable than those in individualistic cultures (Hofstede, 2011).

Uses and Gratifications Theory

The most widely adopted theoretical approach in media research is the uses and gratifications (U&G) theory (Katz, Blumler & Gurevitch, 1973) which posits three essential objectives. First, to explain how people use media to satisfy their psychological needs. Second, to understand the underlying motives for media use. Third, to identify the positive and negative effects of media use (Katz, Haas, & Gurevitch, 1973). Motivations guide media behavior in regard to the decision to use different media. For example, when people are in an environment with fewer opportunities to socialize and interact, they may be motivated to engage in media that involves more social activity such as Facebook instead of YouTube. Conversely, to satisfy their entertainment needs, people may engage in YouTube rather than Facebook. Contrary to the traditional mechanist approach which asserts that individual media consumers are passive, the U&G theory postulates that individual media consumers are active and seek to fulfill their (Dolan, Conduit, Fahy & Goodman, 2015).

Literature Review

Cultural Differences in Motivations

There are a few cross-cultural studies examining motivational differences in social media use. For instance, Kim, Sohn, and Choi (2011) conducted a study on college students who used Facebook from the United States and Cyworld from Korea to examine cultural differences in motivations for social media use. The survey findings showed that American students were more motivated to seek entertainment while Korean students were more motivated to seek social support by focusing on existing relationships with close friends and family. In addition, Sheldon, Rauschnabel, Antony, and Car (2017) conducted a study on Instagram users from the United States and Croatia and found that the primary motivation for American users was self-promotion, whereas social interaction was the main motivation for Croatian users. Similarly, a study conducted on Facebook users from the United States and Korea found that Korean participants were more motivated to use Facebook interdependently, whereas American participants were more motivated to use Facebook to express their individuality (Hong & Na, 2017).

These studies are in line with the individualism – collectivism dimension and demonstrate the cultural differences in motivations for using social media. More specifically, people from individualistic countries were more motivated to use social media for self-expression. Conversely, people from collectivistic countries were more motivated to use social media for social support. Exploring the motivations behind social media use helps understand the behavioral outcomes that result from it.

Cultural Differences in Behaviors

There are a few studies that have explored cultural differences in behaviors such as time spent on social media, level of interactions, self-disclosure, and self-presentation. Several studies have shown that while the amount of time spent on social media is similar between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, people from collectivistic cultures tend to have a smaller number of friends on social media (Cho, 2010; Kim, Sohn & Choi, 2011; Sheldon et al., 2017). Among those, Sheldon et al. (2017) found that the motivation for social interaction was the strongest predictor of time spent on Instagram for Croatians, whereas the corresponding predictor for Americans was the motivation for self-promotion. These findings suggest that there are cultural differences in how people value friends and interact on social media. Sheldon, Herzfeldt, and Rauschnabel (2019) found that social media users from individualistic cultures have significantly more acquaintances and strangers as friends but do not interact frequently. On the contrary, social media users from collectivistic cultures have fewer acquaintances and strangers as friends but interact more frequently and intimately with their friends.

Cho (2010) conducted a study on Facebook users from the United States and Cyworld users from Korea and examined self-disclosure and self-presentation behaviors. Cho found that American participants were more willing to perform higher amounts of self-disclosure compared to Korean participants. For instance, American participants were more likely to express personal opinions and fill out personal information for their online profile compared to Korean participants. However, Korean participants were more likely to show higher levels of depth of self-disclosure compared to American participants. That is, Korean participants were more likely to disclose more intimate and vulnerable personal information to their friends. Furthermore, Cho found that Korean participants tended to pay more attention to self-presentation behaviors compared to American participants. Similarly, Chu and Choi (2010) found that Chinese internet users employed more self-presentation strategies such as showing off accomplishments or talents compared to American internet users.

These findings are once again consistent with the individualism–collectivism dimension. Individualistic cultures tend to value self-esteem which encourages people to engage in self-promotional behaviors and openly disclose personal information and opinions to display their uniqueness (Triandis et al., 1988). Conversely, collectivistic cultures tend to encourage humility and self-efficacy and thereby, restrain people from explicitly expressing themselves and their opinions. However, people from collectivistic cultures tend to have more intimate relationships than people from individualistic cultures and therefore, are more willing to disclose intimate and private information with one another (Cho, 2010). Furthermore, it is unsurprising that people from collectivistic cultures are more attentive to their self-presentation behaviors as they tend to have higher levels of concern for saving face and also pay more attention to the audiences’ expectations (Triandis et al., 1988).

Limitations and Future Research

First, the majority of the studies have mostly focused on participants from the United States and Korea. More research is needed in different individualistic and collectivistic countries. Furthermore, although a two-culture comparison is one of the most widely used methods in cross-cultural research, future research in this area could gather representative samples from a number of diverse cultures. Second, while there are numerous studies on the impact of social media, cross-cultural studies in this area are lacking and future research should explore the cultural differences on the positive and negative effects of social media. Third, given that these studies rely on self-reported data and are conducted in collectivistic cultures, the findings are highly prone to social desirability bias (Fisher, 1993). Future research could collect self-reported data in conjunction with observational data such as the types of photos one posts, the number of likes one receives, and how this may influence behavior or the content of one’s captions or posts. Fourth, given that U&G theory postulates that social and psychological context affects media use and its effects, personality traits such as neuroticism, extroversion, or narcissism could be taken into account together with cultural values to obtain a more nuanced understanding. Finally, although Facebook is the most commonly used social network, future research should examine other popular social networks such as YouTube, Reddit, or Snapchat.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current paper examined the emerging body of literature on cultural differences in the motivations and behaviors in using social media. The individualism – collectivism dimension helps to understand national cultural differences while the U&G framework helps in understanding the motivations and behavioral outcomes for using social media. Consistent with the individualism – collectivism dimension, people from individualistic cultures tend to use social media for self-expression and engage in self-promotional behaviors. Conversely, people from collectivistic cultures tend to use social media interdependently and interact intimately with existing relationships. Given the proliferation and ubiquitousness of social media, more cross-cultural research is needed for more representative samples to examine the differences in motivations, behaviors, and effects.

References

1. Cho, S. (2010). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Korean and American Social Network Sites: Exploring Cultural Differences in Social Relationships and Self-Presentation. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164. doi: 10.2307/2094393
2. Chu, S., & Choi, S. (2010). Social capital and self-presentation on social networking sites: a comparative study of Chinese and American young generations. Chinese Journal Of Communication, 3(4), 402-420. doi: 10.1080/17544750.2010.516575
3. Clement, J. (2019). Global social media ranking 2019 | Statista. Retrieved 14 August 2019, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by- number-of-users/
4. Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2015). Social media engagement behavior: a uses and gratifications perspective. Journal Of Strategic Marketing, 24(3-4), 261- 277. doi: 10.1080/0965254x.2015.1095222
5. Fisher, R. (1993). Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning. Journal Of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303. doi: 10.1086/209351
6. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
7. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings In Psychology And Culture, 2(1). doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1014
8. Hong, S., & Na, J. (2017). How Facebook Is Perceived and Used by People Across Cultures. Social Psychological And Personality Science, 9(4), 435-443. doi: 10.1177/1948550617711227
9. Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
10. Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and Gratifications Research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509. doi: 10.1086/268109
11. [bookmark: _Hlk17504345]Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). On the Use of the Mass Media for Important Things. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164. doi: 10.2307/2094393
12. Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers In Human Behavior, 27(1), 365-372. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.015
13. Sheldon, P., Herzfeldt, E., & Rauschnabel, P. (2019). Culture and social media: the relationship between cultural values and hashtagging styles. behavior & Information Technology, 1-13. doi: 10.1080/0144929x.2019.1611923
14. Sheldon, P., Rauschnabel, P., Antony, M., & Car, S. (2017). A cross-cultural comparison of Croatian and American social network sites: Exploring cultural differences in motives for Instagram use. Computers In Human Behavior, 75, 643-651. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.009
15. Song, H., Cramer, E., & Park, N. (2018). Cultural differences in social comparison on Facebook. behavior & Information Technology, 38(2), 172-183. doi: 10.1080/0144929x.2018.1519037
16. Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323

Democracy is founded within the principles of liberty of the individual and faith within the ability and essential rational nature of all human beings. Using these principles as the major premises of my argument, I will seek to present that censorship and book banning are impermissible because they violate the freedoms vital for preserving democracy and the liberty that accompanies that democracy.

According to the aged democratic theory, as described by leading American theorist Robert Dahl, an ideal democratic process must satisfy certain essential criteria—one being enlightened understanding. Enlightened understanding requires that the citizens are well educated. Free press and free speech are critical to civic understanding. Citizens must have open access to all ideas so that they may come to a deep understanding of critical issues. In order for the public to properly form opinions and make decisions, it must be well informed on all sides of a particular issue. Therefore, for a society to be considered democratic, it must be a free marketplace for the open exchange of ideas (Edwards 14-15).

One of the biggest censorship that happened in American Schools took place in 1925 in the state of Tennessee. A state legislator John Washington Butler created the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Act which ban the scientific theory of evolution presented in Darwin’s heavily banned work, The Origin of Species in science classrooms entirely across the state. According to Kathleen Gilsinan in her case study initiative at Columbia University, Butler proscribed teaching “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and [teaching] instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” With the creation of this act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was ready to jump in and test the law constitutionally in court. So, they asked John Thomas Scopes who was substitute science teacher and a football coach at the time if he would let himself be indicted to make the case happen (Adams). With the ACLU having their test subject they were ready to test the law out. May 1925 the case became official and it would be known as Tennessee v. John Scopes and later known as the “Monkey Trail”. In the case study performed by Gilsinan, the defense lawyer argued to the floor that Act was unconstitutional due to the nature of it and it clashes with the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment, which stated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In July 21, 1925 the jury convicted Scopes of violating the Butler Act and fined him a $100.

Meanwhile other states in the bible-belt region followed suite and created bans on teaching evolution in the classrooms. Textbook publishers decided not to put the theory in their textbooks to stay out of the hazard zones. Margeate Talbot mentions in her article, that there was an influx of court cases between the 1960’s onto the 70’s to make room for Darwin’s evolution in the classroom.

The burning of books, cover ups of tragedies, and the muting of other points of view. These actions are frequent, oppressive and yet sometimes necessary. Censorship- the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security- is very prevalent in society and affects a big portion of your everyday life. Because of this, it is important to truly understand censorship, the history of it, when it crosses the line into personal freedoms, and what it means for our society and life today.

Before going into this project, I already had a good overall knowledge of censorship in part because of how prevalent it is in American culture and history. I’d bet that we all at one point or another experienced censorship, whether it be on a large scale such as the cover up of a government scandal or just your parents refusing to let you watch a certain kind of movie or read a certain book. The sheer broadness of censorship as a topic makes it incredibly difficult to write an all encompassing paper on it, so first I will focus on the history and evolution of censorship in America contrasted with censorship in different countries.

Even though the focus is on America, it’s important to realize that censorship laws and the defiance of those laws really only started picking up a little after the mid sixteen-hundreds when the nobles became worried that, even though the rapid growth of newspapers could represent a huge improvement of information sources for the literate peoples of Europe, it also increased the chance that unlimited access to information could be harmful to society and public morals, particularly in times of war or internal crisis. Thus the Licensing Act of 1662 was enforced in Britain until after the Great Plague of 1665. In Germany, the press was heavily censored during the Thirty Years’ War, through small things, such as, trade restrictions and lack of paper for printing. This type of censoring stays strong all through the 1800’s were the arrest and prosecution of journalists and suppression of newspapers within europe was happening left and right. This was paralleled in the united states in 1798 when John Adams signing a bill making it illegal to criticize a government official, this act was soon undone in 1800 when the next president took office. Following the American timeline to Anthony Comstock in 1873, who passed a set of laws now known as the the ‘Comstock laws’ which prohibit the publication and distribution of any “book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character…” promoting or incentivising abortion or discouraging conception. Even though a good majority of the public saw this as a good thing, and they did, at the time, argue it to be a just use of censorship, it clearly invades the territory of freedom of expression and people’s ability to voice their own opinion. Margaret Sanger and a handful of others slowly started repealing and changing these laws from 1918 through 1936. Authors, artists, and directors fear censorship because it can cause their works to become, at best, completely removed the the public light and, at worst, have the creator of the work be scrutinized and removed from the field. That is why in 1930 a majority of film distributors agreed on a code heavily restricting violence, sex, and profanity. However, the code, known as the Hays Code, also strictly banned portrayals of interracial or same-sex relationships, as well as any content that was deemed anti-religious or anti-Christian. This set upon code was followed up until 1968 when the threat of government enforced censorship became much less of a concern. Skipping ahead to 1996 when the Communications decency act was attempted to be passed, reprimanding anyone who ‘uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.’, however, that bill was quickly struck down within a year and a new revised draft of the bill started getting pushed almost immediately after. Courts held the bill at a standstill until 2009 when the bill was ultimately shut down because the courts argued that it infringed on peoples first amendment rights.

The first amendment has been the greatest obstacle for the government or groups who try to enforce censorship, however some countries and civilizations don’t have this barrier so the people in power have complete freedom to restrict and control information and ideas throughout their country or district. Take for instance, China. China has incredibly strict censorship laws that restrict internet access, freedom of speech, and the knowledge of some parts of China’s history. One example of this is the censorship of historical writings about the Cultural Revolution-a government lead purge of all things that don’t agree with the classic chinese communist ideals. Although the Chinese government now officially denounces the Cultural Revolution, it does not allow Chinese citizens to present detailed histories of the suffering and brutality that ordinary people sustained during that time. Another major example is the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing. That day in 1989 is a powerful event showing the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy protests. If you try to as much as search the word Tiananmen on a chinese based server, you get no results, this type of censorship heavily restricts information, which is the only real way to control a population and make them believe what you want them to believe. Heavily restricting information is the same thing that North Korea does to control it’s populous, that’s how Kim jong Un and other leaders keep the entire country brainwashed to their points of view and to almost always stay on their side. The extent of censorship in China goes far beyond what America would deem as acceptable, in china a number of religious texts, publications, and materials are banned or have their distributions artificially limited in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Foreign citizens are also prohibited from attempting to convert someone to one religion or belief in China, and information concerning the treatment of some religious groups is also tightly controlled. Under Chinese law, a minor is forbidden to receive a religious education of any kind. A small spiritual movement, The Falun Gong, is subject to heavy suppression in China, and virtually all religious texts, publications, and websites relating to the group have been banned, along with information on the imprisonment or torture of the followers. Christian Bibles are allowed to be printed in China but only in limited numbers and through a single press. Their sale is also restricted to officially sanctioned churches, with online sales having been recently cracked down upon. Religious literature is not readily available or even tolerated. In January 2016, five people were arrested for simply buying and selling officially forbidden Christian devotionals. They were sentenced to 3-7 years in jail. Along with history and religion China also attempts to control the spread of ideas. In 2013 the American Political Science Review published an article about an in-depth experiment that analyzed the censorship program in China. The experiment involved using computers from around the world to post comments to social media sites in China, and then seeing which ones got delayed or deleted by the censors. The authors conclude: ‘Our central theoretical finding is that, contrary to much research and commentary, the purpose of the censorship program is not to suppress criticism of the state or the Communist Party. Indeed, despite widespread censorship of social media, we find that when the Chinese people write scathing criticisms of their government and its leaders, the probability that their post will be censored does not increase. Instead, we find that the purpose of the censorship program is to reduce the probability of collective action by clipping social ties whenever any collective movements are in evidence or expected.’. This “sleight of hand” type of censorship is dangerous because it’s difficult to fight against censorship is the general community doesn’t even know that it’s happening.

Censorship in China has clearly invaded personal freedoms on multiple occasions, with blocking information, censoring non-violent religious beliefs and manipulating online social media, quieting beliefs and criticisms that the government doesn’t agree with. However, some types of censorship may be beneficial to society. Take for instance, in Sydney Australia, 1991, Wade Frankum went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall. While investigating Frank after the incident, officials found a large collection of violent literature and video copies of violent films. One of the books in his possession was a well-thumbed copy of American Psycho and although there is no direct evidence that any of the literature in his collection directly lead to the murders, many news outlets proposed that it was because of the book that Wade did those evil deeds. American Psycho has, for a long time, been condemned as misogynistic because it features many gruesome murders of women, and some thought it significant that five of the seven people Frankum killed were women. Even though it is a little bit of a stretch to say that those books and films alone were to blame for Frankums actions, some find it difficult to not see that people reading and consuming literature with twisted and evil ideas may influence their choices in a negative light. Personally however, I believe that even though some portions of art may depict bad people doing awful things, that we shouldn’t mass censor a book for that reason. What we should do is make sure that people realize that the actions in the book are irehensible and that the reader or audience should not take inspiration from it but more see it as a dive into what not to do.

An easier argument to make in favor of censorship is the censoring of sexually explicit material, which has been taken seriously and has resulted in the Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, which is the United States Supreme Court’s test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.

A new, more recent type of censorship has just started to gain more attention, and that’s the censorship of social media. In America, under the 1st amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”, the government cannot heavily control or censor free speech. However, private companies don’t have to follow the same rules, and that’s okay, if they’re a private company they can do what they want. But when only a few large companies control almost all of the distribution of different viewpoints and knowledge, it seems wrong to just pick and choose what or who to silence on the whim of a small vocal minority. This type of censorship is dangerous, it looks alot like the type of control that China has over its own citizens, with someone being able to constrict the sharing of ideas. The news media censorship in America is different than the censorship in China in one key way, in America, mobs of people on the internet get to decide who to scrutinize or who to silence. Just recently James Gunn, a movie director, had a few past racist tweets were brought to light. In the past actions like these were apologized for and people would move on, but a small internet mob hounded James Gunn and his employer until they fired him. This wasn’t an oddball moment either, internet mobs have gotten countless people fired just because they disagree with some of their past actions. This idea that a group of individuals with no real incentive other than to deal out their own sense of justice can lead to scary mob led society where everything you do could lead to you being socially exiled. And that is the danger of censorship today.

Censorship occurs when the government, a private institution, or an individual regulates or suppresses writing, speech, or any other media for moral, political, or security purposes. Some people support specified forms of content restrictions, such as imposing age limits on media that may be inappropriate for children, while some oppose other forms, such as the suppression of a politically unpopular opinion. In the end, censorship has been going on for all of human existence and will never cease to exist it will only evolve to fit the times so the best we can do is to make sure that censorship doesn’t go too far and to protect the right to our freedom of expression.

Additional sources

1. The Long History of Censorship, www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415&art_id=475.
2. Head, Tom. “An Illustrated History and Timeline of Censorship in the United States.” ThoughtCo, ThoughtCo, 24 Sept. 2018, www.thoughtco.com/censorship-in-the-united-states-721221.
3. “How China Has Censored Words Relating to the Tiananmen Square Anniversary.” Public Radio International, www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-03/how-china-has-censored-words-relating-tiananmen-square-anniversary.
4. King, Gary (May 2013). ‘American Political Science Review’ (PDF). How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression. American Political Science Review. Retrieved 16 April 2016.

The United States invasion of Afghanistan occurred in October 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, marking the beginning of its “War on Terrorism” campaign. Seeking to oust the Taliban and find al-Qaeda mastermind Osama Bin Laden, the Afghan Northern Alliance provided the majority of forces, and the united kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, newzeland, Italy, Germany provided support.

The officially stated purpose of the invasion was to target al-Qaeda members, and to punish the Taliban government in Afghanistan which had provided support and haven to al-Qaeda. While in the ideological perspective of al-Qaeda this was to be a preparation for the “End of Time” battles which were referred to by the Prophet MUHAMMAD. The 9/11 attacks had become the focal point of the globe war against western hegemony and interest. Al-Qaeda is primarily an Arab organization, but it did not choose Egypt or any other Middle Eastern country for the lunch of its struggle. Its choice fell on south Asia, which has traditions, religious ideologies, and customs that are diametrically opposite to those of al-Qaeda’s ethically Arab members. The main reason for this choice, which might appear odd to some, is rotted in faith. The Prophet MUHAMMED prophesied that ancient Khurasan would be the initial theater of war of the “End of Times” battles so al-Qaeda set out to fulfil this prediction.

Pakistan’s policy turnaround on the Taliban after the US invasion of Afghanistan had disillusioned the whole of the middle cadre of the country’s armed forces. But unlike his other colleagues, who remained silent critics of the policy. Critically US policy choices towards Pakistan must also be integrated with broader regional policies, South Asia has changed and so has the basis of US relations with it. But the US policies towards Pakistan are complex and imperfect. Though Pakistan is not a failed state nor a failing or a rogue state, it has had to varying degrees, tendencies of all three. On top of that, it is a nuclear power. The United States faces a great balancing act in its relations with Pakistan.

Domestic policies

After September 11, the Pakistan army knew its strategic overextension in the region, especially its support for the Taliban and, by implication, al-Qaeda, was untenable. But nearly bankrupt, the country Musharraf with both and, in turn, receive critical support from Pakistan in war on terrorism. According to the Pakistan embassy officials in Washington D.C, Pakistan has deployed more than seventy thousands of its troops to the Afghan border and has launched more than thirty eight major successful operations to flush out foreign terrorists. More than three hundred Pakistan army and parliamentary troops have been killed, and an even larger number have been injured accounting for more casualties than any other U.S ally in the war on terrorism.

Pakistan is the only regional country to have led to successes against terrorism around the world. For example all the top al-Qaeda leaders captured to date have been apprehended in Pakistan with the government’s help, while Pakistan itself has arrested more than seven hundred terrorist suspect. The country has also banned or placed on watch lists a large number of sectarian and militant organizations and has enacted numerous antiterrorism laws, freezing thirty two bank accounts suspected of belonging to terrorist organizations. Finally Pakistan is currently creating a national criminal database and is the first country to successfully install PISCES, a terrorist-interdiction program set up at seven Pakistani airports and at border crossings with India.

For its part in the three years after September 11, the United States extended grants to Pakistan equaling $1 billion and wrote off $1billion in debt. In June US announced assistance package for Pakistan to start October and to be distributed over five years. A framework agreement on trade and investment has been signed and the two countries have begun negotiating a bilateral investment treaty. The current U.S-Pakistan engagement may be focused on cooperation in the war on terrorism, especially on building the military- intelligence partnership between the two countries. Pakistan’s domestic order, specially its week institutional architecture, stillborn political process, underdeveloped economy poor educational system, unsure civil society and simmering internal tensions enhanced the potential for extremism and instability and had been of serious concern to the United States. Musharraf too realized the dangers and is trying to lead the county in the new directions.

The country has serious problems relating to social change, governance and democratization. Pakistan’s geopolitical environment remains a threat to its external and internal security and may explain Pakistan’s wariness to take bold steps especially dealing with the jihadists. Pakistan’s troubled history. India’s hope is that in time the so-called “CBMs” (confidence building measure) between the two countries will become their own reward, and that perhaps with increased economic and commercial exchanges, cultural interplay, and trends towards moderation in Pakistan, Pakistanis will develop a different perceptions of India and Kashmir. Critical issues such as energy, sharing of water resources, security and good neighborly relations may eventually take precedence over Kashmir in defining the country relationship freeing India to find an internal solution to the dispute, facilitated by Pakistan’s diminished leverage and unforced concessions. There might be gains for Pakistan in the relationship with India, but not in Kashmir, whose centrality to India Pakistan relations will have gradually eroded. On the western front, Iran, with its regional ambitions, emerging nuclear capability, strategic, rivalry with Pakistan, and suspicions of a U.S-Pakistan axis, has the motive and capability, if not the intention, to leverage Pakistan’s policies. Iran is also a rival influence in Afghanistan and an economic competitor for access to central Asia, which itself remains unstable. Furthermore, an unsettled Afghanistan, especially where the Taliban rump which has affinities with and support from Pakistan’s tribal areas still remains, can be a source of potential instability on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and an irritant the relations between the two countries.

Pakistan’s multiple problems are now seamlessly linked and need to be attacked simultaneously. Above all, Pakistan needs to change its external behavior to strengthen its internal order, rather than pursue external goals at the expense of its internal stability. These include the mullahs, whose extremism, opposes social change that may erode the feudal and social structure they represent. By offering the military civilian jobs and economic and commercial incentive, the army’s stake in its domination of political power only grows further and comes at the expense of democracy.

Anti-Americanism

Anti-Americanism in Pakistan has a complex dynamic.it is framed by four concentric circles; general reaction to US might and power, America’s current international conduct relations between Islam and west and the west and the history of U.S Pakistan relations. Indeed, as the most powerful nation on earth, the United States provokes envy and resent-meant around the world. As for America’s international conduct, its legitimacy and self-centeredness have been under challenge, especially after September 11, did not change history so much as signaled the arrival in history of new struggles and conflicts and a dissolution of traditional patterns of power relationship. Well before, the relations between big powers were becoming at once cooperative, tense, and competitive: globalization was inciting serious discontent, the Islamic world was looking disordered, and regional dispute were beginning to radiate much violence and instability. There was a new wave of predominantly religion-based revisionism against the vestiges of the colonial and imperialist era and the domestic and international orders, which appealed to moderates and radicals alike in the Muslim world.

Pakistan and rest of the Islamic world are in ferment. Islamic societies that have invariable experienced colonialism or varied forms of western domination have been experiencing conflict in their search for national identities, political stability and effective ways of absorbing modern liberal values. They have also been coming to terms with anti-western feelings that have interloped into their culture. Across the Islamic world, the west, especially the United States, is believed to have historically complicated this search by becoming a party to this conflict. There is also a class antipathy to the ethically intolerable value system of the ruling classes, which themselves are invariably western oriented. The war on terrorism has sharpened the tensions between Islam and west.

The United States seems to be fighting terrorism with traditional instruments of power, whose bluntness obscures the subtlety and complexity of the issues involved, and with a crusading zeal that speaks of an ideological struggle and clash of civilizations. Elements on both sides see their basic value system as under siege and have exaggerated their mutual fears and busy defaming and demonizing each other.

Moral issues have been undifferentiated or confused, or sacrificed to self-righteousness. Each side is judging the other with its own ideals, ideals from which it has fallen short itself. The Islamic world especially rationalizes its own errant behavior by accusing the west of double standards. No wonder in Pakistan, liberals and conservatives alike are outraged by the mistreatment of their “national hero” AQ Khan.

Within this larger framework, the history of U.S-Pakistan relations has generated its own ant-Americanism, which is triggered by perception that the United States has not been a reliable ally and has not helped Pakistan much in its conflict with India. September 11 and U.S. reengagement added new issues to the debate. For instance, liberal aspirations for democracy have been heightened but tend to flow into anti-American channels because of governments association with the United States. These aspirations both merge with and deviate from the religious wave, as democracy and religion use the same jargon of social protest but advocate different means of empowerment.

Political Islam

The U.S. relationship with Pakistan must show some immediate results to demonstrate that there is an alternative vision for Pakistan and that it is working. The engagement must not fail because the alternative, an extremist Pakistan that itself becomes a U.S. target, will be a policy nightmare.

To be successful, the engagement must be geared toward benefitting the people, not just the regime. This will raise the people’s confidence in the country’s relationship with the United States. Additionally, the United States must not appear to be in conflict with Islam. Political Islam is not something out there on the fringes that the United States can combat and conquer. To varying degrees, it has been ingrained in the social ethos of the Muslim countries may have to make some compromises with the religion. United States has to respect not only these concessions but also some minimum nationalist and democratic aspirations in the Islamic world.

Economical and security assistance

The United States needs to find a new paradigm for its relationship with Pakistan. The weak sanctions of the 1990s that offered Pakistan no incentive for change did not work. In the future, sanctions should not be a policy option as long as there are strong reasons for the United States to be engaged with Pakistan and to help its reform efforts. Reform should be an end in itself, as a reformed Pakistan is in the interest of the United States where or not there is a quid pro quo. The United States must also help Pakistan create a dynamic economy that generates employment. The bilateral investment agreement between the two countries should be expedited. The United States should provide greater market access for Pakistani textiles as an effective interim measure for relief. The U.S. aid program towards Pakistan should focus heavily on supporting poverty-reduction strategies.

There is already a perception among Pakistanis of increased poverty in the country, concerns about rising inflation, and discontent over the army’s growing domination of the civilian institutions, not to mention a host of other internal tensions in the country. In the absence of a charismatic secular leader, the entire range of opposition could coalesce under an Islamic banner, such as happened in the Iranian revolution-where despite economic gains people rose up against the shah-as evidence of this. Its rhetoric may be revolutionary, but Pakistan’s political system is quasi-reactionary that is, it is the same civil military bureaucratic complex that continues to work under the cover of a flawed democracy dominated by feudal tribal interests.

Pakistan’s economic development will remain limited if the country does not come to terms with problems of poor public services, corruption, inequalities, in land and income distribution, social exclusion of the marginalized and vulnerable, particularly women, high literacy rates. The idea of Pakistan, the Pakistan needs a new organizing idea and an improved relationship between its provinces and center. The province of Baluchistan is significant for Pakistan’s future economic prospects. It is rich in mineral resources that are strategically located near vital sea lanes and two oil bearing regions, the Persian Gulf and central Asia.

The ability to provide such security depends upon the integrity and effectiveness of Pakistan’s political process. In other words, economic development and democracy are independent. Economic change will foster a middle class that may help lead the balance of economic and political power away from the feudal stranglehold.

America is a contradiction. It’s core constitutional values rest on prosperity, and the idea that all men are created equal, and yet was built and is thriving off of the systematic oppression and domination of people of color. It could be argued that the American culture hinges on on a widespread set of views, norms and beliefs, rather than true democratic norms. Without a doubt, from a young age we’re indoctrinated by Americanism. Activities such as learning the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem, serve as a tool utilized to limit any form of disobedience to our country and flag. In the same way, there is a sense of preserving Americanism and regarding it as sacred, which is vital to American culture.

These ideologies are so entrenched into contemporary society, that many see the denouncement of Americanism as unpatriotic and disrespectful; the most relevant example being Colin Kaepernick. In discussing America specifically, America maintains one of the longest standing democracies in history, which may be in part to these practices and norms we seek to maintain. Nevertheless, it’s impossible to credit the validity of American democracy, without a willingness to recognize the basis on which the nation was established. American democracy is not as substantive as many believe, due to the use of illiberal voter suppression tactics, and the ill-treatment and exploitation of people on the basis of race.

To begin, one of the key elements of democracy includes the right to vote, in many cases it’s even seen as a duty or obligation. Voting is key to many modern democracies because it generates representation among political figures. Plus, it allows for those not in the political arena to appoint who will be governing public and private life. Explicitly taking away voting rights from citizens would be depriving us of the most fundamental privilege, and erasing any means of political choice or freedom. Rather, certain tactics are implemented to target certain communities, that either lower the chances of people from that community voting or stop them from voting altogether. These are recognized as voter suppression laws; legislation that reduces the chances of voting from a certain group, who are likely to be against a certain candidate or proposition.

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, such penal laws were first introduced after the Civil War reconstruction, and primarily affected African-American people, despite the 14th and 15th amendments ensuring their right to vote. Despite popular belief, there was a period of time in which African Americans were granted the right to vote, freedom of speech and civil liberties, however, this all changed once reconstruction ended in 1877 and federal troops withdrew from the old confederacy These rights were soon systematically stripped by racist government who, at the time were Democrats, and keen on preserving the sanctity of whiteness in America. Since federal troops were no longer there to defend the political rights of African Americans, they became vulnerable at the grave threats of white employers and senseless violence from the Klu Klux Klan: a white supremacist hate organization that was most active during the reconstruction south.

Used forms of these undemocratic practices included poll taxes, which required voters to pay two years prior to an election. This primarily affected poverty-stricken areas in which many African-Americans resided. In addition to poll taxes, literacy tests were popular and considered the most effective form of voter discrimination. Literacy tests required a potential voter to read a part of the constitution and explain it to a voter clerk, who was always white. (CRF 1). It was then up to the clerk to decide if the potential voter was literate or not. These literacy tests affected almost all black men who were never taught to read, while their white counterparts were virtually always given a sentence to read and or interpret.

In addition, the grandfather clause was used as a form of voter suppression in the way that it only granted those whose grandfathers were able to vote before the civil war, the right to vote themselves. This was first enacted by Mississippi in 1895 but was soon mimicked by other southern states after it was deemed effective. With the right to vote being reduced, African-Americans found themselves with little to no influence over laws, local policies, schools, taxes, or public courts. As mentioned by authors Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky in How Democracies Die “the disenfranchisement of African Americans preserved white supremacy and democratic dominance in the South, which helped maintain the democrats’ national viability”(124). Although voter suppression laws were first used during the reconstruction era and outlawed through the Voting Rights Act, author Vanessa Willoughby mentions how voter suppression still manifests itself in our modern society. Now, it’s in subtler ways, such as voter ID and exact match laws. Nonetheless, these policies continue to impact communities of color, especially immigrants, and impoverished people who are less likely to possess documents needed to attain proper identification.

Lastly, authors Danyelle Solomon, Connor Maxwell, and Abril Castro, touch on the threat of revoking voter rights of American citizens with undocumented parents. They write “While such a threat is racist, xenophobic, and constitutionally dubious, it stokes fear in millions of Americans of color. These recent examples serve as a critical reminder that some of the most powerful lawmakers in the so-called land of the free remain committed to limiting full access to American democracy” (31). To summarize, seeing as how voting is one of the key components to democracy, the absence of making voting attainable for all eligible citizens, supports the idea that American democracy isn’t as robust as it’s made out to be.

While voting fulfills an important role in sustaining democracy, minority rights and equality remain an integral key to any well-maintained government. Democracies consist of many institutions that were created to aid in reducing racial divisiveness, but in America specifically, these institutions significantly increase the gap between race and class. In discussing racial injustices, it’s important to recognize the basis of the current president’s whole campaign is built upon the idea that “deviant” people are tainting true American values and culture. Such ideas are harmful in and of themselves, but become lethal when they’re being projected by arguably one of the most influential men in the world. In the novel, How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky, and Danial Ziblatt, they touch on the ways in which Donald Trump exudes many characteristics of an authoritarian leader. Also, that it’s essential that we’re cautious of any “influential political leader that restricts or encourages the restriction of basic civil or political rights” (65). In addition to this, the “toleration or encouragement of violence” is a very dangerous element of any presidency and can lead to the downfall of any established democracy. (66). In other words, a democracy without the presence of civil and political rights, isn’t a democracy at all. Even before Trump, racial disparities at the hands of oppressive government plagued this country since its founding. Each one of the systems to be discussed has a history of disproportionately considering communities of color as an afterthought or unequal. Including institutions like the education system, the criminal justice system/prison industrial complex, and law enforcement.

To begin, it’s critical to note that minority discrimination in this country is far from removed, it’s merely evolved and adapted to current times. Rather, America disguises its racism under the guise of patriotism, democracy, protecting our borders. The present ugliness in this country is embedded within the politicians, judges, and government officials who essentially hold the most power. In recent years, the president and the government have utilized tools that uphold and promote systematic oppression. The criminal justice system is just one example of an institution that has generated one of the largest racially motivated gaps today. Mass incarceration specifically, doesn’t start with that first arrest or detainment. It starts small, with disobedience in the home, that translates to insubordination in school and eventually leads to suspension or expulsion.

The School-To-Prison Pipeline represents a prime example of this path that unequally affects young African American students. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund defines this as “funneling students out of school and into the streets and the juvenile correction system perpetuates a cycle recognized as the School-to-Prison-Pipeline, depriving children and youth of meaningful opportunities for education, future employment, and participation in our democracy” (1). In Meridian, Mississippi, law enforcement, routinely arrests students, forcing them out of the classroom, and turning it into a harsh environment where they feel violated rather than safe. In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, staff members give to police, “unfettered authority to stop, frisk, detain, question, search and arrest schoolchildren on and off school grounds (3)”. In Birmingham, Alabama, there are law officials permanently assigned to almost every high school. School is meant to be a place where students can flourish and grow mentally. Yet, when a student goes to school and immediately enters an environment that criminalizes them, it’s sending a message that their safety is categorized as an afterthought. Ultimately, forcing students out of the classroom results in them being more likely to run into trouble with the law.

Racial discrimination in our criminal justice system is stemmed from a history of racial prejudice. Slavery, one of the most relevant examples of exercising undemocratic practices, was justified by the notion of a racial hierarchy. It was rooted in the idea that African Americans were inferior to white people, and in turn benefited from slavery. The presumption of guilt and villainization hat has been assigned to African Americans since America’s history of lynching, and slavery has more presently affected minority communities in terms of the criminal justice system and law enforcement. In the article “Presumption of Guilt” by Equal Justice Initiative, the article speaks on how law enforcement carries a strong unconscious mindset of associating criminality with blackness, which may be why we see so many young men of color dying at the hands of police officers (EJI 2). The idea of “shoot first, ask questions later”, has been demonstrated by law enforcement for decades. Studies show that police officers are more likely to carry out stop and frisk searches or detain men of color based solely on their intuition, and judgment.

On the contrary, many politicians such as Bill Otis place the blame for the state of the prison system on individual character rather than factors such as systemic racism and undemocratic practices. In his writings discussing racial disparities in the prison system, Otis says “I don’t care a whit about what the prison population looks like…I also don’t care about whether they’re young or old, and I don’t care if they’re male or female. I care about what their behavior is, period…. If blacks (or young people or men) want to appear less in the prison population, it’s easy: Abide by the law. If you do, have a nice day. If you don’t, you’ve assumed the risk” (1). The issue with this way of thinking is that it removes all and any responsibility from the systems that are disportionately keeping people of color incarcerated. Once we stop viewing these systems as ineffective, we move away from any effort to change or at least improve them. Essentially, African Americans are affected tremendously by political and social institutions, that typically serve as an aid to others. Since a stable democracy is inherently reliant on such institutions to benefit, and serve everyone, a democracy containing practices that oppress some, while favoring others cannot be labeled as substantive.

In conclusion, what are seemingly the most beneficial social and political institutions actually end up promoting most of the undemocratic norms we see today. Voter suppression laws have not been eradicated, and are being used in more discreet ways than ever.The education system works against students of color, and is one component that perpetuates the rate of imprisonment of black and brown bodies. People with felonies cannot vote, so who is more likely to not show up to those voting polls when the time comes? These systems don’t work separately, rather they’re all interconnected and operate to create practices that criminalize people of color, prohibit voting, and reduce the chances of participation in our democracy as a whole. A successful democracy is reliant on the full participation of all citizens, but once we began oppressing voices, and uplifting others, that democracy becomes unstable, and in grave danger of collapsing.

The term ‘America First’ has a dark history of extreme white nationalism and is deeply rooted in racism, anti-immigration and xenophobia. However, the origins of this phrase stems from 1915, during the Great War, where President Woodrow Wilson and Americans used this slogan to oppose any US involvement in the First World War, in order to protect their own national interests. ‘America First’ was a form of American nationalism, but its meaning had evolved over time and had become distorted into a dangerous ideology by extreme white nationalist groups such as the Klu Klux Klan, who had tainted it with ‘dark forces of prejudice and intolerance’ against ethnic minorities. Behold, America illuminates the dark, ominous edge of the term ‘America First’, arguing that it was initially used in political conversation as a national catchphrase during the anti-war movements, but the term had been plagued with a dangerous connotation for Nazi sympathisers and outright fascists in the United States. Churchwell argues that over time, ‘“America First” became a code for neo-Nazism’ and was fuelled by resentment, anger and violent hostility. The term is strongly associated with the collective vision of white supremacists who demonised ethnic minorities and promoted white nationalist, anti-immigration policies in America. This dangerous ideology reveals the extreme patriotic empowerment of the USA and mirrors the dark origins of ‘America First’ as it became a prominent ‘motto for the KKK’ . Although, the demeaning phrase was initially affiliated with protectionism and isolationism of America, it became intertwined with the idea of ‘100 percent Americanism’ which was a justification for violent racism. Behold, America highlights how ‘America First’ was a dangerous ideology with a dark history, one that is deeply entangled with the America’s brutal white nationalism, racism and slavery. It exposes the clash between white nationalists and the issues of nativism, immigration and xenophobia.

Behold, America illustrates the journey of the term ‘America First’ evolving from America’s neutrality during the Great War into a darker meaning with deep nationalistic views of white superiority. The concept of ‘America First’ has a substance of extreme white nationalists who ‘quantified people in terms of ethnic and racial composition’ and their complete indulgence in the radical idea of the ‘One-Drop Rule’. This dangerous racial ideology was the foundation of ‘slavery and miscegenation laws in many states’ and caused violence against ethnic minorities in the United States for many decades. The ‘One-Drop Rule’ was associated to ‘America First’ and became a driving force for white supremacist rallies such as the rising powers of the KKK, who were strongly fed by the ‘nativist and anti-immigrant sentiment’ against African Americans and undesirable whites. Churchwell explains how the phrase was originally used as a stance for American isolationism and their neutrality during the Great War, to how it transformed into the widespread idea of ‘one hundred percent Americanism’ and the dangerous turmoil of fascist sympathisers and anti-immigration movements. This shows the deep patriotic root and extreme jingoism of ‘America First’ and how American nationalism entailed the idea that foreigners were ‘[constructed] as aliens or un-American’ . Behold, America states that racial attacks against ethnic communities ‘stands in danger of oblivion’ and functioned through eugenicist ideas and white supremacist nationalism. It reveals that the initial use of ‘America First’ was to encourage dis-entanglement from foreign affairs and American non-intervention in the Great War as a form of nationalism, but it spiralled into a dark ideology by extremist groups/nationalists who used it ‘against other identities and exaggerated national unity’ as a form of symbolic violence. The dark origins of the term ‘America First’ from the progressive era to WWII, became increasingly linked to white-ethno nationalist movements and was utilised as a slogan for American fascism. The white American greed and desire for supremacy among ‘100 percenters’, the KKK, and fascists, became a foundation for racial slavery and violence. Anti-immigration acts such as the John-Reed Act, targeted ‘undesirable’ white immigrants and ethnic minorities, which created ‘a sharp and ruthless dividing line between the master races and the dark-skinned subject peoples’. This shows that ‘America First’ is a dangerous ideology that originates from nativism, slavery and fascism where certain groups of people were demonised and ‘denied of full humanity’ in order to protect white superiority and privilege.

Chruchwell argues that ‘America First’ had a core nationalistic tone regarding foreign affairs, but the ‘strong claims from nationalists for ethnic purification’ had obscured the meaning into an anti-immigrant vision and white superiority due to the ‘rising threat of “one hundred percent American” fascists’ . Churchwell examines the evolution of the phrase and how it is loosely used by Trump and his supporters today by focusing on its historical link to white nationalist groups. She insinuates that the phrase was used as a legitimate form of nationalism, but it’s meaning had changed throughout time as different extremist-nationalist groups had distorted it into a dangerous ideology, using it as a prominent slogan to ‘take America back and restore its older, purer American society’ . Churchwell recounts the dark history of ‘America First’ and relates it to the dangerous ideologies of ‘being free from foreign entanglements’ , racism, white supremacy and nativism. She articulates how the ‘strong social pressure towards patriotism’ in the contemporary political situation under Trump embodies the xenophobic and white-ethno supremacy that prevailed in the 20th century. Behold, America locates the origins of ‘America First’ to Mussolini’s fascist Italy and discovers the parallel in the emergence of the KKK in America. This shows how ‘America First’ and ‘100 percent Americanism kept allying itself to fascists’ in the United States and reveals how the phrase is a dangerous ideology that caused ‘disastrous outcomes that were certainly not inevitable’ for ethnic minorities.

Overall, the use of ‘America First’ during the 20th century, had attained different meanings over time. The initial meaning focused on America’s unilateralism and neutrality in the Great War, and its nationalist anti-war involvement in order to sustain America’s own self-interests. The term illuminates America’s foreign policy of isolationism and protectionism and accentuates America’s prioritization of national/domestic affairs and self-determination before global events during the first half of the 20th century. However, this term had been distorted by white extreme nationalists who believed they had the right to ‘judge the “worth” of immigrant communities and ethnic minorities’ . ‘America First’ became fused with xenophobia, nativism, racism and white supremacist groups who sparked anti-immigration movements and violent attacks against ethnic minorities. This shows that ‘America First’ is a dangerous ideology as it evolved from a dark history of neo-Nazism, fascism and racial discrimination, which is still prevalent in our contemporary world.

The role of the artist and intellectual in twentieth-century politically convulsed Europe was ambiguous and altogether disagreeable. The source of this dispute is deeply rooted in moral and ethical grounds and, in order to offer a more refreshing view on it, the sociological dialectics of Niklas Luhmann will be exposed. Nevertheless, first we shall consider the philosophical state of the author’s writing context: Postmodernism, and more specifically, poststructuralism.

By the time Luhmann ponders about the meaning of interaction, or better said, the meaning as solely given by interaction, Michel Foucault has already published The Order of the things (Pantheon Books, 1970). In it, the French philosopher dissects the history of knowledge from the Renaissance to his time into individual cases of episteme, a term rather troublesome to apply. It refers to the epistemic order through which the scope of arguments, methods and speculations during a specific period of time are configured. Yet we will not engage in a complex examination of the thesis of that book, for the relevance of such is exactly what it suggests us about contemporary thought: that it is subordinate to the quest for abstract and underlying elements that resolve the meaning of events and images prima facie1. Derrida has spoken up on deconstructivist theories, Judith Butler will soon pronounce herself on the subject of the materiality of the bodies (Bodies that matter, Routledge, 1993). And, within that philosophical framework Luhman develops his theory of systems.

Later on, in a posthumous book titled Art as a social system, Postmodern German sociologist Niklas Luhmann approaches to the nature of the issue pointed out in the first lines of this essay by tooling his Systems theory. As per it he contemplates artistic production as an autonomous Social system, that emerges upon a constitutive paradox founded on the principle of its very ascetic nature and thus, that is brought to existence by dint of difference. In other words, what makes art art is precisely the acknowledgment of such as itself and in contrast to other autopoietic systems, such as Political systems, Social systems and so forth. By no means does this imply them being hermetically independent but rather as observants of every other. Accordingly, interaction, and more accurately, communication rises as the funding principle of the many possibilities of meaning; for sheer meaning is only to be primarily found in the individual’s consciousness and, the moment it permeates language it becomes subjected to its misrepresentations and deceiving forms. Put differently: “humans cannot communicate; not even their brains can communicate; not even their conscious minds can communicate. Only communication can communicate.”2 Human communication operates within a network in which each system bears a function. For instance, the function of politics would be defined as: that which is constructed on the basis of the organization of the individuals in order to achieve social harmony. Art on the other hand “uses perceptions and, by doing so, seizes consciousness at the level of its own externalizing activity. The function of art would thus consist in integrating what is in principle incommunicable namely, perception— into the communication network”. Therefore, the purpose of the artistic quest, as regarded in terms of Social systems by Luhmann, is to apprehend the cognitive juncture between the acquainted intellect and primary source of external information- which will then be subdued to processing. 3

Henceforth, bearing in mind the contents of the previous paragraph, what would be the role of contemporary artists or intellectuals if suitable for them to have one? One interpretation would be denoting a legitimate position certainly dispatched from morality, principles or collective responsibility compromising their work; for that would circumscribe their processes of creation to the respective lexicon in both time and space hence exclude sundry contemplative lanes.

Albeit, a very concrete inconvenience arises from the latter assertion. An artist is an intellectual notwithstanding vice versa. If with creative production we were to refer to essayistic texts that were to directly address morality… would it still be steady ground to stand on the idea that it should not be condemned to their social effects? If the value of life and human rights was to be subjected to relativization on behalf of stark aesthetic judgements, whose authenticity would be legitimate? And what kind of realpolitik would arise from its social effect? For contemporary crowds it does not appear to be a first-order issue, however and in order to understand the complexity of the undertaking of such queries, we shall remit to politically and ethically writhed Europe, and more specifically, Post- World War Two France. Wherefore these questions are to guide us towards the formulation of the hypothesis leading this essay.

That being said, we proceed to approach the matter of contention of this paper. Beforehand however, we shall shed some light on the historical context that serves as its framework. After World War Two, Europe became atomized and remained in ruins for almost two decades. On economic grounds, not only was it devastated but it also had materialized as the United States’ charitable purpose. The Marshall Plan- an initiative launched by the American government consisting on the endorsement of funds towards the battered old Western continent- became active in March 1948 20. Post-war France was to all extents suffering from the fatigues of militaristic action and foreign intervention on domestic jurisdiction. The Third Republic had resulted in a complete disappointment for intellectual masses – either too moderated or too progressive- and its successor granted no better prospects, for it was a government established and controlled –through the figure of Pétain- by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Furthermore, a rather counterintuitive effect of American philanthropy had been growing in the hearts of the Frenchman as a sense of Anti-Americanism. Other than that, the French intelligentsia had been suffering, ever since the fascist withdrawal, from ideological expurgation. It had been enacted by the newly official sector of the former movement of la Resistánce -which had emerged during the years of the Vichy France as a counterpower block and was then the sovereign authority- namely, the CNE (comité national des écrivains), simultaneously splitting into la commision d’épuration, whose punishments were less aggressive, from banning itellectuals from public spaces to celebrating trials; and le comité d’épuration de l’édition, which would target both formerly active supporters of the fascist ruling plus those who would not declare themselves as neither in favour nor against the government of Pétain -this is key to understanding the potical appeal of these years, and we well come back to it later on.4

The premises for that purge were: that talent is responsibility, that the echoes of the written word are perpetual and that it was a rather appealing vendetta. Thereby, the publishers of magazines and newspapers who had been assiduously performing their task during the Occupation were dismantled.5 At the beginning, personalities such as Camus did support l’épuration des gens de lettres, and yet later on realized his mistake in view of the corruption of the trials –for 75% of the judges who were responsible for enforcing the law were as well judges during the times of the Vichy Republic-, exculpation based on aesthetic perspectives – Jean Paulhan claimed for mercy solely if encountered with considerable amounts of literary skills-, and them being accomplished on behalf of, rather than moral justice, ideological, military and national revindication of triumph (Judt, T., 1992).

The purpose of this essay is to attempt to answer the following question: how did the philosophical fundaments of Sartre and Camus’ confrontation translate into the several interpretations regarding the conception of the role of the intellectual within the political dimension?

The starting point of their quarrel began a few years earlier, when the legal and judicial forces were not yet governed by the obsession of national authorities and political activists with la purité.6 Parisian Jean-Paul Sartre and French-Algerian Albert Camus, met, discussed philosophy and forged a friendship. The similarities of their interests united them whereas the unevenness of their views enriched them and reinforced their bond. However, parallel to la Liberation and almost simultaneous to the starting of the Cold War, not only was their relationship put to an end, but also polarized their stances under the eyes of public opinion; for they bore very different views on the matter concerning this essay and expressed so openly along the lines of magazines such as Les temps modernes.7 The conflict which separated both gradually overcame and emerged with the publishing of L’Homme révoltée, (1951), by Albert Camus, in which he conceived Communism as an ideological justification for the violating of the principle of life, on the face of the Stalinist Soviet Union, with its gulags and its trials, such as the so-called Lysenko affair and Slansky’s trial. As Camus grew apart from Marxism, Sartre -despite his never direct enrolling in the French Communist Party- became a ferocious defendant of the movement.9 And what is more, not only did he turn a blind eye on Stalin’s realpolitik policies, but rather, when the truth about it became so stark, he justified the crimes by explaining how the paucity of freedom of speech in the Soviet Union, -when regarded from the European ethos- was just a just sacrifice preliminary and needed for the sake of real cultural liberation. When Camus asserted on the preponderance of performing a non-violent revolution, Sartre assured how it could be as interchangeable as the concept of freedom of speech, as previously indicated, on the pathway towards the emancipation from American capitalism. 10

Anti-Americanism is, taking as an instance Sartre’s views, fundamental in order for us to comprehend the polarization of opinions towards Capitalism – represented by the USA- and Communism – represented by the Soviet Union. Not only does this dialectical structure correspond to that, prima facie, of the Cold War but it also and most importantly had its reflection on the European sense of collective identity. The application of the Marshall Plan featured, apart from funding, the commercial expansion of the hegemonic country.11 By these means, being against Stalinism had a much more acute connotation. It denoted: (1) an opposition to the only materialization of a system supported by ideals unblemished by bourgeois profit-based lobbies and (2) a state of alienation only reinforced by the United States’ cultural expansionism.12 For even the attempts of the Soviet citizens who had fled the country and spread the word about the crimes where distrusted and widely considered as instruments of the long-reaching arm of the States’ oversighting. 13 It would be suitable to compare the latter with Plato’s myth of the cave: when, on the prospect of the philosopher’s intention to liberate the prisoners from their chains, they murder him. And now as it may be transported to this situation, on the prospect of the only emancipated state’s potential allure to proletariat revolution – the Soviet Union-, the prisoners –French philosophers who refused to stand alongside Stalinist ideological lines- feel threatened at their comfort – and hence resolve into attacking the movement or simply not supporting it. A distinction that had neither place within the France of la libération nor within Post-war West Europe 14 – except for naturally Francoist Spain.

Another interpretation might as well be, that the French intellectuals of Camus’ and Sartre’s generation – Merleau-Ponty, Claude Roy and so forth- were alienated by their self-formulated idealization of the workers’ moral standards. For, in the words of Mounier: “the working people bore and nourished that political instinct without which ideas and good intentions would be vain and impotent” (Judt, T., 1992). Therefore, instead of only producing goods, the proletariat also produces a dignified and franc background for pro-Marxism artistic creation, or so it seems 15. This would easily locate the function of the intellectual as the forceful poet of revolution, a thought complementary to Antonio Gramsci’s views on the intellectual’s social function as a guide 16; a notion that intimately relates with that of post-revolutionary Russia in which artists and intellectual were, not even the architects but also the caterers of the national doctrine. All in all, and going back to the point that was made by the beginning of this paragraph, aesthetical condition of work seen as a noble activity combined with the unknown glorification of the faraway Russian state seem to have as well constituted a key point towards the understanding of a veiled perception.

Hitherto in this essay several ideas have been undertaken, namely: the function of art as one of Niklhas Luhmann’s Social systems and how that notion translates into the whether or not existent role of the intellectual –or the artist- on social and moral grounds; the context and some of the driving forces – Anti-Americanism and Anti-capitalism and the aesthetics of the values of the working class- of Post-war French intellectuals anesthetized and prosovietic17 -to use Judt’s terminology- attitudes and more specifically, how that particularly projected on the well-known disagreement between Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. For, whereas the former developed a rather hermetic, absurd and purely existentialist perception towards Stalinist crimes and violence on behalf of revolution, the latter humanized that existentialism and vowed to lay the foundations of non-primarily-aggressive revolutionary deeds.18

The obvious conclusion to be drawn – however not obvious- is the following one. We have deliberately chosen a rather complex contextualization of the intellectual’s nature in order to take it to a tangible extreme – Sartre’s wilful blindness towards Stalinist’s violation of the right to live of every individual- and prove if there could really be a legitimated separation between the humanities’ echoes on the moral grounds upon which politics should be constructed. And there could be, but there is not have to be. Put differently, artistic creation is always going to be, however formalist19, a product of the political, social and economic times characterizing the author’s context. Their work must not be obligately confined to leadership goals, as asserted by Antonio Gromsci. Rather than that, it will most likely naturally lean towards reflecting the concerns of the historical framework of the artist. Once that episteme, to use Foucaultian vocabulary, is overcome, their works will become an epistemological treasure regarding the study of history; for they will offer a less factorial approach on the reading and understanding of humankind’s evolution.