--Clearly, the two authors are writing against each others' views about the benefits of the form of national government proposed by the Constitution. Select one point among the many shared topics they discuss (size of government, form of political representation, et al.) and compare their arguments.--Both authors published under pseudonyms, each signaling their own vision of their role in writing: "Publius" as a representative of the public interest and "Centinel" as a guardian. Publishing this way, they reflected a common belief in the period that entering the public realm of print anonymously was superior, reflecting one's lack of "interest" (what we would now call "self-interest" or personal motives). Compare this vision of print and publication to the new "public" realm of the internet and our current attitudes toward anonymous posting.
Both authors publishing their essays under pseudonyms is a humble way of showing that the ideas, not the reputation of the speaker, is the important part. The authors are both seeking to explain how much better their form of government is compared to their rivals. To publish anonymously, especially if the publication is well-criticized by the rivaling party, can influence how a work is perceived by the readers.
ReplyDeleteThe new era of the "public" realm of the internet, though a less reputable source than print, at least opens up the forum for debate to anyone with internet access. Since it is open to anyone, posting anonymously holds less weight because of simply how much debate is going on concerning any given issue at any given time. Many times, chances are, you would not know the author if they wrote under their real name. The problem with this forum, as stated above, is the validity of any arguments and facts found; anything could be forged or misrepresented accidentally, so this forum, more so than published works, requires a sense of doubting everything not published.
-Both authors published under pseudonyms, each signaling their own vision of their role in writing: "Publius" as a representative of the public interest and "Centinel" as a guardian. Publishing this way, they reflected a common belief in the period that entering the public realm of print anonymously was superior, reflecting one's lack of "interest" (what we would now call "self-interest" or personal motives). Compare this vision of print and publication to the new "public" realm of the internet and our current attitudes toward anonymous posting.
ReplyDeleteI understand why the authors of these two pieces did not put establish their identities when writing these works. They said things that might go against the grain of what everyone else was thinking at the time period. For their own safety, they felt the need to keep their thoughts anonymous, and I do not blame them for this action.
In contrast, today's world is much different. With the freedom of speech laws, a person can say almost anything they want and not have to serve a punishment for those words. If a person is putting their opinion out on the World Wide Web for other people to read, then they need to make known who they are. Whether this is by a username, real name, or whatever, they should reveal their identities to keep their credibility intact. I know when I read something that is posted by "anonymous" I immediately write it off as incompetent, or cowardly. If you are going to say something for the whole world to have access to, at least have the guts to own up to what you are saying.
Mike Flachs
ReplyDeleteI think the first matter we must consider when comparing the once common belief that anonymous authorship was superior to today’s views on anonymous posting is the subject matter of the posts. It seems as though the writing we are studying in the course center around matters of public affairs and interest where as the majority of today’s anonymous posting takes on the form of slander or libel.
Secondly, today’s America affords an author the ability to express views (even controversial ones) in public with much more limited fear of rejection or societal disapproval to the point of exile. For example, rapper Ice-t freely wrote a song about killing police officers and while the public, at the time, heavily criticized him he now enjoys a lucrative role as a New York City Police Department Detective on the show “Law and Order”.
Another factor that must be taken into consideration is already mentioned with the prompt for this post. In the past posting anonymously was seen as a way to distinguish your writing as unselfish. In today’s society, exclaiming one’s views to the world without anonymity is often seen as advantageous due to the amount of media attention that is brought to one’s cause by doing so.
Finally, my personal belief is that in some instances today’s citizens can learn a great deal from the anonymity displayed by the likes of James Madison and Samuel Bryan. In most cases of public affairs everyday citizens are swayed too heavily by the names that back causes. For example, a person may vote yay or nay to certain propositions based simply on the celebrities that support either agenda. Thus, it would be advantageous to America as a whole if more authorship were done anonymously.
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued over the system of government that would be formed by the constitution. The Anti-Federalists felt that the three branches of government and their respective abilities would give too much power to a national government, something they feared after Britain levied heavy taxes against the colonies. The Federalists argued that the three branches would have checks and balances on each other, ensuring none had too much control of the country. Personally, I am on the Federalists side. I understand the Anti-Federalist concerns, but even at the time, I think taking a chance on a new form of government would have been worth the risk of failing.
ReplyDeletePublishing anonymously these days is viewed as a weakness. I think the content determines how strictly this generalization is followed. If it is a heated topic being discussed, using a pseudonym can be a point for criticizing. However, it is far more acceptable to publish opinions anonymously when the matter at hand is far less serious. I think not only was society more accepting of anonymous publications prior to the internet, but since the authors were often public figures it was more understandable that they wouldn't want these articles to affect public opinion of them.
-Ashley Elson
Despite the negative views of anonymity in today's socially invasive internet culture, I think that anonymity can be used very effective as a way to induce critical discussion. I'm sure that even if this blog was anonymous, and none of these comments could be tied back to the posters, some heated political or social debate would be inevitable. The assumption of anonymity-- despite its presumed "weakness" in modern self-expression-- does have the power to incite intense emotion and freedom. The idea that you can say whatever you feel, no matter how potentially offensive or radical without any social ramifications is an exciting opportunity that millions of internet users seize daily.
ReplyDeletePublius and Centinel use anonymity in 2 ways.
Yes, the anonymity did probably serve as protection for their personal safety, and did allow them the ability to speak freely with no repercussions. With their real identities in check, they encourage voters to think through the issues themselves, not letting who they are influence or sway the vote. The political situation of the authors' time was uncertain to say the least. With the revolution only recently finished, perhaps allowing the people to rise up and support ideas was much safer than encouraging the readers to rise up in support around people. What might be seen as an act of cowardice now was then a selfless act that empowered the people to make their own choices in a developing government, instead of taking on the authority of a new political figure head. As Centinel warns us,"of all possible evils that of despotism is the worst and the most to be dreaded." Both of these men, despite their differences, fight against that idea through their use of anonymity.
In today's society anonymity is pretty uncommon especially among authors. People want to be recogized by the public and be known by their opinions and be set apart. Social websites like facebook and twitter let a large number of people have access to others opinions, thoughts, and many aspects of our daily lives. Back then the image of self was not broadcasted in the same light as it is today. Even famous, well known people were not put to the scrutiny of today's contast tabloids as in todays society.
ReplyDeletePublius and Centinel use anonymity to speak freely of their opinions and views of the political situation. Also the writting the papers anonymously allows for the information to be viewed as just that and not as so and so said this. This allows for prior judgement and bias of the people to be left out and not really viewed as matter of discussion.
--Clearly, the two authors are writing against each others' views about the benefits of the form of national government proposed by the Constitution. Select one point among the many shared topics they discuss (size of government, form of political representation, et al.) and compare their arguments.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist essays that the authors had strong conflicting opinions about government. One of these opinions regarded the size of government.
The Anti-federalists distrusted large, powerful national governments and felt that personal liberty could only be protected in small republics so that the rulers could be closely examined and check by the public. In their essay they states that having a strong national government not properly represent the people and their interests and would not be capable of protecting the rights of the citizens. Their solution to this problem involved implementing a Bill of Rights to help protect the citizens from the government and increasing the size of the House of Representatives so it would better reflect a larger variety of common interests.
The Federalists however, argued that giving too much power to the states would create another confederacy type of government which would not have enough power to act. The Federalists also did not trust the people with the power to elect all officials so they proposed that only the House of Representatives should be chosen by the people. The Federalists also felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the laws and legislation passed by the government would sufficiently protect the people and their rights.
As we see now, both parties had to compromise to create the functioning government we have today.