Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

July 14, 2024, 07:51:39 am

Author Topic: English Discursive Writing Feedback  (Read 3663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
English Discursive Writing Feedback
« on: April 30, 2021, 02:38:48 pm »
Hello all, could anyone please give me feedback for this discursive response I have written to this question. Thank you so much

 Discuss the ways that a modern society has responded to the challenges of an issue of your choosing (850 - 950 words)

Politics was once a topic for adults. Those under the voting age were instantly assumed to not understand such topics, debates, opinions. When did this change?

Politics is growing to become a trend for the younger generation, something to live through, not something to believe in and support. With so much upheaval in the current political world, is this becoming a worry? Are those with easily swayable viewpoints becoming more relied upon? Or is this a good thing, something to cherish, the movement of a generation of peoples who want to decide their own future, rather than giving into those who do not live through it.

However, before we dive into the controversial topic of politics, we must pose the question: is this appropriate to talk about, despite the awkwardness it evokes? Historically speaking, in all cultures, politics was never considered a lighthearted, or even acceptable conversation. Within my own Western culture, one of the key rules you were taught was to never talk about religion, personal finances or politics at a dinner party; as everyone has an opinion of their own and it is bound to fire an argument. I believe until now, this household rule has stuck. But now, politics is a growing concern of the younger generations. Yet does this make it any more acceptable to talk about? Myself, I believe the growing importance of such issues is the key to progression in such an unlimited, yet limited society like ours. Together we can remove this barricade: the casual discussion for uncasual topics.

The increased demand for generational responsibility has not been a unanimous movement, instead has sparked numerous political debates, protests and even warfare. Although paradoxical in its very nature, the movement for younger generations has led to the diehard support and ultimate denial of others political beliefs.

Nowadays, politics has become almost regressive, diverting from modern ideologies back to the infamous historical, economic divides; die hard socialists and radical liberals versus the ultra conservate capitalists. As stated by the famous psychologist, Jordan Peterson, the opposing concepts of “equality of outcome versus the equality of opportunity”.

The 18th Century brought the rise of both movements. The French revolution in the late 1700’s welcomed the rise of socialist ideals. This turn of socialism utilized the economic philosophy of government ownership; the central control of means of production. Embodying the psychological concept of equality of outcome, socialism aims to ensure that no matter the origins of any person, incomes, living conditions, and general life are guaranteed to be homogenous.

On the opposite sides of the spectrum, the rise of 18th Century Capitalism was powered by industrial reforms, with a focus on deregulation. Means of production were shifted to an individual's ability to capitalise upon presented opportunities. This embodies the opposing concept of equality of opportunity, to where individuals are presented the same beginnings, with the ability to make of it what they work for.

Yet, these movements were centuries ago, are these principles not outdated? Frankly no, these economic ideologies remain the root for future growth. What happened in France 200 odd years ago remains relevant today. Vietnam, India, Portugal, all socialist states. Even our own country, Australia, is deeply rooted in certain socialist aspects; equality, welfare and the provision of basic needs. The same stays true for capitalism, with historic British industrial reforms remaining a base for modern economic systems in states such as the US, Hong Kong and Switzerland. Again, even our own country is deeply rooted in capitalist ideals; deregulated markets, private ownership and a profit motive.

Now, there is no right or wrong to these concepts, just a personal opinion. Growing more prominent, modern political debates begin with the direct denial of the opposing side’s principles, the concept of “versus”. One side versus another. Socialism versus Capitalism. Equality versus inequality. Why? This is the modern day problem. Is there no ability to have civil conversations amongst these die-hard political movements?

A personal experience of my own involves a night time social gathering. Scattered groups of people. All different styles and opinions. Underneath a warm, starry sky, conversation was flowing, chatter was constant and spirits were high. I remember talking with a particular group, those who identify themselves to be “alt” or “hyper-left”. Now, with no rigid political opinions myself, a conversation begins. Although they were bulls, charging for red flags, anger built; these people were fuelled by hate for those who did not carry the same ideals, or even the same thoughts as them. They believed everybody who did not support such “equal rights movements” were inherently for class inequality, racism, systematic oppression and economic disadvantage. I knew this was not true, yet the way they acted made me believe so. Now, I did not disagree with every single proposed ideal they had. I disagreed with the way they carried such beliefs. I disagreed with the hate for the “other side”. And no doubt, similar traits are held on both sides of the spectrum.

These groups provided insight into my earlier expressed concerns: is politics a trend? Did this group really believe such ideas, or were they just carrying them out in such a manner to appear cool or different. Do these two opposing views really need to be breeding hatred and creating means for unneeded protests, riots or warfare?

What is preventing these two ideals from coming together and forming a new movement of communal agreement? Ultimately, we all know such is impossible. Everybody has a unique viewpoint, and more times than not, such people will disagree. Yet what would be beneficial is the removal of hate and instead, the embracement of civil debate. The embracement of discussion. The embracement of acceptance.

So now I re-present the beginning question. Is politics really a concern for young people? And if so, is it going to the extreme?

“Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true” - Will Rogers 1925