There is very little wonton, random malicious wrongdoing. Many settings contain a margin of trust that is not exploited except for personal benefit. The opportunity to do something damaging may be present, but it isn't done because it would either give no advantage or harm the setting.
The Example I noticed was here at college. Teachers have mail boxes and also bins on their doors. Many important papers pass through these. Stealing any number of them, either all or a few randomly, would cause stupendous havic for a lot of busy people. No one does this because those who know about it and have the most opportunity are sympathetic parties and wouldn't want the bother it would cause.
People who are truly at odds with the a cultural system and desire to do damage are rarely calm, subtle, and successful. The unhinged and do things like arson, school shootings and suicide. They don't just bend all the unused library bookends. There is a range of anti-social behaviors, with a wide gap between throwing trash on the ground and pipebombs.
Well, I’m not studying sociology so I don’t know what sort of conclusion can be made from this observation. If you have some ideas of where this line of thought can go, please speak up.
I’d like to say thanks to the friends who’ve left some comments recently. It warms the cockles of me heart it does! Thanks for reading!
Now, I got some denials to my statements that ‘I don’t really know what I’m talking about’ and ‘I’m not good writing’. To illustrate my points I’d like to point you to a blog I just found, http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/ There’s an ideal example of insightful commentary and clear, readable arguments! Stanly Fish is no beginner like me; he’s 70, and the most famous theorists of literary criticism still alive. I had a whole class build on one of his academic essays!
Grady Houger ~ I don’t have a cool name like Fish, but hopefully I can make something of mine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment