Paige, Jordan and I met at Panera on Saturday to discuss the reading. We had a yummy meal and then got right on topic and talked about what we thought about the reading. We mutually agreed that this was one of our favorite readings thus far. We thought it was interesting and easy to understand for the most part. First of all, we discussed that history is what we create and it’s different for everyone based on their cultures and life. This simply means that each person has a different outlook on what history is.
History came from all the events that stood out and were documented, we also discussed that history came from when the first events were documented and recorded to be passed on and told to later generations.
On the bottom of 67 we found a quote that says, “Change in the present must surely change the past in ways that we may very well not understand only because we never stop to ponder them.” History may have been created in the past, but it gets changes every day. This is done by adding things to textbooks or leaving things out in order to make the readers believe one side.
When is an event is considered part of history? On Page 67 the author states that “No one that I have heard of has ever found a line between the present and the past. And a moment’s reflection shows that none is likely ever to be found. Where could that line be drawn? A second ago?” We talked about how interesting it was to think about when a person should distinguish between the past and the present. When the moment someone dies are they a part of history? Or do they have to be dead for a certain amount of time? We thought that a person or an event could be a part of the past, or history, when we would use past tense to describe it.
Past tense could have happened a second ago. We think of “the past” and history that same. On Page 81 the author states that, “I was already well aware that history only scrapes the surface of the past.” Meaning the past is everything, but history is what we record of the past.
Before reading this article, whenever I thought about what is considered a part of history I always thought that history was something that happened a long time ago…things we read in our textbooks that occurred years ago. After reading this article and thinking deeper about what “history” is. My mind set is much different. As stated above, I believe history is constantly occurring and changing.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
What is life?
Jordan, Kate and I met at Panera on Saturday to discuss the Fasolt text. We decided that history is what we create in our history books, conversations, and social experiences that we encounter throughout our lives. History can mean different things to different people depending all aspects of their lives. For example, I grew up in a pre-dominantly white, upper class area and the things that I was taught throughout my childhood is most likely different than what someone from an inner-city, more diverse area was taught. We felt that everyone has a different experience with history, which leads to a bias of what individual’s preconceptions are about history. However, one thing is certain. There is always a past, a present, and a future of time. History is the documentation, what has been written, and the past is something that happened. “If we know anything about the past at all, it is only because we have some knowledge ht there exists some past of which the sources speak to us before we even start to examine them (67).” The past is everything, and history is just a small glimpse of what the past is. Without the past, there would be no history, knowledge, or evidence that can be studied or written about. The present is here and now, what we are experiencing at this moment. It is “undocumented, unknown, and undead (70)”, a source of which we live in. The Future, an aspect of the present, has the ability to change in the freedom of time.
Kate and Elissa- zweite Teil
On a side note, this was one of the more enjoyable blog posts. I also felt that is was EXTREMELY helpful to be able to sit down and talk with someone else about the reading. For me, it really added to my understanding of the text.
As Kate mentioned, one of the first things we talked about was the line between the past and the present, and how in a sort of paradox, the past can be both dead and alive. As Fasolt eloquently writes on page 16, "The past, therefore, is not just to be found in sources preserved in libraries and archives, laboriously deciphered by specialists. It lives and breathes without assistance in every corner of the world, right here and now." Before this line, he mentions that "they stand in a dialectical relationship", a shout out to Hegel. There was another Hegel moment on page 9 ( i think) concerning the world spirit, when Fasolt talks of "a morally autonomous human being taking control of his own fate but making politics and society conform to principles of nature." In turn, this also reminded me of Michael Kohlhaas.
We also noted the Ranke "wie es eigentlich gewesen" (27) quote in relation to the study of history. Can "how it really was" ever be truly discovered? The present mentalite' is always changing, and with it, so does the past. We can only view the past through the lens of our present. There will always be a bias depending on "how it really is" NOW.
The changing of the bounds of history is a radical idea that Kate and I discussed, and one that I personally found intriguing. History used to be defined in religious terms, with the birth and coming of Jesus. History was bounded by the idea of the four empires. But when the fourth came and went, people realized that maybe the bounds of history needed to be more broadly defined, hence the "ancient, medieval, and modern" view of history was born. This change is also seen in art, how for so long, art was strictly religious, but when history became not just bound by religion, art also became not just religious.
This leads to our discussion of evidence and sources. History is not just written, but also oral and artistic. We wondered if these types of history are just, if not more useful than writing, because the meaning is a lot less clear and up for interpretation. Writing is very specific...the writer is very intentional on what he wants his reader to believe or understand. But with other mediums, we wondered if this was the case.
Lastly, we discussed the preface, and how it was/is a new way to view the concept of history. We never had really considered that there was a wrong way to view history. Textbooks are (shockingly!) not always right, as previously learned from Loewen. Fasolt makes three main points on how we view history, and they SEEM to make perfect sense. But he challenges the reader, saying that "their truth needs to be tested."
One of our questions though, that we both found a little confusing, was Fasolt's discussion of subject and subjectivity (its on page 9). Does anyone really know what he means with the sentence starting with "It scarcely an accident that subject is a word we use with equal facility..." ??
As Kate mentioned, one of the first things we talked about was the line between the past and the present, and how in a sort of paradox, the past can be both dead and alive. As Fasolt eloquently writes on page 16, "The past, therefore, is not just to be found in sources preserved in libraries and archives, laboriously deciphered by specialists. It lives and breathes without assistance in every corner of the world, right here and now." Before this line, he mentions that "they stand in a dialectical relationship", a shout out to Hegel. There was another Hegel moment on page 9 ( i think) concerning the world spirit, when Fasolt talks of "a morally autonomous human being taking control of his own fate but making politics and society conform to principles of nature." In turn, this also reminded me of Michael Kohlhaas.
We also noted the Ranke "wie es eigentlich gewesen" (27) quote in relation to the study of history. Can "how it really was" ever be truly discovered? The present mentalite' is always changing, and with it, so does the past. We can only view the past through the lens of our present. There will always be a bias depending on "how it really is" NOW.
The changing of the bounds of history is a radical idea that Kate and I discussed, and one that I personally found intriguing. History used to be defined in religious terms, with the birth and coming of Jesus. History was bounded by the idea of the four empires. But when the fourth came and went, people realized that maybe the bounds of history needed to be more broadly defined, hence the "ancient, medieval, and modern" view of history was born. This change is also seen in art, how for so long, art was strictly religious, but when history became not just bound by religion, art also became not just religious.
This leads to our discussion of evidence and sources. History is not just written, but also oral and artistic. We wondered if these types of history are just, if not more useful than writing, because the meaning is a lot less clear and up for interpretation. Writing is very specific...the writer is very intentional on what he wants his reader to believe or understand. But with other mediums, we wondered if this was the case.
Lastly, we discussed the preface, and how it was/is a new way to view the concept of history. We never had really considered that there was a wrong way to view history. Textbooks are (shockingly!) not always right, as previously learned from Loewen. Fasolt makes three main points on how we view history, and they SEEM to make perfect sense. But he challenges the reader, saying that "their truth needs to be tested."
One of our questions though, that we both found a little confusing, was Fasolt's discussion of subject and subjectivity (its on page 9). Does anyone really know what he means with the sentence starting with "It scarcely an accident that subject is a word we use with equal facility..." ??
Friday, April 22, 2011
Elissa and Kate on Fasolt
Elissa and I spent a lot of time talking about the line between the past and present. Where do you draw it? Is only this last millisecond the ‘present’ with twenty seconds ago, when I pulled out my computer, the past? Is it even useful to draw this distinction? As we saw in the reading, the past is alive in the present, and they are in a dialectic relationship. I couldn’t be typing this right now if I hadn’t gotten out my computer two minutes ago—but then at the same time, I wouldn’t be writing this if I hadn’t decided to take Ben’s class, or to go to Minnesota, and so on and so on, and I don’t think that my decisions three years ago necessarily constitute the present, even if those decisions are still alive and affecting me. So where do you draw the line, and does drawing an imaginary line actually achieve anything? “If the present could really be divided from the pas at all, it would have to be divided by as many lines as there are present moments: not one line between one present and past, but an infinity of lines between an infinity of present and an infinity of pasts” (10). The past is both alive and dead: you can’t change what happened ten minutes ago, but your perceptions of those events are changing. How the past is understood (the discipline of history) changes, which is what makes it fluid. Similarly, “wie es eigenlich gewwsen” can never really be understood, because it’s constantly changing with people’s changing perceptions. But like Fasolt reminds us: “no one that I have heard of has ever found a line between the present and the past” (10).
We thought that the idea of history moving from bound to unbound was interesting, with history moving away from the bindings of religion (and towards freedom?). This is clearly related to much of what we’ve read and talked about in class. We noted, by the way, that it’s clear that Ben and Fasolt know each other (was he your teacher at U of C, Ben?)- we noted a lot of the concepts that Ben’s been talking about in this reading.
We agree that Fasolt’s reminder to not only use written sources was very useful and important. “But one thing is worth underscoring: sources need not be written” (5). We talked about the fact that we often blindly listen to written material (be it textbooks, articles, etc.), assuming that it just must be true because it was written down. We forget that people can be wrong, and you’re allowed to disagree- no, not even allowed to disagree, but allowed to think that your textbook is simply wrong about something; it just might be, and that’s okay. Sources don’t need to be written: visual and oral sources, for example, can be very useful. We also played with the idea that, perhaps, oral and visual sources are even more useful than written sources in many ways. When something is written down, it is done so with a certain purpose. There’s a reason that something is written down, and that’s often to persuade people of its truth. Visual sources aren’t created with exactly that same purpose: something is made to be used or to be seen, but not necessarily to be taken as true. Many people consider oral sources (such as stories, or epics passed down orally) to be unreliable; unlike written sources, they’re not preserved in their original form. But in the context of this reading, maybe that does make them more useful, as they can show us how history has changed, and emphasize its fluidity. We don’t have any definitive thoughts on this, though- these are just ideas that we bounced around.
The preface of the book impacted both of us, specifically where he stated the three principles by which our attitude towards the past is governed (ix). Honestly, I don’t think I’d ever spent much time thinking about how I understand the past. I’ve thought about the past, and whether or not what I’m taught should be taken as an absolute truth, but I’ve never thought to question the entire framework in which we understand the past. “What could history by, if not the study of evidence?” (36). Elissa noted the quote, “history is not as innocent as it pretends to be” (6). I still don’t completely know what to think about this. Like Gina said in class yesterday, this text did rock my world (at least, I think that’s what you said). I didn’t necessarily trust the historical events that I’ve been taught about, but I did (blindly, I’ll admit) trust the framework of history; I’ve been thinking about this since I left Elissa five hours ago. History, like everything else, has a motive- but instead of just affecting the way we think about particular events, it’s affecting the entire way that we think, period.
We thought that the idea of history moving from bound to unbound was interesting, with history moving away from the bindings of religion (and towards freedom?). This is clearly related to much of what we’ve read and talked about in class. We noted, by the way, that it’s clear that Ben and Fasolt know each other (was he your teacher at U of C, Ben?)- we noted a lot of the concepts that Ben’s been talking about in this reading.
We agree that Fasolt’s reminder to not only use written sources was very useful and important. “But one thing is worth underscoring: sources need not be written” (5). We talked about the fact that we often blindly listen to written material (be it textbooks, articles, etc.), assuming that it just must be true because it was written down. We forget that people can be wrong, and you’re allowed to disagree- no, not even allowed to disagree, but allowed to think that your textbook is simply wrong about something; it just might be, and that’s okay. Sources don’t need to be written: visual and oral sources, for example, can be very useful. We also played with the idea that, perhaps, oral and visual sources are even more useful than written sources in many ways. When something is written down, it is done so with a certain purpose. There’s a reason that something is written down, and that’s often to persuade people of its truth. Visual sources aren’t created with exactly that same purpose: something is made to be used or to be seen, but not necessarily to be taken as true. Many people consider oral sources (such as stories, or epics passed down orally) to be unreliable; unlike written sources, they’re not preserved in their original form. But in the context of this reading, maybe that does make them more useful, as they can show us how history has changed, and emphasize its fluidity. We don’t have any definitive thoughts on this, though- these are just ideas that we bounced around.
The preface of the book impacted both of us, specifically where he stated the three principles by which our attitude towards the past is governed (ix). Honestly, I don’t think I’d ever spent much time thinking about how I understand the past. I’ve thought about the past, and whether or not what I’m taught should be taken as an absolute truth, but I’ve never thought to question the entire framework in which we understand the past. “What could history by, if not the study of evidence?” (36). Elissa noted the quote, “history is not as innocent as it pretends to be” (6). I still don’t completely know what to think about this. Like Gina said in class yesterday, this text did rock my world (at least, I think that’s what you said). I didn’t necessarily trust the historical events that I’ve been taught about, but I did (blindly, I’ll admit) trust the framework of history; I’ve been thinking about this since I left Elissa five hours ago. History, like everything else, has a motive- but instead of just affecting the way we think about particular events, it’s affecting the entire way that we think, period.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
4/21/11 Protocol numero dos
The class started as usual. Ben spoke about EW#2 and advised us not to lose the Charismatic feel of EW#3 just because its Bureaucratic. He showed us what not to do in a paper! He asked the class to look over the paper and tell him what was wrong with it? So the class took a few minutes to read the paper and concluded that the problems were run on sentences which made the paper confusing. There were too many ideas and lacking focus. Can’t see focus and loses meaning, basically to say what you mean! Then Ben says that that the paper makes very little sense of what’s going on and then (dramatic music) Ben reveals who’s paper it is, the class waits with curiosity and BAM it turns out to be Bens paper back when he was a sophomore in college. The class laughs and then Ben says when starting a paper be clear and be yourself! Then he makes a side comment that he believed he was a genius haha then he presents Mandy to finish up the presentation that her and Heidi were suppose to do together.
Mandy tells the class that she’s going to break down finance for us. “Financial thinking” every credit needs a debit she continues telling us that finance is different. She starts out drawing out on the board you buy candy you lose 3 dollars and then you purchase something else lose another 2 bucks that’s a total of 5 bucks lost. Opportunity Cost – what you could have made. Making decisions that could benefit you which is finance. Then Mandy continues explaining how it’s the same concept as taking elective classes you think about the highest benefit of classes you would like. The same goes for finance deciding high risk project and low risk project. Then she moves on to credit cards and how we shouldn’t get it, since we don’t need it and that’s the time credit card companies take advantage of you. Recommends educating ourselves first before going into a death trap! Avoid getting scammed since “were in control of our money” and our money can work for us if we manage it well. Not to spend beyond your means and building credit is a BIG THING! Then Ben asks the class how all this relates to capitalism? Couple responses were: you always have to give something up! Any moment you don’t work you lose out on money. Quote from Benjamin Franklin is used “He that idly loses five shillings’ worth of time; loses five shillings, and might as prudently throws five shillings into the sea.” Then Ben continues stating that if you’re not making money you not doing what u suppose to be doing. Another quote is used to show this reasoning “man is dominant by making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life.” Saying that money is the master not the man!
Then Mandy started talking about why she interns and she said because the experience. Then Hallie response by saying that she’s doing that to further her personal value which inevitably is about the money. Then Mandy says that it’s more then that since were in a competitive time now, you have to stand out and show your assets. Then Ben says textbook knowledge doesn’t matter as long as you have a degree, and that you can prove you’ve accomplished something. Ben continues talking about how Kolhaas stood for Charismatic truth and eventually got moved to Bureaucratic truth. Money value is M-C-M. Then Ben went around the room to hear everyone’s points they found important in Hegel. Started off with subjectivity (438) Protestantism – principle of individual subject. Luther--? Why so important? Vs catholicison (414) – indulgence--$ Holy Roman Empire /Charles v individualism, objective truth(416) objective vs subjective will--gets married eat meat on Fridays only answer to–G-D-not church or state? Spirit of Chris—freedom? Reformation = man destined to be free freedom = thinking (417). State/Gov system – opposed to monarchy? (427-428) opposed to one person havig complete authority. Then moved to European/German exceptionalism(414)Salvation through secular world vs. Weber (423) French Revolution freedom of will vs. existing right low (446) Protestant religion doesn’t admit two kinds of consciousness (445) Then Ben says people make history first time that its happened. Moves on to Faust and the myth, selling to the d e v i l.Then Ben mentiones how Racism was the cutting edge theory, and then asks the class how does Luther look? What role does he play? Then he responds by saying he was the liberator of man brought forward to freedom. Opposing the Catholic Church, you will only answer to GOD! Spiritual freedom = individual subjectivity. Says Kolhaas rebels against state to be free! The world spirit is with you…YOUR FREE! Then class ended and people packed up as Ben waxed on and off the board!
Mandy tells the class that she’s going to break down finance for us. “Financial thinking” every credit needs a debit she continues telling us that finance is different. She starts out drawing out on the board you buy candy you lose 3 dollars and then you purchase something else lose another 2 bucks that’s a total of 5 bucks lost. Opportunity Cost – what you could have made. Making decisions that could benefit you which is finance. Then Mandy continues explaining how it’s the same concept as taking elective classes you think about the highest benefit of classes you would like. The same goes for finance deciding high risk project and low risk project. Then she moves on to credit cards and how we shouldn’t get it, since we don’t need it and that’s the time credit card companies take advantage of you. Recommends educating ourselves first before going into a death trap! Avoid getting scammed since “were in control of our money” and our money can work for us if we manage it well. Not to spend beyond your means and building credit is a BIG THING! Then Ben asks the class how all this relates to capitalism? Couple responses were: you always have to give something up! Any moment you don’t work you lose out on money. Quote from Benjamin Franklin is used “He that idly loses five shillings’ worth of time; loses five shillings, and might as prudently throws five shillings into the sea.” Then Ben continues stating that if you’re not making money you not doing what u suppose to be doing. Another quote is used to show this reasoning “man is dominant by making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life.” Saying that money is the master not the man!
Then Mandy started talking about why she interns and she said because the experience. Then Hallie response by saying that she’s doing that to further her personal value which inevitably is about the money. Then Mandy says that it’s more then that since were in a competitive time now, you have to stand out and show your assets. Then Ben says textbook knowledge doesn’t matter as long as you have a degree, and that you can prove you’ve accomplished something. Ben continues talking about how Kolhaas stood for Charismatic truth and eventually got moved to Bureaucratic truth. Money value is M-C-M. Then Ben went around the room to hear everyone’s points they found important in Hegel. Started off with subjectivity (438) Protestantism – principle of individual subject. Luther--? Why so important? Vs catholicison (414) – indulgence--$ Holy Roman Empire /Charles v individualism, objective truth(416) objective vs subjective will--gets married eat meat on Fridays only answer to–G-D-not church or state? Spirit of Chris—freedom? Reformation = man destined to be free freedom = thinking (417). State/Gov system – opposed to monarchy? (427-428) opposed to one person havig complete authority. Then moved to European/German exceptionalism(414)Salvation through secular world vs. Weber (423) French Revolution freedom of will vs. existing right low (446) Protestant religion doesn’t admit two kinds of consciousness (445) Then Ben says people make history first time that its happened. Moves on to Faust and the myth, selling to the d e v i l.Then Ben mentiones how Racism was the cutting edge theory, and then asks the class how does Luther look? What role does he play? Then he responds by saying he was the liberator of man brought forward to freedom. Opposing the Catholic Church, you will only answer to GOD! Spiritual freedom = individual subjectivity. Says Kolhaas rebels against state to be free! The world spirit is with you…YOUR FREE! Then class ended and people packed up as Ben waxed on and off the board!
Posting assignment #9 (due Sunday 4/24, 11:59 P.M.): Talking about talking about the history of history...
Constantin Fasolt's book The Limits of History, of which we are reading the first 40-50 pages, is in my opinion one of the best books about history that's ever been written. (Of course, I may be somewhat biased. Nonetheless: a very good book.) It is not, however, an easy book -- and for good reason. Fasolt attempts, in these pages, to answer questions no smaller than:
(1) What is history?
(2) Where and when did history come from?
(3) Who started making history -- in both senses of the phrase? Why did they start doing it? Whose interests did it serve then, and how?
(4) Who makes history now ("now" = in the time following Hegel's "end of history," following the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire in the Battle of Jena in 1806)? Why do they do it? Whose interests does it serve now?
(5) Why is history always political, and specifically, why is it "a dangerous form of knowledge"?
(6) How did the very nature of history, and its development through its two major periods (the first starting in the 16th century; the second starting in the 19th century), ultimately lead to Hitler?
To understand Fasolt's answers to these questions, we will find we'll need to draw on a wide range of concepts spanning the whole semester, from Weber and the iron cage and mentalités, to Ranke and wie es eigentlich gewesen, to DeLillo and Arendt and loneliness, to Hegel and Luther and Locke and Hayek and radical Protestant liberal individual subjectivity, to Kleist and Fukuyama and crusading against feudalism and Pope and Emperor toward a (perhaps) freer world.
It is, in other words, a task that should not be attempted alone. Hence the particular nature of this week's post:
1) Read, and read, the Fasolt text, ASAP. Let questions (1) through (6), above, guide your reading. And start seeing if you can make some of the connections I suggest in the previous paragraph...and maybe some others of your own.
2) Meet with a colleague from our class, sometime between when you (both) finish the reading and Sunday night, and discuss your reading of the Fasolt text. Meet for at least an hour -- in person if at all possible, otherwise over the phone. Again, let questions (1) through (6) guide your discussion: see if you can come up with provisional answers to each question, grounded in evidence from the text. And see what connections you can make with other stuff -- both in and outside of this class. But don't let these questions limit you! They are simply guidelines. The beauty of actual face-to-face discussion is, you never know quite where it will go -- and let it go where it goes, as long as it stays somewhat relevant to the text and questions at hand. (You are, of course, also more than welcome to discuss where -- and why -- you disagree with Fasolt. I know I do, at times.)
3) Write and post a blog post, in which you reflect upon your conversation, telling us what you talked about and what you took away from the conversation, and including any thoughts you've had since parting ways with your partner. This is a reflection, not a protocol. Don't structure your post based on a blow-by-blow, s/he-said-this-then-I-said-that reconstruction of your conversation. Instead, structure it based on some of the most interesting and important ideas and questions and thoughts that you generated along with your partner -- and explain some of these ideas and questions and thoughts in detail, including at least a few pieces of evidence from the Fasolt text, and from other texts if relevant. Again, if you get lost, use questions (1) through (6) as your guide; they will be our main questions in class next week, too.
Have fun! (Viel Spaß!)
(1) What is history?
(2) Where and when did history come from?
(3) Who started making history -- in both senses of the phrase? Why did they start doing it? Whose interests did it serve then, and how?
(4) Who makes history now ("now" = in the time following Hegel's "end of history," following the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire in the Battle of Jena in 1806)? Why do they do it? Whose interests does it serve now?
(5) Why is history always political, and specifically, why is it "a dangerous form of knowledge"?
(6) How did the very nature of history, and its development through its two major periods (the first starting in the 16th century; the second starting in the 19th century), ultimately lead to Hitler?
To understand Fasolt's answers to these questions, we will find we'll need to draw on a wide range of concepts spanning the whole semester, from Weber and the iron cage and mentalités, to Ranke and wie es eigentlich gewesen, to DeLillo and Arendt and loneliness, to Hegel and Luther and Locke and Hayek and radical Protestant liberal individual subjectivity, to Kleist and Fukuyama and crusading against feudalism and Pope and Emperor toward a (perhaps) freer world.
It is, in other words, a task that should not be attempted alone. Hence the particular nature of this week's post:
1) Read, and read, the Fasolt text, ASAP. Let questions (1) through (6), above, guide your reading. And start seeing if you can make some of the connections I suggest in the previous paragraph...and maybe some others of your own.
2) Meet with a colleague from our class, sometime between when you (both) finish the reading and Sunday night, and discuss your reading of the Fasolt text. Meet for at least an hour -- in person if at all possible, otherwise over the phone. Again, let questions (1) through (6) guide your discussion: see if you can come up with provisional answers to each question, grounded in evidence from the text. And see what connections you can make with other stuff -- both in and outside of this class. But don't let these questions limit you! They are simply guidelines. The beauty of actual face-to-face discussion is, you never know quite where it will go -- and let it go where it goes, as long as it stays somewhat relevant to the text and questions at hand. (You are, of course, also more than welcome to discuss where -- and why -- you disagree with Fasolt. I know I do, at times.)
3) Write and post a blog post, in which you reflect upon your conversation, telling us what you talked about and what you took away from the conversation, and including any thoughts you've had since parting ways with your partner. This is a reflection, not a protocol. Don't structure your post based on a blow-by-blow, s/he-said-this-then-I-said-that reconstruction of your conversation. Instead, structure it based on some of the most interesting and important ideas and questions and thoughts that you generated along with your partner -- and explain some of these ideas and questions and thoughts in detail, including at least a few pieces of evidence from the Fasolt text, and from other texts if relevant. Again, if you get lost, use questions (1) through (6) as your guide; they will be our main questions in class next week, too.
Have fun! (Viel Spaß!)
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Protocol in CSCL Reading History
Tuesday, April 19th 2011, at 11:15 am. the class of CSCL Reading History officially starts with instructor Ben Fink taking the class attendance. Saying every name along the list as he goes by, he makes side comments about some students being absent and sick today. Previously before class started, Heidi, who later turns out to be one of the difficultators, had randomly laid three big white sheets of paper on the floor in the middle of the circle of desks in the room. On the white board, Ben had also previously written the class schedule for today. On the board says, Program and underneath states, 1. Housekeeping-on blogs, external writings, the final assignment, and current events 2. Capitalism: a very short introduction 3. Difficultation-money makes the world go round…4. Weber vs. Kleist vs…Weber.
After the attendance had been taken, Ben asks the students to condense into a smaller circle. Students start to move their desk into the tighter and smaller circle. Ben then starts talking. He first covered the number one on the program about the blogs. The blogs were “fantastic” as he puts it. However, he followed with a disappointing tone as he states that some didn’t blog and commented and some did late. He then asks for protocol writers as he always does. Hallie and I raised our hands. Ben continues with his lecture.
External writing number three will be due next week Thursday on the twenty-eighth. Ben reveals that it was Tam who emailed him and asked for the extension. Office hours with Ben are back to normal now. He will also need an email from one of the group members about the final project with all the names of the other group members. In that email it will need to have the ideas of the final project. This email doesn’t need to be formal because Ben just wants to see what we’re thinking about. For the Fasolt blog coming this weekend, we will need to meet with one other person from the class. From this meeting, we will write and reflect on what we both talked about. We will have time on Thursday to talk in pairs. Ben asks if there are any questions on blogs, the external writing, and final assignment. Tam asks if Ben has any ideas for the final assignment. Ben offers the question to the rest of the class and asks if anyone wants to share their ideas and what they are doing. Ben tells Tam to come to his office hours for help after class. Ahmed then asks how many more blog posts we have left. Ben says we have two more posts left.
Ben then goes on to talk about current events. Syria is almost ready to lift its fifty yearlong state of emergency. Then there was this Iranian literary critic who in an article talks about this person who was made a heretic after reading max weber. That was it for housekeeping.
The difficultation comes next with Heidi as the only one here because Mandy and Karrie are absent today from sickness. Mandy as a finance major will present on Thursday with some tips and ideas on money. Ben then asks everyone to take out the course reading packet on Weber. He asks the question whether we understand the word capitalism and if there was anyone willing to attempt at an answer to it. Hallie speaks up and gives her definition of capitalism. Ben then goes up to the white board and write down what Hallie says. On the board is the word capitalism. Following it is the definition as an economic system that is based on accumulation of capital and there are people within the system who own the capital. The different types of people are: 1. The people who own a lot of capital and the means of production –Marx: they are not the actual producers. 2. The people who own only their labor-they sell it, to get wages.
It pains Ben as he says that we are not reading Karl Marx. Not because he wants to turn us into communists, but because a lot of the readings we have relate to what Marx has to say. Karl Marx is the “greatest economist who ever lived.” Referring back to the definition of capitalism, Marx would call number one as the bourgeoisie and number two as the proletariat. Weber is writing in opposition to Marx. What’s new between pre-capitalism and modern capitalism is that weber calls this money as capital.
Ben goes back to the white board writing, Das Kapital, by Karl Marx. He demonstrates an example using a tape dispenser as his chicken and trading it with one of Lindsey’s item as milk. His chicken for Lindsey’s milk. This is the pre-capitalist market. This is generally what we still go by today. For a modern capitalist, the economy works differently. For capitalist, you start with money. Invest it in commodity. On the board is the model as follows:
Pre-capitalist: c-(commodity)-m(money)-c
Capitalist: m-c-m
The example Ben gives is investing money into GE shares. Money becomes more after that investment as it accumulates. This is the difference between pre-capitalism, which is stable and modern capitalism, which is based on growth. Ben then refers to the course reading packet on Weber page thirty six or course packet page one hundred ninety-nine. He also goes to course packet page two hundred and three or Weber page one hundred and twenty-four. He read a passage from the page. Ben states that Fukuyama reads Weber wrong. What Fukuyama wants to say is it’s all just about the spirit and all the material will follow later. This is a bad reading on Weber.
Heidi then began her difficultation. She draws a diagram on the board. We make three dollars a day working. If we are sick that day and don’t go to work, we lose the three dollars. If we buy candy for two dollars later that day we lose all together five dollars. With those five dollars, we could’ve invested it and made fifteen dollars, which is the capital. Heidi asks everyone to stand and write anything they make of money on the three white piece of paper lying on the floor. What comes to mind when you think of money? Just write anything. Write one thing or one thought and that will get you one piece of candy. Two things and two candies. Three things and three pieces of candies. The one piece of candy is what you need. Two pieces of candies is more than you need and three is luxurious and success. Heidi gives out candy to people as they write on the paper. Some write “living expenses, savings, security, scroose mcduck, gold bars, cabaret, never enough, pink Floyd, clothes, shopping, material goods…” A couple minutes after, people started going back to their seats. Heidi says we will circle the things that relate to capitalism. Yell out and we will circle. Shopping, work, big money, living wage, system of oppression, debt, future, bills, gold bars, buy lots of stuff, competition, no money = sad, savings, living expenses, and never enough are circled. Our modern idea of what money is is related to capital. Giving candy away wasn’t because she wanted to feed students; she wanted to demonstrate that some people will make more money than others just as some people got more candy than others. Heidi will go to social work and Mandy will go to finance. Mandy will make ten thousand dollars more than Heidi in their starting salary. The question is asked that Heidi could’ve gone to finance major so it was fair. But Carlson School of Business is more expensive than the College of Liberal Arts was what someone argued. Ben recommends a book called Learning to Labor by Paul Willis. It is about kids from certain backgrounds that don’t want to go to jobs that will pay them more. If everyone wanted to be finance major, it wouldn’t work. “Deep contradiction of capitalism; a really good read,” says Ben.
Heidi reads the definition she found of asceticism. An example of an ascetic is a monk. Traditionally in Europe, the ascetics were monks. How Protestantism and capitalism link up is because of Lutheranism that the ascetic idea shifted. No longer was the holiest idea going away, but now the holy thing to do is the calling. To do your calling as best as possible. The Spirit of capitalism is the calling because that is the way to lead a meaningful life. Ben refers to page one hundred and ninety-seven in the course packet. About a third way down the page, he reads a passage. Religion doesn’t matter. When it started, religion was the foundation, but now it didn’t matter. It’s just what we do. This is where Weber is trying to go. Heidi talks about her father. She asked him about the spirit of capitalism. While Heidi is talking, Ben writes on board: Martin Luther-Lutheranism, John Calvin-Calvinism and purpose rationality, emotional rationality, traditional-religious rationality. Ben refers to page thirty-eight in Weber or course packet page two hundred. Once you pay a worker more he or she will do more work. A traditionalist will work as little as need to. Their purpose rationality is that why would you work more if don’t need more?
A modern capitalist’s purpose rationality is that they will work as much as needed to make as money even though they don’t get to spend it. Ben talks about being in an iron cage. He was going to be unproductive, but it was still hard for him. Ben wants to talk about the things we circled. He brings up Robin who seems to be saying that he makes a lot of money and is wealthy. Ben says he doesn’t make enough money and only about twenty thousand dollars a year. At twenty-six, this isn’t that bad, but if he was forty years old, he’s a failure. He then asks where we saw a connection in Weber to Kleist. Gina talks about Kohlhaas being on the wrong road. Luther chastises peasants for not being on the right road. Luther chastises Kohlhaas for not being on the right road also. He says the same thing to Kohlhaas as to the peasants. Ben then asks if anyone saw a connection of the Weber of this text and the other first one we previously read. We were given thirty seconds to think about it. Thirty seconds turned into three minutes. Alyssa talks. She was thinking about charisma and how it was almost like a fake authority. Or not exactly legitimate, but only on force of authority. She thought that Kohlhaas had charismatic authority, but in the end, he still died. Ben wants to make a proposal stating the question as follows: what for Kohlhaas in 1525, the same things he is fighting for as charismatic authority, which have become the iron cage, have become the most bureaucratic way? Ben also wants us to read Hegel on the said pages on the syllabus and to come in ready to say something about it on Thursday. With that said, CSCL Reading History class ends a couple minutes over on 12:33 pm.
After the attendance had been taken, Ben asks the students to condense into a smaller circle. Students start to move their desk into the tighter and smaller circle. Ben then starts talking. He first covered the number one on the program about the blogs. The blogs were “fantastic” as he puts it. However, he followed with a disappointing tone as he states that some didn’t blog and commented and some did late. He then asks for protocol writers as he always does. Hallie and I raised our hands. Ben continues with his lecture.
External writing number three will be due next week Thursday on the twenty-eighth. Ben reveals that it was Tam who emailed him and asked for the extension. Office hours with Ben are back to normal now. He will also need an email from one of the group members about the final project with all the names of the other group members. In that email it will need to have the ideas of the final project. This email doesn’t need to be formal because Ben just wants to see what we’re thinking about. For the Fasolt blog coming this weekend, we will need to meet with one other person from the class. From this meeting, we will write and reflect on what we both talked about. We will have time on Thursday to talk in pairs. Ben asks if there are any questions on blogs, the external writing, and final assignment. Tam asks if Ben has any ideas for the final assignment. Ben offers the question to the rest of the class and asks if anyone wants to share their ideas and what they are doing. Ben tells Tam to come to his office hours for help after class. Ahmed then asks how many more blog posts we have left. Ben says we have two more posts left.
Ben then goes on to talk about current events. Syria is almost ready to lift its fifty yearlong state of emergency. Then there was this Iranian literary critic who in an article talks about this person who was made a heretic after reading max weber. That was it for housekeeping.
The difficultation comes next with Heidi as the only one here because Mandy and Karrie are absent today from sickness. Mandy as a finance major will present on Thursday with some tips and ideas on money. Ben then asks everyone to take out the course reading packet on Weber. He asks the question whether we understand the word capitalism and if there was anyone willing to attempt at an answer to it. Hallie speaks up and gives her definition of capitalism. Ben then goes up to the white board and write down what Hallie says. On the board is the word capitalism. Following it is the definition as an economic system that is based on accumulation of capital and there are people within the system who own the capital. The different types of people are: 1. The people who own a lot of capital and the means of production –Marx: they are not the actual producers. 2. The people who own only their labor-they sell it, to get wages.
It pains Ben as he says that we are not reading Karl Marx. Not because he wants to turn us into communists, but because a lot of the readings we have relate to what Marx has to say. Karl Marx is the “greatest economist who ever lived.” Referring back to the definition of capitalism, Marx would call number one as the bourgeoisie and number two as the proletariat. Weber is writing in opposition to Marx. What’s new between pre-capitalism and modern capitalism is that weber calls this money as capital.
Ben goes back to the white board writing, Das Kapital, by Karl Marx. He demonstrates an example using a tape dispenser as his chicken and trading it with one of Lindsey’s item as milk. His chicken for Lindsey’s milk. This is the pre-capitalist market. This is generally what we still go by today. For a modern capitalist, the economy works differently. For capitalist, you start with money. Invest it in commodity. On the board is the model as follows:
Pre-capitalist: c-(commodity)-m(money)-c
Capitalist: m-c-m
The example Ben gives is investing money into GE shares. Money becomes more after that investment as it accumulates. This is the difference between pre-capitalism, which is stable and modern capitalism, which is based on growth. Ben then refers to the course reading packet on Weber page thirty six or course packet page one hundred ninety-nine. He also goes to course packet page two hundred and three or Weber page one hundred and twenty-four. He read a passage from the page. Ben states that Fukuyama reads Weber wrong. What Fukuyama wants to say is it’s all just about the spirit and all the material will follow later. This is a bad reading on Weber.
Heidi then began her difficultation. She draws a diagram on the board. We make three dollars a day working. If we are sick that day and don’t go to work, we lose the three dollars. If we buy candy for two dollars later that day we lose all together five dollars. With those five dollars, we could’ve invested it and made fifteen dollars, which is the capital. Heidi asks everyone to stand and write anything they make of money on the three white piece of paper lying on the floor. What comes to mind when you think of money? Just write anything. Write one thing or one thought and that will get you one piece of candy. Two things and two candies. Three things and three pieces of candies. The one piece of candy is what you need. Two pieces of candies is more than you need and three is luxurious and success. Heidi gives out candy to people as they write on the paper. Some write “living expenses, savings, security, scroose mcduck, gold bars, cabaret, never enough, pink Floyd, clothes, shopping, material goods…” A couple minutes after, people started going back to their seats. Heidi says we will circle the things that relate to capitalism. Yell out and we will circle. Shopping, work, big money, living wage, system of oppression, debt, future, bills, gold bars, buy lots of stuff, competition, no money = sad, savings, living expenses, and never enough are circled. Our modern idea of what money is is related to capital. Giving candy away wasn’t because she wanted to feed students; she wanted to demonstrate that some people will make more money than others just as some people got more candy than others. Heidi will go to social work and Mandy will go to finance. Mandy will make ten thousand dollars more than Heidi in their starting salary. The question is asked that Heidi could’ve gone to finance major so it was fair. But Carlson School of Business is more expensive than the College of Liberal Arts was what someone argued. Ben recommends a book called Learning to Labor by Paul Willis. It is about kids from certain backgrounds that don’t want to go to jobs that will pay them more. If everyone wanted to be finance major, it wouldn’t work. “Deep contradiction of capitalism; a really good read,” says Ben.
Heidi reads the definition she found of asceticism. An example of an ascetic is a monk. Traditionally in Europe, the ascetics were monks. How Protestantism and capitalism link up is because of Lutheranism that the ascetic idea shifted. No longer was the holiest idea going away, but now the holy thing to do is the calling. To do your calling as best as possible. The Spirit of capitalism is the calling because that is the way to lead a meaningful life. Ben refers to page one hundred and ninety-seven in the course packet. About a third way down the page, he reads a passage. Religion doesn’t matter. When it started, religion was the foundation, but now it didn’t matter. It’s just what we do. This is where Weber is trying to go. Heidi talks about her father. She asked him about the spirit of capitalism. While Heidi is talking, Ben writes on board: Martin Luther-Lutheranism, John Calvin-Calvinism and purpose rationality, emotional rationality, traditional-religious rationality. Ben refers to page thirty-eight in Weber or course packet page two hundred. Once you pay a worker more he or she will do more work. A traditionalist will work as little as need to. Their purpose rationality is that why would you work more if don’t need more?
A modern capitalist’s purpose rationality is that they will work as much as needed to make as money even though they don’t get to spend it. Ben talks about being in an iron cage. He was going to be unproductive, but it was still hard for him. Ben wants to talk about the things we circled. He brings up Robin who seems to be saying that he makes a lot of money and is wealthy. Ben says he doesn’t make enough money and only about twenty thousand dollars a year. At twenty-six, this isn’t that bad, but if he was forty years old, he’s a failure. He then asks where we saw a connection in Weber to Kleist. Gina talks about Kohlhaas being on the wrong road. Luther chastises peasants for not being on the right road. Luther chastises Kohlhaas for not being on the right road also. He says the same thing to Kohlhaas as to the peasants. Ben then asks if anyone saw a connection of the Weber of this text and the other first one we previously read. We were given thirty seconds to think about it. Thirty seconds turned into three minutes. Alyssa talks. She was thinking about charisma and how it was almost like a fake authority. Or not exactly legitimate, but only on force of authority. She thought that Kohlhaas had charismatic authority, but in the end, he still died. Ben wants to make a proposal stating the question as follows: what for Kohlhaas in 1525, the same things he is fighting for as charismatic authority, which have become the iron cage, have become the most bureaucratic way? Ben also wants us to read Hegel on the said pages on the syllabus and to come in ready to say something about it on Thursday. With that said, CSCL Reading History class ends a couple minutes over on 12:33 pm.
Ascetic Musicians
Part of the post was to look up words we didn't know. One of the words I looked up was definitely encompassing to my main hobby as well as my future career. The word? Ascetic. The meaning?
A person who dedicates his or her life to a pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self-denial or self-mortification for religious reasons. While my meaning isn't strictly religious, it got me thinking about other than this aspect, much of my life could be considered ascetic.
I joined winter drumline as a sophomore in high school, with much prodding from my father. I played the cello, and they needed a bass guitar player (something that is easily transferable), and so I joined. I immediately loved the military-like atmosphere, the long hours perfecting our art, and the performances that stole away every weekend since between the months of October and April. I have been asked several times by many different people why I do this activity. My honest answer? I have no idea. After high school, I wanted to continue this hobby, so I joined Minnesota Brass Drum and Bugle Corps, whose season lasts from January to September, and Minnesota Brass Indoor, a winter ensemble whose season lasts between November and mid-April. At one point, when the seasons overlap, I have rehearsals and shows that last anywhere from 4 hours to 12 hours, 3 to 4 days a week. It sounds crazy right? For a musician, I believe that this is a dedication to a pursuit of contemplative ideals, which includes a lot of self-denial. Our members have to miss "normal" life activities in order to be a part of this organization. Not to mention, summer costs $450 just to march, winter is $800. This portion makes it so that members can't really even afford to do anything else. I see the Protestant work ethic written all over this activity: having a strong work ethic and willingness to devote oneself to their calling. I never really thought of this activity being capitalist, as my understanding was that capitalism strove to make as much monetary income as possible, but Weber describes it somewhat differently, "Capitalism may even be identical with the restraint, or at least a rational tempering, of this irrational impulse. But capitalism is identical with the restraint, or at least a rational tempering, of this irrational impulse." (p. 17)
At the end of the day, I'm ok with this because I'm doing what I love. I'll never make a lot of money doing it, but it is an activity that forces a strong work ethic.
I joined winter drumline as a sophomore in high school, with much prodding from my father. I played the cello, and they needed a bass guitar player (something that is easily transferable), and so I joined. I immediately loved the military-like atmosphere, the long hours perfecting our art, and the performances that stole away every weekend since between the months of October and April. I have been asked several times by many different people why I do this activity. My honest answer? I have no idea. After high school, I wanted to continue this hobby, so I joined Minnesota Brass Drum and Bugle Corps, whose season lasts from January to September, and Minnesota Brass Indoor, a winter ensemble whose season lasts between November and mid-April. At one point, when the seasons overlap, I have rehearsals and shows that last anywhere from 4 hours to 12 hours, 3 to 4 days a week. It sounds crazy right? For a musician, I believe that this is a dedication to a pursuit of contemplative ideals, which includes a lot of self-denial. Our members have to miss "normal" life activities in order to be a part of this organization. Not to mention, summer costs $450 just to march, winter is $800. This portion makes it so that members can't really even afford to do anything else. I see the Protestant work ethic written all over this activity: having a strong work ethic and willingness to devote oneself to their calling. I never really thought of this activity being capitalist, as my understanding was that capitalism strove to make as much monetary income as possible, but Weber describes it somewhat differently, "Capitalism may even be identical with the restraint, or at least a rational tempering, of this irrational impulse. But capitalism is identical with the restraint, or at least a rational tempering, of this irrational impulse." (p. 17)
At the end of the day, I'm ok with this because I'm doing what I love. I'll never make a lot of money doing it, but it is an activity that forces a strong work ethic.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Sex and Golf
I have been working at a restaurant on a golf course for a couple years now but just this year I have started at a new job title. This summer I will be working as a Bev Cart girl on the golf course. For those of you who do not know, a Bev Cart Girl is one that drives around the course selling drinks and other refreshments to golfers. On this golf course, one of the wealthiest courses in the state, the job basically means selling beer to rich older men. This usually comes with a hefty tip to match the hefty price tag on the drinks, especially when there is flirting involved, carefully placed giggles, flashing smiles and of course short shorts. I have realized, since reading Weber that this is an area of my life where I find myself feeling the pressure of the "iron cage" of the capitalist mentaile.
Although I am aware of this aspect of the job, I do not have a problem with it. I completely believe in women's rights and how we should be equal in the world, including the economic world and some may argue that this pushes our gender back several decades but I argue that it is simply just knowing how to play the game. “It is an obligation which the individual is supposed to feel and does feel towards the content of his professional activity, no matter what it consists, in particular no matter whether it appears on the surface as a utilization of his personal powers” As a young female worker who is surrounded by middle age rich men and their friends who enjoy having a "boys day" on the course and a man's natural tendency to show his friends and any woman that he is capable of competeing, and in this case flirting, I simply see it as my "utilization of my personal powers" to make them feel like they are indeed winning, or good for enjoying themselves.
After reading what I just wrote, I want to punch myself in the face, but honestly it is just putting what I know subconsciously into words and spelling them out. It does sound completely stupid but when it comes to making money, you learn the secrets of the best way you can do so, using our own abilities, "no matter what it consists". Obviously I know that these certain "personal powers" will not provide my income for me for my entire life and I never would expect them to, but added to other necessary job tasks in the right places may provide greater profit but that does not mean that they are the primary purpose of the job.
Once again after reading what I just wrote I think that I am making myself sound like a call girl job is in my future. However, all I really mean is that, “the earning of money within the modern economic order is, so long as it is done legally, the result and the expression of virtue and proficiency in a calling,” as long as done legally, I do understand that part. Adding extra qualities or skills onto your task or job at hand should result proficiently, depending on what is asked of you. I know that my job is a good example of the "iron cage" and there are different hoops required of me, that are not exactly spoken but necessary to produce the greatest result, but knowing what these extras are can only benefit and strengthen my position.
The Spirit of Capitalism!
A moment in which I felt myself trapped in the capitalist mentalite or “iron cage" is when I think about my future and if what I’m doing now is establishing me to be at my best in the future. The constant worrying that occurs about tomorrow and what lies ahead of me. Basically the unknown is what I feel is the trap. I do believe I have a sense of “Beruf”calling as Weber mentioned but what that precise calling is I don’t know. “The valuation of fulfillment of the duty in the worldly affairs as the highest form which the moral activity of the individual could assume.”(Weber 201) is what is going on I can only assume that my daily routines are what is inevitably going to fulfill me in my worldly affairs.
Even though I wish to have a successful career one day and live happily I do think its important that “the earning of money within the modern economic order is, so long as it is done legally” (Weber 190) This is important to me because once you make substantial amount of money people tend to change for the worst and greed takes over them as Fugger thought it was necessary to continue working even though he had enough money now that is an example of capitalistic thinking, only caring about money which is a dangerous thing. But unfortunately that’s the world we live in today. A world that cares about getting the job done! “Man is dominated by the making of money by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life” (Weber 190) now I find this sad. Is that what life is all about making money and then you parish from this earth, isn’t life more than that? When did money become part of us it shouldn’t define the person. It should help you in getting things done and moving forward in life but shouldn’t be the main thing you strive for in life. That’s why I think money alone isn’t going to get you very far. Living a fulfilled life by doing the things I love and getting the chance to see the world and meet all kinds of intriguing and fascinating people is what I would want to achieve in my life, to be happy.
Even though I wish to have a successful career one day and live happily I do think its important that “the earning of money within the modern economic order is, so long as it is done legally” (Weber 190) This is important to me because once you make substantial amount of money people tend to change for the worst and greed takes over them as Fugger thought it was necessary to continue working even though he had enough money now that is an example of capitalistic thinking, only caring about money which is a dangerous thing. But unfortunately that’s the world we live in today. A world that cares about getting the job done! “Man is dominated by the making of money by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life” (Weber 190) now I find this sad. Is that what life is all about making money and then you parish from this earth, isn’t life more than that? When did money become part of us it shouldn’t define the person. It should help you in getting things done and moving forward in life but shouldn’t be the main thing you strive for in life. That’s why I think money alone isn’t going to get you very far. Living a fulfilled life by doing the things I love and getting the chance to see the world and meet all kinds of intriguing and fascinating people is what I would want to achieve in my life, to be happy.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Virtuous Female Beauty
A moment in which I felt myself trapped in the capitalist mentalite was when I realized that my appearance was (and is) intimately tied to my (economic) success in life whether I like it or not. Far from just an end in itself, my appearance enables me to make or break job interviews, get free drinks or discounts from men who find me attractive when at a store or coffee shop, make friends and meet new people, and even find a mate. The things I do to conform to the female standard of beauty such as painting my nails, growing and taking care of my hair, wearing makeup, dressing in a feminine way and wearing jewelry could be considered to be “entirely transcendental and absolutely irrational” (18) actions in regards to myself as a person. My appearance, in a superficial way, does not necessary reflect the kind of person that I am, and the things I do to conform to standards of beauty do not make or break who I am inside. These actions constitute “an obligation which the individual is supposed to feel and does feel towards the content of his professional activity, no matter in what it consists, in particular no matter whether it appears on the surface as a utilization of his personal powers, or only of his material possessions (as capitol),” (Weber 19). My desire to conform to at least some female standards of beauty allows me to better capitalize off both material and monetary wealth that is rewarded to women who are considered attractive. To purposely appeal to men is economically beneficial because men often control more wealth than women; women still make about 75 cents to every male dollar for the same labor. Female beauty is a virtue in that it enables women to gain more economic means, and “the earning of money within the modern economic order is, so long as it is done legally, the result and the expression of virtue and proficiency in a calling,” (Weber 19). Women who are “proficient” in appealing to male interests are valued more and have more opportunities to earn wealth.
Bubble Tea is My Life
Sometimes I feel that work is my life. Not only school work but my "job" work. I work as a barista making bubble teas at The Tea Garden. I love my job. I'm extremely fortunate to work with cool people that I'm also really good friends with. But sometimes it is also a negative thing. I have a few examples that will follow.
On St. Patrick day I worked with a friend. He didn't have money for food so I said I would spot him about ten dollars. At the end of the shift I noticed he had tips he could pay me back with yet he said nothing so I said nothing. The next day he had told me he was going to pay me back at the start of my shift, yet he again said nothing as I saw him put a huge wade of cash in his wallet. Now not that ten dollars is a HUGE deal, yet now I didn't have money for my food. As I talked to my friend at work about it we spoke about how awkward it is to ask for someone to pay you back since it should be common sense to pay it back asap. I always feel guilty if I forget to pay someone back right away. While reading Weber I was reminded of this incident. "never keep borrowed money an hour beyond the time you promised" (15). I would even argue never keep it till the point where people have to remind you. Weber made me realize that my friend was simply just being forgetful yet it made him lose some credit in my eyes. I will now be less willing to lend him money since I know it is a struggle to get him to pay it back.
Lately, when I say work is my life it really is. I'm there 5 days of the week. Then I just started my internship so when I'm not physically there I'm still "there". I love it yet I'm tired of not sleeping past nine am ever and being exhausted all the time. I realized that I need to try to stress less on money and more on taking care of myself. I wonder why I do this to myself. I realized that I overwork myself since I am utterly afraid of failing. I work hard in school to make sure I get good grades then I work a lot to make sure I can support myself. I'm stuck in the iron cage of being a pressured student/ young adult. I'm terrified of failing or needing to ask for financial help. It frightens me to think about going out into the real world (after college) and not getting a job that I can be proud of. I also have the unsettling fear of turning out like my dad, a man who never could support himself and ultimately failed. I refuse to be anything like that so I have overworked myself to the point of tears. Weber stated, "capitalism of to-day, which has come to dominate economic life, educates and selects the economic subjects which it needs through a process of economic survival of the fittest "(20). This quote says exactly how I feel of the future. I must set myself apart now while I still can. I have joined clubs and got an internship with the little time I already have I have a packed schedule. I am attempting to be the fittest economically. I hope that my resume will beat out others since I have witnessed how tough the job search will be. I feel my stress is a positive, yet will be my downfall if I don't learn to balance it better. There is a point where making money just is not worth it. "more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life" (18). The realization that I may miss out on being happy if I am continually held down everyday with work made me realize to take a day off. What is this money worth if I am becoming miserable.
I'm lucky for all my opportunities and love my job but I need a day to play.
What Do I Have To Show For?
"It might thus seem that the development of the spirit of capitalism is best understood as part of the development of rationalism as a whole, and could be deduced from the fundamental position of rationalism on the basic problems of life." (p. 37) To me, this quote essentially states that the spirit of capitalism derives from the principle of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct. People understand what they accept. There have been numerous instances in which I failed to comprehend a situation because I did not necessarily understand why things were the way they were. Often times, I will find myself questioning my growth as a person, and wondering how much of my inner child I will hold onto as time goes by despite the money-driven, capitalistic structure of society. I have seen that as I grow older, it becomes more and more apparent to me how capitalistic society really is, and the "fundamental position of rationalism" is structured to drive it. I need to understand and accept that the personal spirit of capitalism that I encounter needs to be met with the comprehension that rationalism is the essential foundation for many issues in life, and sometimes, it is difficult to fight.
"Labour in the service of a rational organization for the provision of humanity with material goods has without doubt always appeared to representatives of the capitalistic spirit as one of the most important purposes of their life-work." (p. 36) It seems that as I have grown older, I, among the rest of the world it seems, am living essentially to work. In this quote, Weber makes the argument that the structure of humanity is organized around life-work, but when I question what my "life-work" is, I come to realize that I have little to show. I am in school pursuing a Bachelor of Individualized Studies to focus on the subfields of Youth Studies, Gender and Women Sexuality Studies, and Social Justice. When I think about it, I am taking classes that have nothing to do with my major only to receive the liberal education requirements determined for me in the College of Liberal Arts, which will help me graduate with a super random degree which I will need in order to attend Graduate School for Social Work so I can work, make money, raise a family, and die.
What I got from Weber's argument is that the spirit of capitalism is a prevalent and driving force derived from rationalism and fuels the way society functions whether we like it or not.
Working in Retail
If I’ve got this right, Weber distinguishes between pre-capitalism and capitalism as it was when he wrote this, which was considered the “modern” or “new” capitalism. Pre-capitalism or as he also termed, I believe, traditionalism, meant that people’s purpose in life was “not ‘by nature’ wish to earn more and more money, but simply to live as he is accustomed to live and to earn as much as is necessary for that purpose” (Weber, 24). So in that sense, I would say in my case if I were to live by the traditional capitalism, earning as much money as possible is because my purpose for it is to have money to pay bills. I have phone bills, tuition, and credit card bills. These bills existed because I needed a phone so people could contact me. I have tuition bills because I go to school and I have credit card bills because I want to build good credit to buy a house in the future with the good credit. I am earning money for every purpose and not just earning it for no reason like wanting to smell the crisp dollar bills in my hand or hear the coins jingle in my purse. However, modern capitalism, Weber states according to Franklin’s words was that “he gets nothing out of his wealth for himself, except the irrational sense of having done his job well” (Weber, 33). Maybe I’m just stubborn, but I can not see why people would earn money just because they wanted to get the job well done. I work in a retail store where customer service from the employees are high, but we all know that customers can be a b**** sometimes to the employees. This doesn’t make me want to do my job well, it just makes me give out the minimum required work I am required to do and get the h** out of that workplace. I work to get the money because I have a purpose to spend it somewhere.
Now if I were to tell of a time I was stuck in an iron cage. To me, I understand iron cage to be a moment in which I question my purpose in doing an activity. I could say that what I do for a living is called into question. I hate my job because it’s underpaid and overworked. If there’s any place that needs a union, retail needs a union. Yet, I know I can find a better job with a better wage, but why don’t I? Why do I still work for this place? That’s when I don’t even know the answer myself. Perhaps it’s because there are no other places hiring near my place; I don’t have the qualifications; I don’t have the time to work the required minimum hours per week, etc. How Weber made me understand my dilemma here is that I still work at my crappy job because honestly, I like looking at good clothes and I like keeping a place clean so whenever I work, I keep the clothes in the shop neat and orderly. It makes me feel good about myself when I see all the rows of clothes so neatly hung and folded that any thoughts of money wouldn’t satisfy. It made me feel good that I did a job well done when I leave work thinking my section is clean.
Now if I were to tell of a time I was stuck in an iron cage. To me, I understand iron cage to be a moment in which I question my purpose in doing an activity. I could say that what I do for a living is called into question. I hate my job because it’s underpaid and overworked. If there’s any place that needs a union, retail needs a union. Yet, I know I can find a better job with a better wage, but why don’t I? Why do I still work for this place? That’s when I don’t even know the answer myself. Perhaps it’s because there are no other places hiring near my place; I don’t have the qualifications; I don’t have the time to work the required minimum hours per week, etc. How Weber made me understand my dilemma here is that I still work at my crappy job because honestly, I like looking at good clothes and I like keeping a place clean so whenever I work, I keep the clothes in the shop neat and orderly. It makes me feel good about myself when I see all the rows of clothes so neatly hung and folded that any thoughts of money wouldn’t satisfy. It made me feel good that I did a job well done when I leave work thinking my section is clean.
Capitalist Explains Chile’s Lost History
In my external writing #3, I mentioned Marc Cooper’s book, Pinochet and Me, as a primary evident for my argument. Pinochet and Me is one of the few history books that I read but actually enjoy and think a lot about. In his book, Cooper uses his experience to explain how Chile transformed when Pinochet takes power. As a summary of the book (so that people know what I’m talking about), the first part is when Chile under Allende, a socialist president, people (or mostly people in the working class) consider “freedom” as ‘workers take over the factories and have enough food every meals’. The second part, Chile is under Pinochet’s reign, people ‘take a car full of groceries and leave it there before paying, talk on fake/wooden cellphone while driving’ and consider the ability to buy things as “freedom” (it’s all down to money). Then the last part, the connection between Chile’s lost history and the younger generation, is about how a lot of ignorant and younger people call Pinochet a national hero, who brings Chile to this “freedom” (the second freedom).
I couldn’t make sense of the second part up until now. How can these same people who support Allende and the “first freedom”, or freedom as a whole, are now so obsessed with this “second freedom”, or individual/materialize freedom. Now, Weber explains everything. For this part, where people act like they are rich, I find this quote is best fit: “[T]he earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any eudaemonistic, not to say hedonistic, admixture. It is thought of so purely as an end in itself, that from the point of view of the happiness of, or utility to, the single individual, it appears entirely transcendental and absolutely irrational. Man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of life” (Weber 18). Now I can explain that the second part is where the transform of Chile takes place. The already poor Chileans who fight for “freedom” (the first freedom) now, under the dictatorship, are even poorer. At this point, they really have the desire for materials, and stuffs. Weber says, “The capitalistic economy of the present day is an immense cosmos into which the individual is born, and which presents itself to him, at least as an individual, as an unalterable order of things in which he must live. It forces the individual, in so far as he is involved in the system of market relationships, to conform to capitalistic rules of action. The manufacturer who in the long run acts counter to these norms, will just as inevitably be eliminated from the economic scene as the worker who cannot or will not adapt himself to them will be thrown into the streets without a job” (Weber 20), which simply means those under capitalism have to keep/try to keep earning money or they will starve. This explain how the Chileans at this point all change their view of freedom (from the first one to the second one), they simply follow the capitalism rules that dictates their lives.
my calling as an anti-capitalist, and other dichotomies in my life
Oh man, when I read that this was the question for the blog this week, you have no idea how excited I was. It's no secret that this is something that I am really passionate about. I spend all day every day thinking about this topic, so please excuse me if this gets a little long.
I joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in mid-2010, but I had been in the process of becoming more radicalized for a while. But joining the union was a big turning point in the development of my class consciousness and my understanding of how, in the words of Weber, "the order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which to-day determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concered with economic acquisition, with irresistible force." (123). The IWW is often called a radical or militant union, usually because the tactics that we use and have used over the course of our 106 year history are new, revolutionary, and many times much more intense than those used by more traditional unions. We also stand for ideals that are considered more "radical" or "revolutionary". For example, in the preamble to our constitution, it states, "Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work,' we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system.'" The entire point of the IWW, and the labor movement in general (at least pre-WWII), is to break free of the "iron cage" that has entrapped the working-class. This reminds me of the traditionalist vs. capitalist thinking regarding wages that Weber discusses on pages 23-25.
However, there are even aspects of this that unknowingly fall into the category of "callings", in the sense that Weber discusses, namely "the valuation of the fulfilment of duty in worldy affairs as the highest form which the moral activity of the individual could assume." (40). "It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism," a line from the preamble, has its roots in the Marxist idea of the mission of the working-class. But upon closer inspection after reading Weber, I have thought about this in a new light. This idea of a "mission" is very similar to Luther's "calling", regardless of Marx's stance on religion. This shows how deeply these protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism have permeated our culture in ways we rarely realize, and particularly within groups that are generally extremely conscious of the influences of capitalism.
I know this totally sounds like I am just trying to play up my union in this, but I promise, it has a point. For one, since the ideas of the IWW are so close to my own, it makes sense to quote our documents to help explain my own beliefs surrounding this issue. Also, the points I brought up about callings in the last paragraph lead into my own personal story. At other points in my life, I have felt as if I had "found a calling", whether it was as a jazz musician when I was a huge band nerd in high school, or as an advocate for a local food chain when I first started working at the Co-op 2 years ago. But to be honest, I have never put as much energy into my "calling" as I have as an organizer and member in the IWW. Seriously, if I was actually getting paid for this, I would be completely indistinguishable from the capitalist that Weber says, "...make[s] it the sole purpose of his life-work, to sink into the grave weighed down with a great material load of money and goods, seems to him [the pre-capitalist] explicable only as the product of a perverse instinct," (33) or "[has] an unusually strong character [that] could save the entrepreneur of this new type from the loss of his temperate self-control and from both moral and economic shipwreck." (31). As much distain as Wobblies hold for capitalism and its spirit, our actions reek of Benjamin Franklin's ideal capitalist, described by Weber of page 33, who "gets nothing out of his wealth for himself, except the irrational sense of having done his job well." Of course, the word "wealth" would have to be replaced with "the overthrow of capitalism and neo-liberalism", but the sentence still stands. The same force that drives the bourgeois-capitalist to ever-higher profitability also drives my Fellow Workers and I to go to the measures that we do for the purpose of furthering the class struggle.
The biggest realization that I came to through reading Weber (and only worked out more through writing this blog post), is that however much anarcho-syndicalists like myself think we are conscious of the political and economic implications of our words and actions, we are still highly influenced by the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. We don't realize it for two reasons. The first is that we are incredibly self-assured in our beliefs, and often forget to step back and check ourselves. The second is that, since we have been raised in this Western, capitalist, and liberal culture, we are no less trapped in the prevailing mentalité than even the least class-conscious person in the country. Coming back to the preamble to the IWW constitution for a second, the first line reads, "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common." I do agree with this statement in many ways, and I could write 100 blog posts discussing why, but after reading and thinking about Weber's ideas in relation to the IWW, I no longer believe that the line in the sand is as deep as I used to think. We clearly have somethings in common: our commitments to our callings, our entrapment in the "iron cage", and our deep roots in the protestant ethic.
I joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in mid-2010, but I had been in the process of becoming more radicalized for a while. But joining the union was a big turning point in the development of my class consciousness and my understanding of how, in the words of Weber, "the order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which to-day determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concered with economic acquisition, with irresistible force." (123). The IWW is often called a radical or militant union, usually because the tactics that we use and have used over the course of our 106 year history are new, revolutionary, and many times much more intense than those used by more traditional unions. We also stand for ideals that are considered more "radical" or "revolutionary". For example, in the preamble to our constitution, it states, "Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work,' we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system.'" The entire point of the IWW, and the labor movement in general (at least pre-WWII), is to break free of the "iron cage" that has entrapped the working-class. This reminds me of the traditionalist vs. capitalist thinking regarding wages that Weber discusses on pages 23-25.
However, there are even aspects of this that unknowingly fall into the category of "callings", in the sense that Weber discusses, namely "the valuation of the fulfilment of duty in worldy affairs as the highest form which the moral activity of the individual could assume." (40). "It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism," a line from the preamble, has its roots in the Marxist idea of the mission of the working-class. But upon closer inspection after reading Weber, I have thought about this in a new light. This idea of a "mission" is very similar to Luther's "calling", regardless of Marx's stance on religion. This shows how deeply these protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism have permeated our culture in ways we rarely realize, and particularly within groups that are generally extremely conscious of the influences of capitalism.
I know this totally sounds like I am just trying to play up my union in this, but I promise, it has a point. For one, since the ideas of the IWW are so close to my own, it makes sense to quote our documents to help explain my own beliefs surrounding this issue. Also, the points I brought up about callings in the last paragraph lead into my own personal story. At other points in my life, I have felt as if I had "found a calling", whether it was as a jazz musician when I was a huge band nerd in high school, or as an advocate for a local food chain when I first started working at the Co-op 2 years ago. But to be honest, I have never put as much energy into my "calling" as I have as an organizer and member in the IWW. Seriously, if I was actually getting paid for this, I would be completely indistinguishable from the capitalist that Weber says, "...make[s] it the sole purpose of his life-work, to sink into the grave weighed down with a great material load of money and goods, seems to him [the pre-capitalist] explicable only as the product of a perverse instinct," (33) or "[has] an unusually strong character [that] could save the entrepreneur of this new type from the loss of his temperate self-control and from both moral and economic shipwreck." (31). As much distain as Wobblies hold for capitalism and its spirit, our actions reek of Benjamin Franklin's ideal capitalist, described by Weber of page 33, who "gets nothing out of his wealth for himself, except the irrational sense of having done his job well." Of course, the word "wealth" would have to be replaced with "the overthrow of capitalism and neo-liberalism", but the sentence still stands. The same force that drives the bourgeois-capitalist to ever-higher profitability also drives my Fellow Workers and I to go to the measures that we do for the purpose of furthering the class struggle.
The biggest realization that I came to through reading Weber (and only worked out more through writing this blog post), is that however much anarcho-syndicalists like myself think we are conscious of the political and economic implications of our words and actions, we are still highly influenced by the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. We don't realize it for two reasons. The first is that we are incredibly self-assured in our beliefs, and often forget to step back and check ourselves. The second is that, since we have been raised in this Western, capitalist, and liberal culture, we are no less trapped in the prevailing mentalité than even the least class-conscious person in the country. Coming back to the preamble to the IWW constitution for a second, the first line reads, "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common." I do agree with this statement in many ways, and I could write 100 blog posts discussing why, but after reading and thinking about Weber's ideas in relation to the IWW, I no longer believe that the line in the sand is as deep as I used to think. We clearly have somethings in common: our commitments to our callings, our entrapment in the "iron cage", and our deep roots in the protestant ethic.
Am I Lacking?
So what I took out of this writing was basically that there is a "spirit" of modern capitalism and that as individuals we all are seen to have a duty to prosper. What's more, there is capitalistic ethic or obligation we should all feel towards our professional career. I think this is a really easy concept for all of us to fit into our mentalite' because we are all in college here to accomplish something. Due to this, in searching for a personal experience where this is displayed I could think of too many to count. So, I then decided to take a different route. Currently I work as a manager for a hotel and for the most part am pretty okay with my job. But, since I have been in this position over a year now, recently my boss has been pressuring to start training for an advanced position, and I really don't think I want to. The "spirit" just isn't with me. I can somewhat relate to Webers reference to Jacob Fugger and his business associate speaking of when then should quit working. "What is the former case was an expression of commercial daring and a personal inclination morally neutral, in the latter takes on the character of an ethically coloured maxim for the conduct of life." Now I of course am not declining this opportunity with the same intent of well being for others, but rather, I don't really feel like working longer hours for only a slightly higher pay. In this sense I guess my outlook is more towards what Weber describes as traditionalism. Of course you can all rest assured that I will not be the downfall for modern capitalism for with in me somewhere is the desire to improve and prosper, I think that part of my "spirit" is just hibernating until I finish college. Someday I will embrace and internalize the non-natural capitalistic values thrust upon us all by society.
A Fragmented Spirit
It's been a while since I believed in God, but I still can feel that soft reverence when I enter a beautiful, empty church: with the light streaming in from stained-glass windows; the wooden pews, smooth and solemn; the altar, ritually composed. The silence begs for singing.
I experience a feeling akin to this reverence when I enter a library -- but it's tinged with an ecstasy, a hunger. Sometimes I run to Wilson after class and chase after references made in a lecture, or connections I've found in a text. I plunge gleefully into the depths of the catalog, rushing (as quietly and inconspicuously as possible) from floor to floor in the search. Hours later, I emerge exhausted and half-crazed, triumphantly clutching a small pile books, thrilled with the potential of the words in my hands.
It is perhaps the unassuming, modest guise of the capitalist spirit which makes it so difficult to defeat. Yes, defeat -- because if I could, I would stamp it out of my life. It is already easy for me to pretend to be an anti-capitalist, through and through -- because I honestly do believe that it is that hunger for learning, that reverence for text, that keeps me in school. School is where I find meaning. And although I do hope to find a rather comfortable and well-paying job related to that degree, I don't want the job to earn money for the sake of earning money. I like to think of myself as a traditionalist, in Weber's sense -- I just want money so I can have a place to live, and have food to eat, and pay my bills. The reason I want to be a professor is not because of the extra money; it's because of the job itself.
But isn't that the epitomy of the calling? Weber doesn't drag the ideas of identity or self into his concept of the calling, but I think they may be relevant. I remember in middle school and high school taking tests which were supposed to help me find the career I was most suited for -- the job which was the most "me". For those of us who are too sophisticated (and I use that word with humor) to believe in God's plan, or God's calling, we satiate that secret need by pretending that our jobs are a natural extension of who we are. The job is not just a means of earning money; it is "the result and the expression of virtue and proficiency in a calling" (19). Moreover, though I insist I am not interested in making more money than I need, there is -- especially since getting married -- a sense that I need to earn more, to save up, "to provide for my children and grandchildren" (32). Even if I don't consciously legimitize the desire to earn capital as an end in itself, the desire for capital is legimitized anyway, because there seems to be no end to need.
There is a darker side to my library story. A professor (and good friend) of mine once scolded our class for not being more dedicated, more meek and driven students. When I was in college, he bragged, we used to spend 6 hours in the library! I remember feeling instantly defiant, because that's a silly and superficial way to measure a student's dedication and learning -- but I was also nagged by doubt, and guilt. And it is a feeling I still have: that if I'm not staying up all hours of the night writing papers, or if I'm not holing myself up in the library during dinner, I'm not fulfilling my duty as a student. I am not playing my role as completely and passionately as I should be.
The feeling is the worst when I get home from one of my library-book binges, realize how tired I am, and set the books down on the table. I know I will not get to them today, or probably even tomorrow. I know they will sit there for two weeks, untouched. My grade will not suffer because of it; my career will remain unharmed. But I will be less of an exceptional student, and I feel that being a worse student will make me a lesser person.
Weber wrote that for the capitalists, "business with its continuous work has become a necessary part of their lives. That is in fact the only possible motivation, but it at the same time expresses what is, seen from the view-point of personal happiness, so irrational about this sort of life, where a man exists for the sake of his business, instead of the reverse" (32). To learn, to be a student and an academic, has become my business -- and it is not enough to pass. I must earn more in every respect -- more knowledge, more recognition, and more skill. I often sacrifice my personal happiness in order to achieve this, and it never seems to be enough. I wonder, though, if perhaps my chosen profession also exists for the sake of me, and my happiness -- because clearly, academia gives me much pleasure. For me, I think, it is often the sharp divide between private life and 'professional' life which causes me the most pain -- and this, arguably, is also one of the effects of liberalization.
Are wages more important?
During my senior year of high school, I didn’t get into my first choice college. It had never really occurred to me that this might happen, and it left me very unsure about where to go from there. I was choosing between Northwestern, McGill and Minnesota. And then it sort of occurred to me that maybe I wouldn’t go to school the following year; I decided that I wanted to take a gap year. I’ve always been a dedicated student, so me returning to school after the gap year wasn’t really a concern. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the best way to appeal to my parents might be money. Northwestern costs about $50,000 a year, McGill (which is where I think I would have gone otherwise) is about $35,000, and Minnesota is less than half of that. I put together this whole powerpoint proposal, and said that if they let me take a gap year, I would go to Minnesota and they would actually end up saving money. This would end up being like 5 years of school, but since Minnesota is a quarter of the cost of Northwestern, they'd still end up saving almost a hundred thousand dollars. I couldn't believe it, but my plan worked. They agreed to let me take a gap year, and I accepted my enrollment at Minnesota. My stepdad though that I should use the year to learn a "skill." We're still not sure what exactly he meant by this- I would be an awful carpenter- but his point was that I need to learn to do something useful that will help me in the future, that I can use to my advantage and use to make money. “Man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life” (18) It was beside the point that I was still going to go to college (and am now planning on going to graduate school for art history, so many would argue that I'll never really acquire a "skill" of any sort), but he wanted me to do something useful with my time that would have a direct link to allowing me to make money later in my life. Nevertheless, my mom and I ended up winning the argument: I spent a semester in India, a couple months at an internship at home in Chicago, and then another semester in Scotland. The funniest part of the story, which is probably more related to Weber than the rest of the what I've been saying, is my uncle (the same uncle, Ben, to whom I wrote external writing #2). He is a stock broker. I don't know if he likes his job, but he is good at it and makes a lot of money. “He gets nothing out of his wealth for himself, except the irrational sense of having done his job well” (33) He is wealthy, but very, very frugal (he won't buy butter unless it's on sale, for example). When he found out that I was planning on taking a gap year, he didn't approve. Not because he thought it was a waste of time, or because he was scared that I wasn't going to go to college afterwards. He didn't approve because he saw it as me missing out on a year's worth of wages. I would graduate from college a year later, and so I would make one year's less money. “Whoever does not adapt his manner of life to the conditions of capitalism success must go under, or at least cannot rise.” (34) I think his point of view is ridiculous: I had a great time, learned a lot, and grew as a person: isn't that more important than earning wages a year quicker? But I don't know, I guess Weber would agree with him.
I wish to live deliberately!
I apologize in advance for the length of this blog! Apparently, I had a lot to say:)
Although capitalism seems to be somewhat of a God-given truth these days, and many are in a rat race to make more and more money, but becoming more and more drained…it doesn’t have to be like this! I have been lucky enough to see it for myself, and to have a wonderful father, who has always encouraged me to do what I love, money aside.
There was an instance in Weber that reminded me of something my dad brings up a lot. As an engineer, he has had the opportunity to live and work in Germany, Weber’s homeland (I too have lived there on two different occasions). One thing we noticed were some major differences in mentalité in the United States and Germany. When Weber describes modern capitalism, he mentions “the summum bonum of this ethic, the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any eudaemonistic, not to say hedonistic, admixture” (Weber 18). This loss of enjoyment and free time in the US is a bit of a contrast to Germany, even today. For instance, many Germans get about six weeks of vacation a year. Lots of stores, especially in southern Germany and in small towns, will actually close for an hour or two around lunchtime for “Mittagsschlaf”, a midday nap! People drop their work for an hour or so, to get some much-needed rest. So my dad’s question was, how is it that Germany is one of the most productive countries in the world, yet they can still have these privileges, yet here in the United States, most places don’t have naptime, and one is lucky to get two, maybe three weeks of vacation a year? Why can’t “we” be more like “them”?!? One possibility lies in Weber: “The old leisurely and comfortable attitude toward life gave way to a hard frugality in which some participated and came to the top, because they did not wish to consume but to ear, while others who wished to keep on with the old ways were forced to curtail their consumption” (30). I realize that there are exceptions, but generally, there is a very different mentality between these two countries. Germans know how to enjoy life, and there is a lot we can learn from them!
This leads to the larger issue of moneymaking in general, something that I struggle with. There is an expectation to go out in the world and make money (even if you don’t like your job )so you can live comfortably. But what about doing what you love? A lot of people wonder why I am staying in university for four years, when I could have finished in three. I should be out there ASAP, so I can get started in the “real world” and work at a “real job” and make money, right? Wrong. I stayed in school longer so I could study abroad, and so I could get another major. Were these necessary? No. Could I have saved a lot of money? Yes. But I think that Weber and the traditionalists would agree: “That anyone should be able to make it the sole purpose of his life-work, to sink into the grave weighed down with a great material load of money and goods, seems to him explicable only as the product of a perverse instinct, the auri sacr fames” (33). Material isn’t everything!
My sentiments can be summed up best by one of the best American writers, Henry David Thoreau, who interestingly died right around the time when Weber was born. “I went to the woods because I wanted to live deliberately, I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, To put to rout all that was not life and not when I had come to die Discover that I had not lived.” The way I see it, there is no point becoming obsessed with making money, and getting to the end of your life, only to realize that you never really lived.
Although capitalism seems to be somewhat of a God-given truth these days, and many are in a rat race to make more and more money, but becoming more and more drained…it doesn’t have to be like this! I have been lucky enough to see it for myself, and to have a wonderful father, who has always encouraged me to do what I love, money aside.
There was an instance in Weber that reminded me of something my dad brings up a lot. As an engineer, he has had the opportunity to live and work in Germany, Weber’s homeland (I too have lived there on two different occasions). One thing we noticed were some major differences in mentalité in the United States and Germany. When Weber describes modern capitalism, he mentions “the summum bonum of this ethic, the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any eudaemonistic, not to say hedonistic, admixture” (Weber 18). This loss of enjoyment and free time in the US is a bit of a contrast to Germany, even today. For instance, many Germans get about six weeks of vacation a year. Lots of stores, especially in southern Germany and in small towns, will actually close for an hour or two around lunchtime for “Mittagsschlaf”, a midday nap! People drop their work for an hour or so, to get some much-needed rest. So my dad’s question was, how is it that Germany is one of the most productive countries in the world, yet they can still have these privileges, yet here in the United States, most places don’t have naptime, and one is lucky to get two, maybe three weeks of vacation a year? Why can’t “we” be more like “them”?!? One possibility lies in Weber: “The old leisurely and comfortable attitude toward life gave way to a hard frugality in which some participated and came to the top, because they did not wish to consume but to ear, while others who wished to keep on with the old ways were forced to curtail their consumption” (30). I realize that there are exceptions, but generally, there is a very different mentality between these two countries. Germans know how to enjoy life, and there is a lot we can learn from them!
This leads to the larger issue of moneymaking in general, something that I struggle with. There is an expectation to go out in the world and make money (even if you don’t like your job )so you can live comfortably. But what about doing what you love? A lot of people wonder why I am staying in university for four years, when I could have finished in three. I should be out there ASAP, so I can get started in the “real world” and work at a “real job” and make money, right? Wrong. I stayed in school longer so I could study abroad, and so I could get another major. Were these necessary? No. Could I have saved a lot of money? Yes. But I think that Weber and the traditionalists would agree: “That anyone should be able to make it the sole purpose of his life-work, to sink into the grave weighed down with a great material load of money and goods, seems to him explicable only as the product of a perverse instinct, the auri sacr fames” (33). Material isn’t everything!
My sentiments can be summed up best by one of the best American writers, Henry David Thoreau, who interestingly died right around the time when Weber was born. “I went to the woods because I wanted to live deliberately, I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, To put to rout all that was not life and not when I had come to die Discover that I had not lived.” The way I see it, there is no point becoming obsessed with making money, and getting to the end of your life, only to realize that you never really lived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)