P.S: Please remember that these are mostly topics I was given with sources provided. Hate the assignment not the submitter.
P.S.S: The topics are as follows: Japanese occupation of Korea, Individualism in the renaissance, Calvinism versus Catholicism views on Original sin (needless to say, I am in the Calvinist camp), and Judicial Activism (which is perhaps the most misleading, because the professor had explicit instructions. I am actually against an activist court, or at least in favor of an activist conservative court.)
The Opportunities of Modernization in Korea
Jordan Reed
History 264
Often times the idea of modernization is presented as the industrialization and centralization of a country. Whether this idea is right or wrong, this perception certainly seems correct in the case of the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910-1945. The Japanese sought to pull Korea into the modern world sphere mainly using these two methods, regardless of what the Koreans thought. This was done through the forcible application of industrial, agricultural, cultural, and social reform. Regardless of an individual’s moral interpretation on these acts, it can not be argued that this period of modernizing colonization did not have a profound effect upon Korea. What can be argued is how effective these imperialistic reforms were in creating opportunities for the Korean population. Did the action of modernizing Korea cause an opening of positions, possibilities, and power that it did in other nations which rapidly industrialized, such as Japan? Furthermore, did the reaction of rising nationalism to these reforms further create new avenues for the native population? This paper is intended answer these questions. It will show how modernization created new opportunities for the Korean people, both in itself and by the subsequent reaction towards it.
First, it is necessary to set up the context of the Japanese occupation
in order to understand the arguments that will be used. As the Western
powers divided up Asia into colonies and spheres of influence in the
19th and 20th centuries, Korea stood out as something of an enigma.
Known as the Hermit Kingdom, Korea had been able “to close her borders
to the entire world except Big Brother China.” (Kang 2001) This
isolation resulted in a country that was seen as weak and
under-developed by the outside world. (Kang 2001) The supposed
helplessness of this East Asian country made it a prime target for
influence by its growing neighbors, Japan and Russia. Resulting from the
conflicting imperial interest, the Russo-Japanese War gave a convenient
excuse for Japan to oust its competitor out of the region and build
support for Korean protectorate status on the world stage. This all
culminated in Korea being brought into the Japanese sphere as a
protectorate by Ito Hirobumi in 1905. (Ebrey & Walthall 2014) This
is an important note to those seeking to understand the situation,
because the Japanese first attempted to harness Korea as a protectorate,
a more or less “independent” state that would accede to Japanese
guidance. (Ebrey & Walthall 2014) The idea of “protectorate” changes
the nuance of Japanese imperialism. The Japanese claimed that they were
simply aiding in the strengthening of Korea so that it could resist
imperialist aggressors. Whether it is right or not, this provides a lens
through which we know some of the Japanese viewed the situation. This
endeavour for working with a semi-independant Korea would ultimately be
unsuccessful for the Japanese, and the end result of this protectorate
status would be the complete colonization of Korea by Japan.
Historically, the proceeding period of colonization has been divided
into three parts, subjugation (1910-1919), accommodation (1920-1931),
and assimilation (1931-1945). (Kang 2001) Each of these phases is
generalized by a heightened or lowered militancy and interference by the
Japanese. By keeping the atmosphere of each of these phases in mind
when looking into the actions of the Japanese, one can obtain a
foundation from which to understand the possible opportunities that the
Japanese brought to Korea.
To begin, the most obvious area where the modernization attempts can be
seen are in the economic sector. Before the Japanese came, there
existed in Korea “a relatively backward agricultural economy” which had
most of the manufactures being “produced by artisans in a few population
centers.” (Federal Research Division Library of Congress, 1990) The
period of occupation would fundamentally change this economic status in
three major areas, which will be divided and discussed as agricultural,
industrial, and infrastructure.
First, the agricultural situation of Korea was greatly changed through
the Japaneses’ application of land surveys, modern technology, and
trade. Up to this point, the status of land ownership was ambiguous and
dominated by the yangban (scholar gentry) class. The government’s
ignorance of how much property was owned by individuals hindered
efficient taxation and modernization projects. The Japanese instituted a
series of land surveys “so that people could know exactly what they
owned. All the land that went unclaimed...the Japanese took for
themselves.” (Kang, 2001) This project not only gave an opportunity to
those who would deceitfully gain land that had not belonged to them by
claiming it as their own to the Japanese (Kang, 2001), but it would also
gain the support of the landowners by guaranteeing their property
rights. (Ebrey & Walthall 2014) In addition to codifying land
ownership, the Japanese would make modern technology available to
farmers that enabled them to get “machinery from Japan for digging and
weeding.” (Kang 2001) While these modernizations did result in a growth
of output, the overall situation was lopsided towards those landowners
that could afford technology and were protected by the new property
distribution. Moreover, many products, one being Korea’s staple product,
rice, were forcibly exported to Japan in the occupier’s drive for
self-sufficiency.
While
the Japanese changed Korea’s agriculture, the colonizers literally gave
life to the peninsula's industry. The Japanese flooded Korea with
capital, and they built factories to exploit the natural resources
there. The possibilities this provided can be seen in two tiers. The
first view is that of the wealthy business leaders who, again, could
take advantage of this inflow of capital. Using their own funds, these
landlords were allowed to fill cheap niches in the market. It also
helped matters that the occupying Japanese sought to implement
industrialization in much the same way that it was achieved during the
Meji era, placing an emphasis upon “the close collaboration between
government and business leaders.” (Federal Research Division Library of
Congress, 1990) Wedding the economic and government leaders created a
window for the Korean industrialists. On the other hand, the lower
classes that acted as laborers were in much less positive situation, but
it is worth noting that this situation might still have been better
than the one which they they were leaving behind, as “life was
especially hard for farmers, who often lived at subsistence level.”
(Kang 2001) Many of the factories were built to meet the expanding
demand of Japan, and these factories would hire heavily from the
indigenous population. One example being “a railroad factory where they
made engine parts, and many Koreans, like about three thousand, worked
there.” (Kang, 2001) While discrimination did exist, some Koreans were
able to become specialists and achieve less expendable jobs. This
minority of wealthy Korean capitalists, specialists, and non-expendables
would form “a new middle class”. (Ebrey & Walthall 2014) In
essence, the process of industrialization did create opportunities above
what Koreans had as sharecroppers and tenant farmers, but the benefits
were less than possible, harder earned, and not of their choice.
When
the Japanese occupation of Korea came to an end in 1945, the Korean
economy went through a turbulent period due to the withdrawal of
Japanese capital and markets. This destabilization shows that the most
important economic contribution the Japanese made during their
colonization was in fact the infrastructure that was built. Railroads,
hydroelectric power plants, mines, bridges, and shipyards were only a
few of the important projects pushed through by the Japanese. The
massive influx of Japanese construction in Korea had two aims. One was
to facilitate the political and military aims of Japan. Korea was a base
for the expansion of the empire, and, as both the bulwark and gateway
into the rest of Asia, Korea was heavily webbed with transportation in
order to facilitate the Japanese war machine’s strategies. Another
reason is for the purpose of economic necessity. The Japanese eventually
conceded that the protectorate was not feasible in Korea, but it
instead began a process of assimilation. This causes one to logically
deduce that the Japanese were intending for a prolonged stay. This puts
the infrastructure’s creation as the logical outcome of the Japanese
wishing to reach all the economic potential possible and prepare for
long term growth. For the Koreans, this dual drive benefitted them
greatly. Not only did the construction, maintenance, and subsequent
urbanization provide opportunities for employment and promotion, but
when the Japanese left, these structures were left more or less
free-and-clear. Whether worker, owner, poor, or rich, in general, all
Koreans benefited from the use of this foreign sponsored network of
industry.
Moving
beyond the economics sense, there also occurred a great social
opportunity in Korea during this era. It may seem as if the Korean
people’s hopes for social mobility and enrichment were nonexistent
during this time of oppression, but, as there was economic opportunity
available, there was also at times social possibilities. Specifically,
certain areas, such as education, gender opportunities, and nationalism,
were greatly expanded under the period of colonization.
By
far the largest deliberate change was the availability of new
education, from traditional Korean education, to Japanese education, or
even western education. Before the Japanese occupation there was only
one choice for the Korean people, “the male bastion sodang, village
school.” (Kang 2001) This state of circumstances was quickly dispelled
when Korea had its borders opened and was occupied. The diversity of
schools expanded exponentially. It was even possible for “a small
minority” (Ebrey & Walthall, 2014) to study abroad in Japan and
other nations. This is not to say that the Japanese system of education
was completely egalitarian. The system did favor the Japanese students
over their Korean counterparts, and there were definite cultural strings
attached. More and more as time progressed, the schools became vehicles
for assimilation. This being said, it can not be discounted that the
Japanese did expand the possibility for education to many Koreans,
regardless of ulterior motives, and the result of this venture was to
provide the Koreans with the skills required to become an efficient
workforce.
Understandably,
the elevation and prevalence of education began to chip away at some of
the more traditional elements of Korean society. One such element was
the dominance of patriarchy. Korean women that would otherwise be tied
into a traditional agricultural role faced a similar situation as women
in other industrialized nations. They now had the opportunity of
education, and the overall field of industrialization was somewhat
possible to exploit. This is not to say that women of this period broke
out of cultural norms. The vast majority of women probably lived in
traditional fashion as much as possible. But, the occupation brought a
turbulence to society, and women had opportunities within the chaos of
industrialization and urbanization.
The
final group of opportunities, and perhaps the most overlooked, are the
revolutionaries and nationalists. It could be argued that the movement
of revolution, nationalism, and modernization was an eventuality, and
that this situation would have arisen even without Japan’s interference.
But, the fact of the matter is that Japan did interfere, and it is
logical to assume that Japan’s actions provided the Nationalists with a
target for their hatred and a catalyst for change. It is not difficult
to see how the Japanese occupation provided those that were unhappy with
the system and wanted drastic change with a better opportunity to
gather a following and proclaim their message. Movements that otherwise
might never have gained traction within the populace now gained an
audience in two growing groups. The first group was the student body.
Ironically, the Japanese sought to educate, and thereby indoctrinate,
the Korean youth, but this also had the result of introducing them to
the outside influences of Communism, Nationalism, and even Liberalism.
The other group would be the oppressed populace. The opportunities
brought by the Japanese are known, but the brutalities of oppression
were equally present as well. Those oppressed did not have to look far
to find revolutionary groups or passive subversions to vent their
frustration. It can be argued that it was just such an act that brought a
close to the first phase of Korean colonization, subjugation, and
brought about the more lenient phase of accommodation.
In
conclusion, one can not dispute that the modernizing action of the
Japanese did in fact offer some benefits and increased opportunity for
the Korean people. The effects of forced modernization were broad and
sweeping, and shook the economic and social roots of Korea. But, it is
equally important to realize that modernization was not an equal
process. The different strata of people, class, and circumstances caused
an enormous divide in the ultimate outcome of modernization of the
individuals. The Japanese were not one homogenous case either. There was
no doubt some with the best of intentions, and there was certainly many
that saw Korea as simply an imperialistic venture. This is the key of
the situation. The modernization of Korea was a movement carried out and
participated in by individuals. Each of these individuals had a
different perspective on the situation. This paper has attempted to take
certain facets of the situation, and show how they opened doors for
certain people or classes.
The Effects of Individualism on Politics and Religion in Early Modern Europe
Jordan Reed
HNRS: 229-01
One of the most prominent cultural values in Western Civilization is the emphasis on the desires and benefit of the individual. The ideal of Individualism has had an almost inestimable influence on the development of Europe and the modern world. While this is more difficult to observe in the Ancient world, Individualism, and its subsequent results, becomes much more apparent in the early modern era of the Western world, the Renaissance in particular. The purpose of this paper is to analyze some of the evidence for the changes that the rise of Individualism caused in politics and religion.
It’s
important to note that tracing and pinpointing the rise of
individualism as becoming the ascendant ideal of European culture is
difficult, but it can be seen that the true flowering of this ideal
occurred during a time period in Western history known as the
Renaissance. It was at this point that the ideas of “self-fashioning”,
“free will”, and the central position of man first became emphasized and
encouraged in literature and society. One key example of this is the
philosophical movement known as Humanism. This intellectual doctrine
began as an attempt by certain of the learned men of the time to revive
the ancient knowledge, but it soon transformed into much more. It
emphasized strengthening the intellect through ancient knowledge in
order to strengthen the individual’s virtue, and thereby it spawned a
form of individualism by emphasizing man’s unique ability to achieve a
semblance of virtuous originality. Humanism continued evolving
throughout the Renaissance. It came to represent an upheaval against the
contemporary order via a hearkening back to a “purer” golden age in the
past. In the process of seeking this purer past, the members of
Humanism created something new, the spirit of the individual. This is
apparent in Pico Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man,
widely considered to be a type of manifesto on Humanism. As well as
outlining the overall aim of Humanism, Mirandola states that the
individual is “constrained by no limits, in accordance with thine own
free will.” This emphasis on the will of the individual created a new
approach for defining and handling the problems of the day.
Perhaps
the area where this new approach is most evident is in the political
life of Europe. To understand the changes in governance, we will discuss
three examples of the transitions in the politics of the day,
Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Ludlow. Bringing to bear his political and
philosophical experience, Niccolo Machiavelli’s landmark book The Prince (1532)
illustrates a different kind of relationship between the state and the
individual. The overall message of the book rejects the idea of
government being ordained by any other power than itself. This removes
any sort of prohibitions from the use of power and force. The people
heading the government have only one purpose, the continuation of their
power. This illustrates the idea that the primary objective of anyone
should be their own benefit, which is one facet of individualism.
Furthermore, the idea of Fortuna, which can be simplistically explained
as chance or luck, removes the idea of a predestined outcome for a
prince or state, leading to the conclusion that people can chart their
course. Therefore, morality is secondary to success. These stark
conclusions are an extreme yet logical conclusion to the applying of the
individualist dogma to the political sphere of society.
The
view espoused above by the Florentine comes earlier than the next two
examples, but a thread of logic can be seen moving from The Prince to the next two works. The writings of Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651) express
the same calculating manner to his political science in a way to
achieve a more successful result rather than the right result. But, by
the time of Hobbes, the ideas of individualism have further developed,
and this fact shows itself in the way that Hobbes begins his argument
for a certain government from the bottom up. That is, he uses the state
of the mass of humanity, a mass of individuals, as the reason behind his
conclusions about government. He doesn’t give these individuals the
privilege of being able to chart their own course, due to, ironically
enough, their own competition and equality, but he doesn’t dispute that
each of these people have desires, wills, and affections that drive
them. The influence of Individualism can be seen in how it is claimed
that the successful government doesn’t only acknowledge the
individuality of the state, as in The Prince, but also the Individuality of its constituency.
While
the previous two examples used the facets of Individualism to justify
the state, the third example, a set of memoirs written by a contemporary
of the English Restoration in the mid-17th century and The English
Declaration of Rights, illustrates a more contemporary result of the
long hand of this cultural value. Ludlow, the author and narrator of his
biography, claims that the nation is not only built by individuals but
that all “who had acted with fidelity and affection to the public”
deserve to have a part in a government run by consent of the government.
This desire for a guaranteed protection of the people’s rights against
government intervention is further explained and even codified in The
English Declaration of Rights. This is perhaps the ultimate expression
of Individualism that politics should take into account the desires of
the individuals that it affects. The very fabric of political thought
was shaped by the idea of Individualism, and, the farther history
progresses into modernity, its influence only gets larger. But, as has
been mentioned, ideals often transcend just one sphere of life.
Individualism can also be seen in the religion of the early modern era.
The
most obvious example of this is the Protestant Reformation. It may seem
from some of the language used by Luther that Protestantism is opposed
to Individualism, but a closer look reveals that there is much more than
a simplistic answer. On one hand, the doctrine of predestination and
the negative outlook on the humanist emphasis on man seem to take a step
backwards from Individualism. On the other hand, it can be argued that
the entire Reformation was a humanist and Individualist effort. Luther
sought to return to a past golden age of true worship, and this is the
very soul of humanism. In addition, the Reformation had the effect of
building upon the priesthood of believers, which emphasized a personal
relationship with God instead of a predominantly ritualistic or
corporate one. It creates an interplay that can only be witnessed and
confirmed on an individual basis. This
would play very heavily into the Congregationalist nature of the
Reformed Churches, and it would be more politically acceptable to the
more liberal areas of Switzerland, Netherlands, and even England. Even
the idea of predestination didn’t have to mean that the teaching was
anti-individual. In fact, it became a powerful personal motivation for
the Protestants that followed the doctrine that they were “chosen” by
God, as shown by the absolute devotion in Oliver Cromwell on the Victory at Naseby.
It
is also important not only to look at the Reformation proper. The
Catholic Church had members that stressed an individualistic dogma.
Erasmus was a champion Humanist, and he wrote extensively on the need
for the church to reform itself into a purer, simpler, and more personal
entity. While he didn’t agree with a radical split, Erasmus sought to
combine the Free Will of Humanism with a simpler church.
Looking
at both the political and religious developments in the Renaissance, it
is an easy thing to see the superficial effects of Individualism, and
the influence of this ideal only gets stronger as Western history
progresses. While it may be impossible to exactly isolate or quantify
the factors that created it, Individualism can be given a lot of the
credit for many of the greatest achievements of the modern world, and,
while things like capitalism and religious and political tolerance are
far in the future from the time discussed, the very heart of this
movement hearkens to the seeds planted in this time.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Perry, Marvin. 2014. Sources of the Western Tradition: Volume II: From The Renaissance To The Present. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning
Spielvogel, Jackson J. 2014. Western Civilization: Volume II: Since 1500. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning
History of Judicial Activism Through Court Opinions
Many
of the decisions of the relatively recent Warren Court, the Supreme
Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren from 1953-1969,
made such an impact that they are often taken as foundational
interpretations of the American Constitution in the modern mind. The
Warren Court marked a culmination of the evolution of the judicial role
in society, from its role as a primarily passive branch, leaving
implementation to states and legislatures, to a more active and
independent social force, able to implement even sweeping cultural
changes. The change in the way that the courts viewed their purpose did
not happen overnight, and it was by no means an inevitable conclusion.
Particular opinions of the Supreme Court reveal the shifting views on
the court’s role. The majority and minority opinions of Plessy v. Ferguson and majority opinion Brown v. Board of Education expose
very different views on the subject of judicial activism, and thereby
show how the court’s views on judicial activism have changed over the
fifty-eight years between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.
The majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
is extremely relevant to any discussion upon judicial activism beyond
simply being an arbitrary starting point. The judgment of Plessy v. Ferguson legalized
idea of “Separate but Equal”, creating a legally approved method for
exercising racism by forcing blacks into separate areas, institutions,
and jobs. This court case marks the true ascendance of white racists
over the black population in the United States of America. The majority
opinion in this pivotal case for civil rights, written by Justice Henry
Brown, outlines the reasoning for the justices who decreed this
decision, and it also provides a window into the way that these
justices, minus one dissenter, saw the purpose of the courts in regards
to the culture of the day.
The majority opinion of Plessy v. Ferguson
is divided into two points. The first point deals with the implications
of “Separate but Equal” for the Thirteenth Amendment, which deals with
slavery, and the second point deals with the implications for the
Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees rights and freedoms for all
American citizens. The second point is more relevant to the argument at
hand, and, therefore, it will bear the focus of analysis. Justice Henry
very plainly illustrates his view of the intention of the Fourteenth
Amendment, stating: “The object of this amendment was undoubtedly to
enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in
the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish
distinctions based upon color...laws permitting their separation...do
not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race...and have been
generally...recognized as within the competence of the state
legislatures.”(Martin Jr. 1998, 79) First, it should be noted that the
Justice maintains that the decision of the court is entirely within the
historical aims of the crafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, implying a
stricter interpretation of the Constitution. A strict interpretation
being the idea that the Constitution should be taken in a more literal
fashion, and that historical precedent and intent should be central in
decision making. This is important to understanding the reasoning of the
decision, because it follows that the courts would be more conservative
in its judgements by following this restrictive pattern. Also, we see
the idea expressed that the differences mentioned are thought of as
within the purview of the state legislative branch, which itself is an
example of the court delegating to constitutionally defined
roles.(Martin Jr. 1998, 79)
This
narrow view of judicial power is a central feature, and it shows itself
when Brown claims that “Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial
instincts or to abolish distinctions based on physical
differences.”(Martin Jr. 1998, 80) This quote illustrates the first of
the three views of judicial purpose, reinforcing social norms. The
opinion maintains that the law can not properly correct social issues,
and the judicial activism, or lack thereof, shown in this decision is
relatively limited to shunting the issues towards the state legislature,
the representatives of society’s interests. This method would become
more and more difficult to maintain as time went on due to the
continuous litigation and legal attacks of NAACP and the changing
culture of America itself.
In
light of the majority opinion’s view of the judicial role, it is
interesting to look at the quite different view of the sole dissenter in
Plessy v. Ferguson, Justice
John Harlan. First, this dissent, although aimed against a judgement
that was detrimental to the black race, should not be seen as Harlan
completely supporting racial equality. Harlan was undoubtedly a believer
in the superiority of the white race, as evidenced by his claiming “The
white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so
it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in
power. So, I doubt not, it will continue for all time.”(Martin Jr. 1998,
84) So, it may be wondered why a man believing this way would
stridently oppose the segregation of the black people. The answer is
found in his view of the Constitution and the law. Harlan states that
“Our Constitution is color blind”. He repeatedly emphasizes the ideals
of equality and personal liberty for all. Harlan views the white race as
superior, but he does not think that superiority should be used as an
excuse for political and social dominance. The development of his logic
illustrates that if unlawful segregation can occur to the blacks while
whites are superior, it is quite possible that it would eventually
expand to other people and classes if the whites fall out of a
preeminent position.(Martin Jr. 1998, 83)
It
is worth noting that the philosophy displayed by Harlan is not that the
judiciary should deeply interfere with the matters of society. Quite
the opposite. The spirit of his dissent is that the state shouldn’t even
be involved in the matters of society. The purpose of the court and
state “is the clear distinct, unconditional recognition by our
governments, National and State, of every right that inheres in civil
freedom , and of the equality before the law of all citizens of the
United States without regard to race.”(Martin Jr. 1998, 85) The
essential thread through Harlan’s logic is that the court should utilize
its power to keep government intervention out of civil liberties. This
is in direct confrontation with the view of his contemporaries of the
majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson,
who, as was mentioned above, claimed to support personal liberties, yet
allowed the states to interfere in order to reinforce social norms, a
paradox in his view. Likewise, Justice Harlan also calls upon the
original intent of the founders, but he also calls upon more abstract
and esoteric principles of liberty and freedom.
In the majority and minority opinions of Plessy v. Ferguson,
emphasis is placed upon two different theories of judicial conduct. One
emphasizes reinforcing cultural norms and the other seeks to guarantee
civil liberties through government withdrawal. Both of these theories
dueled for dominance over the judicial system until the case of Brown v. Board of Education
(1954). These previous arguments each sought to address the issues of
segregation and race in their own way. However, these methods could not
satisfy certain pro-desegregation elements within society, and the lack
of a favorable outcome in segregation led to a build-up of pressure by
these same elements. Eventually, the arguments and actions against
segregation led to a crossroads for the Supreme Court. In a dramatic
fashion, the Warren Court would depart from both of the previously
mentioned paths and follow a new policy of jurisprudence that can only
be described as activism.
Warren’s
court adopted new method emphasized certain factors different from the
previous two. First, there is a much looser interpretation of precedent
and history. Warren states very early in the Brown
opinion that reargument of the historical aims and circumstances were
“not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best,
they are inconclusive.”(Martin Jr. 1998, 170) The idea that precedent’s
relevance to modern problems could be subject to suspicion allowed
justices to interpret the Constitution in a looser matter.
Second, Warren expanded the purview of the court’s interest by making Brown v. Board of Education directly
connected with as he put it, “the most important function of state and
local governments”.(Martin Jr. 1998, 171) He moved the power of the
Supreme Court over the states in the area of education. This can be seen
as one step in expansion of federal influence in the state.
Furthermore, Warren utilized, as some of his critics would point out,
the idea of psychology and sociology to a much stronger degree than any
of his predecessors. Incorporating newer, perhaps less trusted, sciences
also helped further the judges from the need for extensive precedent
behind every decision.
The third characteristic of Warren’s philosophy was the the broad,
sweeping changes that were inherent in his judgment. The striking down
of Plessy
radically changed the very fabric of society, it allowed for the
dismantling of an entire way of life, and it allowed for the building of
another. This was a power that no other court had wielded. The Warren
Court would continue to make use of Judicial activism, and subsequent
courts would follow their example, sometimes using activism in aims that
ran contrary to the aims of the Warren Court.
In conclusion, the majority and minority opinions in Plessy and the opinion in Brown provide
a glimpse of the changes of the philosophy on the Supreme Court. Each
opinion was penned with certain problems in mind. The methods that have
developed and changes that occurred were not the spontaneous,
independent actions of a few, but they were part of a larger sequence of
events, affected by culture, politics, and international struggles. The
evolution of ideology during this period was by no means an isolated
event, and it developed to deal with the problems of the moment. It is
worthwhile to realize that, even in the modern time, legal philosophies
are suited to certain purposes and are limited by those same purposes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Martin Jr. Waldo E. 1998. “Majority Opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, Minority Opinion in Plessy Ferguson, Majority Opinion in Brown v. Board of Education.” in Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents. 76-80, 81-86, 168-174. Berkeley: University of California
Catholic and Calvinist Theology on Original Sin
Jordan Reed
History 397
The
Reformation saw the division of the Christian faith into different
sects. The beliefs and philosophies of these new denominations covered a
wide spectrum, ranging from slight deviation with their previous dogma
to a complete rejection of Catholic orthodoxy. In certain communities,
the splitting and reforming of doctrine resulted in a final belief that
was a combination of similarities and differences with the original
Catholic faith. One example of this would be the idea of original sin in
Reformed/Calvinist tradition. The Calvinist and Catholic faiths both
hold to some common traditional interpretations in regards to original
sin while still retaining theologically distinct differences, and this
will be shown through the analysis of John Calvin’s By the Fall and Revolt of Adam the Whole Human Race Was Delivered to the Curse, and Degenerated from Its Original Condition and the Fifth Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin.
First,
John Calvin’s work, mentioned above, outlines the Reformed view on
original sin. The work itself is divided into eleven points, and these
can be grouped into three topical categories. The first topic, enclosing
sections 1,2, and 3, primarily deals with the necessity and problems of
self-reflection on our own nature. Calvin places a strong emphasis upon
self-knowledge. He claims that it is disgraceful to be ignorant of
business matters, but that it is even more disgraceful to be ignorant of
of self. (John Calvin, 1536) Calvin proposes that through proper
self-examination, proper meaning through the lens of divine truth, man
would come to grips with his own fallible and fallen nature. Realization
of his own inadequacy would then drive man to seek his revitalization
through God.
The
second and third topical categories, section 4-11, can be discussed as
one because they are nearly sequential in focus. In the second category,
Calvin explores why and how man fell from his original state of Edenic
bliss, and, in the third category, he explains how this affects humanity
onward. First, Calvin explains that Adam fell due to his transgressions
and disobedience against God, caused by the sins of pride and
infidelity. Following this event, humanity is plunged into spiritual
death, original sin. This “hereditary corruption” (John Calvin, 1536)
can be summarized as having four facets according to Calvin: present in
humanity at birth, transmitted via descent, depraves mankind’s original
form, and solely attributable to mankind’s own decisions. Each of these
claims can be seen within Calvin’s document.
In
section 6, Calvin illustrates the belief that original sin is innately
within humanity at birth by stating “that the impurity of the parents is
transmitted to their children, so that all, without exception, are
originally depraved.” (John Calvin, 1536) Metaphorically, that Adam was
the federal head of the human race, and due to his fall the rest of
mankind has fallen as well. Likewise, he calls upon Augustine’s
refutations against the Pelagians to prove his claim that the corruption
is indeed transmitted from parent to child regardless of individual
actions, claiming that the child is of nature, which is corrupted, and
justification is by grace, which is spiritual. Furthermore, the
corrupted nature works inside man to turn what was good into evil by
tainting, enticing, and tempting all actions and fruits of humanity
towards sin. Calvin claims that this “perversity in us never ceases, but
constantly produces new fruits…that the whole man is in himself nothing
else than concupiscence.” (John Calvin, 1536) Therefore, he clearly
shows that humanity is utterly devoid of any type of merit deserving
grace, which meshes nicely with the Calvinist views on predestination.
Ultimately, the guilt for this perversion rests upon humanity, and the
corruption itself justifies the actions taken by a holy God. In essence,
man was created pure, but the fallen man is guilty of his violation of
God’s order. Calvin heads off any argument over what-ifs or presumptuous
blame-placing by routing such speculation through the mystery of
predestination. In this way, Reformed theology holds the idea of an
inescapable, innate, and utterly corrupting original sin as a primary
tenet in it’s belief system.
At
this point, it is necessary to provide the Catholic view of original
sin in order to make a logical contrast/comparison. As was mentioned,
there do exist a large number of similarities between the Reformed and
Catholic beliefs on original sin. The decree by the Fifth Session of the
Council of Trent outlines the church dogma on this issue. One
similarity is the manner with which man fell. The first division of the
decree deals strictly with this issue, and it reiterates much of the
general church consensus on the issue. Adam transgressed against God,
and he doomed humanity through his gross disobedience. Also, Calvinism
and Catholicism seem to agree on the scope and propagation of the sin
nature. The sin nature is passed on through descent from parent to
child, and it affects the entirety of the human population minus,
Catholics claim, the Virgin Mary.
Differences
arise between these two faiths when the implication of these shared
tenets are considered. The Catholic decree states that baptism is the
vehicle for the merit of Christ, and this implicates that baptism rids
the Christian of his original sin. The decree illustrates how there is
an idea of free will after the expulsion the corrupted nature when it
says that “this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one
baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which,
since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not
acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ;” (Council of
Trent, 1546) This would seem to run contrary to the Reformed idea that
original sin has utterly and thoroughly corrupted the individual.
Indeed, the question of works and free will is central to any
differentiation between the two. The idea of receiving Jesus’ merit
through the sacrament of baptism would be strongly opposed by Calvinist
thinkers as an attack upon the sole justification by grace through
faith, and the utter worthlessness of works in the Reformed faith is
anathema to the Catholic doctrine. The disagreement of original sin is a
further extrapolation of the disagreement over faith-based salvation
that initially divided the church. If works are required for salvation
than the original sin can not be absolute, because it would take a
non-corrupted free will to complete those works. For the Reformed faith,
original sin must be absolute, because their faith in the
predestination of their souls must not rely upon their works.
Regardless
of sect, the doctrine of original sin has been a central feature in
Christianity since its early inception. During the Reformation, this
doctrine was questioned like every other doctrine, and, while the
doctrine itself remained intact, the interpretations and implications
drawn from it were affected greatly by the struggles involved in the
schism. The Protestants interpreted the idea to reinforce their belief
in faith based salvation and predestination, and the Catholics used
original sin to further their works based theology. In either case, the
development of the idea of original sin provides an insight into one
facet of the developing faiths as a whole in the years following the
Reformation.
Bibliography:
Calvin,
John. “By the Fall and Revolt of Adam the Whole Human Race Was
Delivered to the Curse, and Degenerated from Its Original Condition”
1536 www.Reformed.org/books/institutes/book2
Council of Trent, Fifth Session,. “Decree Concerning Original Sin. ” 17 June 1546. https://fredonia.sln.suny.edu/section/
