Towards the late nineteenth century, many zealous men and women with novel ideas and radical opinions searched for an opportunistic safe haven where they could promote modern ways of life. New York City’s Greenwich Village became their ultimate destination. In “American Moderns,” Christine Stansell thoroughly analyzes the ever-changing dynamics of this lower Manhattan neighborhood before, during, and after the 1910s. While including the biographies of free thinkers such as Floyd Dell, Margaret Anderson, and many more personalities, Stansell also gives much insight into the drive that pulled in these middle-class visionaries–the desire to “matter.”Bohemia enhanced notions of the city as boundlessly knowledgeable and nourishing during a time when people sought to challenge social norms. Evidence of this is found, for example, in the development of the New Woman, the independent, self-sufficient protagonist  in literature of the time; this new perception of the modern woman allowed those who were once subjected to patriarchal, authoritarian rule to form an identity for themselves. This kind of breaking away from traditional values and practices became a popular trend during the early twentieth century. That which was once considered unthinkable became almost typical within this great city.

When I read this historical piece of literature, I was awed by how people of different backgrounds and cultures all melded together in a relatively symbiotic, quid-pro-quo relationship in New York City. For instance, immigrants from Russia and other Eastern European were able to share revolutionary dogmas to curious, well-educated middle-class knowledge seekers, who in turn, began to show the respect that these outsiders never had. The radical nature of Greenwich was further highlighted in the last section, which focused on the supposed freedom of love. This freedom of love was encouraged and thought to empower women so that they would  have sexual equality with men. However, this ideal, like others sought at the time, was still quite unreachable because of the complications brought by human emotion and carnal desire. Likewise, when it involved African Americans, the bohemian liberal, left-sided state of mind also fell short of its claim to modernistic ways. Racism and old ways are often difficult to sweep away to the side. In the end, however,   Greenwich village evolved in significant ways to become a refuge for the unconventional–for those who were always on the outside.

Some of the things that the US prides itself on is its freedom and safety, and when I read the article “The Privatization of Risk” by Craig Calhoun I was given a totally different view on how our government’s public safety incentives have become. The fact that these public institutions are using society’s vulnerabilities to advance in their own political and economic agendas is not why we should have them in the first place. An interesting thing about this trend with public institutions turning private is the fact that it has become a global policy. That got me wondering to what type of conditions cause these governments to change from public to private institutions. In this case (the US) we see a modern well to do society that is largely made by, for and of the people with good intentions and all in all encourages advancement. On the surface we have our Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence which ensures our civil liberties but under the surface, we rely heavily on the government to keep us safe and with this dependence we fall in to a trap. The government sees a way to make use of these vulnerabilities by privatizing and making certain safeties exclusive to their own liking with hidden agendas. So after reading this article and today’s discussion in class I believe there is a trend to how a government starts to privatize risk. With an advancing society comes more freedom and with more freedom we need more safety, forcing us in to this endless cycle where we are given and then stripped away from our freedoms.

The tragedy of hurricane Katrina brought forth many volunteers and donations to its victims. This astounding positive response made by others greatly helped the victims when little was done to prevent the damage that was a well known possibility. I think it is ironic that so much assistance was offered after the hurricane rather than used for preventative measures against the storm, considering it’s severity. This shows that human nature is more likely to assist after damage is done, when we can physically see the tragedy and how our resources are being put to use. However, we must also take into consideration the source of aid, as individuals or private groups cannot provide large preventative measures. To a certain extent, I believe that it is the government’s responsibility to provide these preventative measures, and any efforts made by individuals or private groups should assist in post-disaster reconstruction. Our democratic government allows the opportunity for change in policy, but we cannot change the economic state of our nation. It is nearly impossible to aid all living in poverty and allow for them the same benefits of the middle or upper class. In a perfect and ideal world, all would be equal in social, economic, and political standings while safe and protected from risk.

The United States is a strange nation. We pride ourselves on being a free-market, capitalistic country, and yet in countless instances our government fails to provide adequate social and economic services that any modern, well-funded government should be able to provide. Our problem is that everything in the country revolves around money and pleasing private companies. The example in the article about Hurricane Katrina is a perfect instance where the government undoubtedly failed to protect and provide for its citizens. You’d think that with such a well-funded military (a bit too well-funded, in my opinion) and our practically unrestrained access to doctors and medical care, that our country would be more well-prepared for a hurricane. I remember when Hurricane Katrina happened, I was about 9 years old and I distinctly remember being so let down and confused by the fact that on the news I saw people with children being stranded in the streets with no food or shelter. And then where there was shelter–at the Astrodome–the living conditions were filthy, crime rates were high, and it basically seemed as though the government had no idea what it was doing. Even at 9 years old, I could recognize that there was something off about the countries so-called “disaster relief” programs and services.

Sometimes, however, our country seems to be able to unite when tragedy strikes. I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but I remember the city feeling like a different place after 9/11. Not just in everyone’s shell shock and horror, but in the way that everyone seemed to realize that in the face of foreign (or at least we think) threat, we must stick together and provide for one another as a community. My family was forced to move for a few months, since our building was only a couple of blocks from the Twin Towers. Every week or so, the Red Cross or another government service would show up to the school we were moved to, and make sure we were okay. They gave us stuffed animals, books, meals, and hand-written letters from children across the country, sending us their wishes for a brighter future and quick recovery. Although at the time, I could not fully understand why or how these things got to me, it was one of the first times I ever felt as though I was a part of a bigger picture–a city, and a nation. These are the things that cannot be allowed to be controlled by private companies hungry for money and advertising.

Throughout the texts that we have been reading this semester, there is a common idea of divisions, and the need for there to be a lower class in the society. “The Privatization of Risk” by Calhoun also to an extent incorporates this idea of a division between the wealthy and the poor. In Calhoun’s article the focus is more on the shift that has been taking place in American society, where institutions that were once public or were ran by the government is being passed into the hands of private owners. The private owners of these institutions are not fulfilling their responsibilities to public, or the people who are really in need of assistance.  Instead is comes down to how the people in power will benefit, politically or economically. The people of the lower class that are in need of public assistance become dependent on the private institutions whose primary intentions are to make sure they are benefitting.  This in returns widens the gap between the poor and wealthy and leaves a lot of people without the resources that at one point the government use to provide.

When one weighs an action, whether to pursue it, the possible outcomes, etc., “risk” always seems to be a factor in that decision. Although certain actions are always risky, our capitalist society mitigates the potential risk for those who can afford it. The wealthy living in New Orleans could afford to evacuate the city when Katrina struck. They had insurance, which paid for what they lost, and the resources to reach out to others for help. We saw how the poor, elderly, and disabled suffered as consequence of the storm (and the human error/greed that did not protect against it), and unfortunately this is not an isolated incidence of how privatization reduces the risk for those who have, but does little to lessen risks for the have-nots.

When Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast, I was living with my family on Long Island. We were hit hard—we lost power for 14 days, our road was covered in branches, there was no gas to be had on the island—yet we had plenty of food and water (we could afford to stock up), we had access to hot water for showering through my dad’s job, and our insurance covered the damage to our property. Yet other families on Long Island were not so lucky: in the weeks after Sandy many people went hungry, were cold, and had no means of reaching out for help.

Free market societies are wonderful in that they allow people to reach nearly unlimited success, yet some things should not be privatized no matter the monetary gain. When it is a matter of life and death, such as important safety and security measures, no amount of money makes up for human suffering and loss of life.

Throughout the article, there is repeated reference to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – namely how the disaster was aided more through private efforts than through public institutions. That Americans were so willing to help the devastated area rebuild through private means (for example, via church organizations and individual charity) reflects the American system that values privatization over working for the masses. If this kind of mentality persists, most institutions will increasingly become private; this will aid the wealthy whilst punishing those who are not so fortunate as to have the ability to buy their way into comfort. Institutions such as those that offer health services or educational opportunities unfairly lean in favor of the wealthy already; people who are richer can afford better health care and more esteemed colleges. Privatization of these institutions only serves to widen the already-gaping gap between the upper and lower class. In a country that should aim to be classless, privatization has allowed wealth to control much of the government and social institutions. Perhaps this is the way our nation best works, but unless values are reconsidered this unfair lean toward the wealthy for the sake of privatization will cause severe social unbalances throughout the nation.

Craig Calhoun poses an interesting paradigm when he splits society’s management of disaster into the three categories of minimizing risks, preparing to respond to disaster, and considering ways of sharing the subsequent burdens. He posits that American, even global, society has only focused in responding to disaster and has ignored the preparatory considerations and the inherent inequality of disasters’ effects on different levels of society.

Personally, I see this problem as stemming from what neoconservatives and the general population’s idolatry of the “rugged individual” who cares for himself on the frontier of life. This, of course, ignores the inequalities of resources, education, and social position laid upon less fortunate Americans who would like to help themselves but just don’t see a way. Individualism would be possible in a society where a more even playing field is laid out. As a market economy and a republican government are not likely to enforce equality (which would then impair the individual’s freedom), it would be wise for us to consider what we consider to be a proper response to and preparation for disasters. No one person is going to construct a levee to protect his own house from a hurricane. The government should be used by the people in order to maximize their own safety and quality of life; the government should not use the people’s money in the name of “safety” to line their own pockets while ignoring the plight of the less privileged.

People have responded to disasters independently of the government in a few ways, but not to a long term effect. Social media, for example, is a great platform for raising funds and awareness. But in the long term, it could be better used to further policy initiatives. Charities can only respond to disasters — so when the government insists that private organizations should care for afflicted citizenry, it would do well to consider that it alone has the power to create policy that directs and protects whole bodies of people.

While reading “Privatization of Risk,” by Craig Calhoun, there were a few things that stood out to me. The first and most personal is the effect privatization of risk has had on universities. It is unfortunate that the greed of the American Government has led to less funding for some of their greatest public universities. Being a student here at Brooklyn, it concerns me that most of the school’s costs is no longer covered by the government. Despite the fact that my tuition is being paid by Macaulay, who is to say that my fees won’t exponentially increase over the next few years if the government continues to cut back. Another thing that stood out to me was how socialist the article sounded. Although I agree that part of the social construct of government is to take on responsibility of risk for the masses, we are still a country based on capitalism.  There are going to be different levels of risk and ensuing damage based on one’s wealth, but it is the economic ability to attain wealth, that makes this country so great. I’m not saying that the article doesn’t raise some valid points such as the relief and aid to New Orleans after a natural disaster. However, the article’s arguments pertaining to government services such as pensions, Medicare and Social Security are unfounded. Part of this country’s capitalist foundation is the idea of survival of the fittest, and it is not the job nor is it even possible for the government to ensure that every citizen is taken care of.

After reading Craig Calhoun’s perspective on the inefficiency of America’s response to the ubiquitous risk that exists today, I was amazed to realize how skewed our distribution of resources is. Under the facade of providing relief to its citizens, American policies only allow for stagnant, incompetent government actions that eschew efforts to relieve those who suffer. Calhoun recognized that this ordeal can only be eliminated if the government attempted to minimize risks, became prepared to respond, and and considered ways to share the burdens disasters create. But, all this is idealistic when we look at how our government has taken care of catastrophes from the past. Politicians have other agendas besides investing in safer technologies and availability of immediate assistance. Risk and damages allow for business opportunities and essentially gain profit. Although charities and non-profit organizations exist for the purpose of providing relief to those who survive disasters, these efforts appear relatively small and inadequate in light of the immensity of the need. While some may receive proper care during times of necessity, there is a huge percentage of individuals who lack in getting any sort of tangible help.