Example of a good sentence since I was under the impression we didn't have a posting this week.
The profound connection between private and public, manifest on its elementary level in the question of private property, is likely to be misunderstood today because the modern equation of property and wealth on one and propertylessness and poverty on the other. This misunderstanding is all the more annoying as both, property as well as wealth, are historically of greater relevance to the public realm than any other private matter or concern and have played at least formally, more or less the same role as the chief condition for admission to the public realm. (p.61)
I find that sentence easily conveys the notions Arendt was trying to convey here. However, I would go on to say that I agree that wealth and property are necessary for admission to the public realm, but would add that the amount of wealth influences the role that individual would have.
I totally agree with you. Wealth and property are definitely some of the biggest factors for determining and individuals role in the public realm. She also makes an interesting connection after that about just how far the connection between wealth and property goes, and how some people are very wealthy but are relatively property-less, and possibly vice-versa?
ReplyDeleteI would also agree that wealth and property are necessary for admission to the public realm. However, I also believe there are different tiers of what we consider the public, that are only accessible to certain socio-economic groups.
ReplyDeleteFor example, to paint a juxtaposition between two public realms that are exclusive to two separate socio-economic groups, we can compare a significantly poverty-stricken area to an area endowed with rich community members. They both interact in public realms, but often times these to realms exist within their own bubble, and rarely interact with each other. In fact, it is no stretch to say that the bubble of poverty can sometimes exist within the bubble of wealth.
He who has the gold makes the rules, as the old saying goes, and this saying cannot be more true in terms of the wealthy controlling the potential power of poorer areas and groups. A situation that comes to mind is the recent increase in members of the G.O.P. calling for "Voter I.D. cards." Essentially, republicans are claiming that we need to have a specific I.D. to be able to vote, the catch is in order to get the card, you have to pass a system of checks and pay a fee. This constitutes not only a background check to enact your constitutional right, but also a voter's tax. In extremely poor areas, people simply cannot afford to pay extra to vote, and it will act as a dissuader for poor individuals to weigh in on political issues.
This is one of the many ways wealthy groups keep poorer individuals in a lower tier of the public realm - and in a way, serves as an example of how poverty-stricken individuals live inside an even smaler bubble within the wealthy's sphere of influence.
After writing through this, I actually agree with you entirely. The less money you have, the less opportunity you have to become involved in anything political, or in anything public.