As we learn to objectively analyze readings from Harriet Jacobs to Ralph Waldo Emerson, we can see a clear pattern of what American Political thought has come to. American political thought has been represented with the combination of both “philosophizing and action” and to “mingle thinking with doing”. Our class has focused heavily with passages and writings that clearly present an idea with action. The class is heavily reading based but, as we study American Political thought, shouldn’t we push ourselves to be more focused in our approach to it? We are thinking and not doing and that could be creating a problem. We are responding to the passages in a way that doesn’t necessarily engage us in a more passionate way. Not to say that a more passionate route is better but to identify that it may be a more thoughtful way to engage with its intended audience. We are doing the exact same thing that hundreds before us have done, by just analyzing the words.Though the power of analytics has a great deal of value, it can only do so much. Just as the class focuses on the “tradition” shouldn’t we lead by example and connect on a more grounded and direct approach? As if we should be “doers”? I’m not saying that this class is wrong, far from it, but shouldn’t there be more to it? There is so much right with this class, from identifying and describing key texts and critically analyzing them from a multitude of viewpoints. To fully embrace the idea of men and women of action, shouldn’t we become those very people we hope to learn from. To embody them is to understand them, and though we can never fully understand what they went through, it might give us a deeper connection then what was given before. I’m not going to give thought on how we should, as this is more of a thought on why we should start with approach like this.
Just like that, I’ve become part of the problem, as I have given a call to action, and not any real action. Though that may be what is necessary, to be the martyr, as it is one of the many archetypes of our folk heroes. Not to call myself one, but to acknowledge that this step in the wrong direction might actually push it towards the right one. Though it may sound pretentious, because I think it is, I will take the burden, which in itself fuels the pretentiousness. This whole class is about engagement, and maybe that’s exactly what I’m trying to do. By not necessarily following the engagement and just calling for action, while not really following through with an action. It can be viewed hypocritically, but I think it can help to push the agenda forward. It’ll create a ripple effect that maybe; just maybe, it was worth it, and not as a hypocritical and satirical post. Or maybe I’m too hopeful and this writing will lead to nothing more than just a post, but that’s the beauty of it, the beauty of all these people, that their writing is very significant only because they were doers just as much as they were thinkers. My whole argument is that we should engage more, we should fully embody the people we talk about, by being doers as much as thinkers.