My recent post on PZ Myers’ lecture has generated a lot of discussion. There were a number of excellent comments that deserve full responses. Also, since there were many first-timers to this blog, I thought it would be worthwhile to put in a word of explanation as to who I am and the nature of this blog. First off, while I am a theist and a practicing Orthodox Jew, I welcome people and ideas of all sorts. I am not trying to preach to anyone or convince anyone to follow any particular system of belief and practice. I try to treat everyone with respect. For example, I have received positive comments from Mormons for my postings on Mormonism, thanking me for treating them fairly. This, I think, comes out of the fact that this blog exists more for my education and my personal search than for anyone else. I wish to understand people on their own terms. So no matter whom you are or what you believe, I am interested in you and what you believe for its own sake. I want you to help me understand.
I come from a specific place, which affects what sort of questions I ask and the issues that I interest myself in. Obviously, as with the thinkers I study professionally, I am also a product of my environment and time period. If I were to put an overarching thesis to my thought it would be: I have rejected much of the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) upbringing of my youth, but am critical of what I see in modern secularism so I am left trying to consider alternatives. Underlying this thesis are the questions of why I am not Haredi, or, for that matter, any other type of religious fundamentalist, and why am I not a secularist.
For the purposes of this blog, religious fundamentalism is a response to modernity that argues that one’s sacred texts are by definition the Truth and therefore any claims made by the methods of thought developed by modernity that contradict said sacred texts are by definition false. The irony of this is that religious fundamentalism is as much a product of modernity as the secularism it is supposed to oppose. Secularism is the ideology that one should operate outside of any traditional religion. It should be noted that secular is not the same as being an atheist. One can believe in God and still choose not to accept any established religion.
I strongly suspect that most of those who commented on my previous post will strongly be able to identify with my rejection of religious fundamentalism and it is likely that on that front we share a lot in common. It is the second question of why I am not a secularist that seems to befuddle many. So why am I not working “toward helping to advance humanity out of the shadows of religion toward the sunlight of secularism?” What do I have against secularism? “Is it the scientific facts underpinning secularism or the chaotic freedom of the social aspects that [I] disagree with? And if it is the latter, is that based on personal distaste for modern culture or leftover religious proscriptions? Why would a seemingly rational person like myself “who accepts facts through the lens of inquiry, not dogma” refuse to eat food that was not kosher?
I am glad that so many of you are willing to give me the benefit of doubt that I am a rational being and not some superstitious relic from an ancient world. I believe I owe you the respect to not try to preach to you or to try to claim that my way of doing things is some unchallengeable only road to the Truth. For one thing, I do not believe that myself about my own beliefs. I am just a graduate student in his mid-twenties trying to make an educated rational guess as to the nature of this world and trying to come up with a plausible way of living based on that best guess. What I will try, in this post and in the future, is to prove worthy of your benefit of the doubt by making the case for my rationality.
(To be continued …)
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Atheist Convention in Columbus
(For those of you who did not grow up in the Orthodox Jewish community during the mid 90s, the title refers to a song, “the Atheist Convention in L.A.” The song is about a Muslim atheist, a Christian atheist and a Jewish atheist traveling to Los Angeles for an atheist convention. During the flight there is an accident and the plane begins to go down. The three atheists, believing that they are going to die, all begin to pray. The plane mysteriously manages to right itself and everyone on board is saved. The song ends with the three atheists each returning to their ancestral faith.)
This past Saturday evening, the Humanist Community of Central Ohio hosted Pharyngula’s Dr. PZ Myers as part of their banquet in honor of Darwin Day. The event was held at the Fawcett Center, just a few blocks away from where I live. As a reader of Pharyngula, I did not want to miss the opportunity. I did not want to attend the banquet, though, since it cost $25 for students and it would not have been kosher anyway so I contacted the Humanist Community to find out if I could come just for the lecture and they very nicely said yes, though they recommended a $5 donation, which was perfectly reasonable.
PZ Myers is an atheist in the Richard Dawkins mold, known for his hard-hitting polemics. I expected more of the same here. The PZ Myers I heard and got to speak briefly with afterward managed to surprise me. He was not the internet polemicist that I was familiar with, but a scholar, a biologist and a gentleman. He spoke magnificently, putting complex ideas across in ways that a lay audience could understand without talking down to them. What particularly gained him respect in my eyes was that he avoided taking potshots at William Paley, the nineteenth-century English theologian who authored the famous watchmaker argument for design, and actually praised him. I only wish that more people could see Dr. PZ Myers of the University of Minnesota-Morris and not just PZ Myers of Pharyngula; our cultural discourse would be all the healthier for it.
Here are my notes summarizing Dr. Myers’ lecture. As always any mistakes are mine.
Darwin and Design by PZ Myers
Charles Darwin went on his famous five-year sea voyage (1831-36) on the Beagle, during which time he formulated his theory when he was twenty-two years old. We are used to thinking of Darwin as an old man with a beard, but he was really not that much older than our college students when he began his work on evolution. Darwin did not immediately publish his thoughts upon his return to England. He spent more than twenty years doing further research, particularly on barnacles. This is one of the things that scientists today so love about him.
To put Darwin’s argument in syllogistic form:
If there is a variability in a population
If success correlates to variation
If excess reproduction occurs
If variation is heritable
Than the relative frequency of the different variants must change (adaption will occur)
It should be pointed out that, in practice, there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. It is all really one thing.
It is interesting to note that Thomas Huxley, later known as “Darwin’s bulldog” started off as an opponent of evolution, but was converted upon reading a draft of the Origin of Species.
Darwin was heavily influenced by William Paley and his book, Natural Theology. Paley wished to show how complex the natural world was and how this necessitated a creator. Paley acted as a sort of scientist, though coming from a theological perspective, and you have to respect him for that. A big chunk of the Origin of Species is a rebuttal to Paley. Darwin blew Intelligent Design out of the water in 1859.
Biologists can show how complex designs can come about from simple designs. This process is called Bricolage. This term is taken from the arts; one tinkers with existing designs and creates something new from it. What we see in the natural world is cobbled together from different pieces.
It is difficult to define complexity. For example, the driftwood debris at Olympia beach in Washington is complex, far more complex than a brick wall, but came about through a natural process. It would be very difficult to draw the debris and it serves a multitude of purposes, such as food for various organisms, yet it is all due to chance. Random things are much more complex than things that are designed.
Human beings are complex. Brad Pitt, for example is a metazoan. He possesses approximately 5 x 1013 cells and twenty thousand genes. 4% of these genes are for adhesion, 12% signaling and 6% act as switches. His brain consists of 1012 cells, 1011 neurons and 1014 synopses.
This is what creationists do; point out how complex life is and say that God must have done it. Of course simply saying that God did it is not very interesting. Much of what we see in such a complex metazoan as Brad Pitt is reproduced in simple organisms.
Choanoflagellates are single cell organisms that have a lot in common with sponges. We see that they are able to clump together and act as a singular organism. This could be a precursor to multi-celled organisms. The Choanoflagellate possesses things that were once thought to be unique to metazoans; they have receptors such as tyrosine kinases, cadherins and integrins. Trichoplax adhaerens are in a phylum all by themselves. Think of them as micro organic versions of the Blob. They possess genes found in complex brains like ours. In essence our brain is a glorified digestive system. What we think is special about us exists in simpler organisms, serving another purpose.
But evolution can also create things. Nylonase bacteria eat nylon, a product which did not exist before the 1930s. A Japanese nylon factory was dumping waste into the local river and sure enough within a matter of decades the bacteria had evolved to be able to eat nylon. What we have here is a frameshift where a previously useless protein turns out to be useful in binding to nylon. The bacteria were able to exploit this.
In conclusion, nature is not an engineer. The factors that play a role in change are chance, modularity, multifunctionality, incremental tinkering and contingency.
There was a question and answer session following the lecture where Dr. Myers again proved to be far more congenial and far more open to certain nuances than he is on Pharyngula. He acknowledged the need for multiple approaches such as trying to build bridges as opposed to the no holds barred method of attack usually employed by him and Dawkins. Myers noted that part of the problem with attacking organized religion is that many people out there have deeply religious relatives who are wonderful people whom they love. So when you attack religion people take it as a personal attack on their grandmother or the like. (This is somewhat disingenuous on his part as his attacks can get quite personal.) He talked a bit about the documentary Expelled. He had a great story about him trying to go see a pre-screening with Dawkins. Apparently Myers was recognized and kicked out, but nobody kicked out Dawkins. So they got the best of both worlds. He got expelled from Expelled, which allowed him to avoid having to sit through it, and Dawkins got to watch it and write a nasty review of it. As Myers sees it they made the right decision to actively oppose the film even though it made slightly more money, mostly from atheists going to see it, because at the end of the day the film was received negatively. This was a better outcome than if the film had been allowed to just pass unnoticed.
This past Saturday evening, the Humanist Community of Central Ohio hosted Pharyngula’s Dr. PZ Myers as part of their banquet in honor of Darwin Day. The event was held at the Fawcett Center, just a few blocks away from where I live. As a reader of Pharyngula, I did not want to miss the opportunity. I did not want to attend the banquet, though, since it cost $25 for students and it would not have been kosher anyway so I contacted the Humanist Community to find out if I could come just for the lecture and they very nicely said yes, though they recommended a $5 donation, which was perfectly reasonable.
PZ Myers is an atheist in the Richard Dawkins mold, known for his hard-hitting polemics. I expected more of the same here. The PZ Myers I heard and got to speak briefly with afterward managed to surprise me. He was not the internet polemicist that I was familiar with, but a scholar, a biologist and a gentleman. He spoke magnificently, putting complex ideas across in ways that a lay audience could understand without talking down to them. What particularly gained him respect in my eyes was that he avoided taking potshots at William Paley, the nineteenth-century English theologian who authored the famous watchmaker argument for design, and actually praised him. I only wish that more people could see Dr. PZ Myers of the University of Minnesota-Morris and not just PZ Myers of Pharyngula; our cultural discourse would be all the healthier for it.
Here are my notes summarizing Dr. Myers’ lecture. As always any mistakes are mine.
Darwin and Design by PZ Myers
Charles Darwin went on his famous five-year sea voyage (1831-36) on the Beagle, during which time he formulated his theory when he was twenty-two years old. We are used to thinking of Darwin as an old man with a beard, but he was really not that much older than our college students when he began his work on evolution. Darwin did not immediately publish his thoughts upon his return to England. He spent more than twenty years doing further research, particularly on barnacles. This is one of the things that scientists today so love about him.
To put Darwin’s argument in syllogistic form:
If there is a variability in a population
If success correlates to variation
If excess reproduction occurs
If variation is heritable
Than the relative frequency of the different variants must change (adaption will occur)
It should be pointed out that, in practice, there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. It is all really one thing.
It is interesting to note that Thomas Huxley, later known as “Darwin’s bulldog” started off as an opponent of evolution, but was converted upon reading a draft of the Origin of Species.
Darwin was heavily influenced by William Paley and his book, Natural Theology. Paley wished to show how complex the natural world was and how this necessitated a creator. Paley acted as a sort of scientist, though coming from a theological perspective, and you have to respect him for that. A big chunk of the Origin of Species is a rebuttal to Paley. Darwin blew Intelligent Design out of the water in 1859.
Biologists can show how complex designs can come about from simple designs. This process is called Bricolage. This term is taken from the arts; one tinkers with existing designs and creates something new from it. What we see in the natural world is cobbled together from different pieces.
It is difficult to define complexity. For example, the driftwood debris at Olympia beach in Washington is complex, far more complex than a brick wall, but came about through a natural process. It would be very difficult to draw the debris and it serves a multitude of purposes, such as food for various organisms, yet it is all due to chance. Random things are much more complex than things that are designed.
Human beings are complex. Brad Pitt, for example is a metazoan. He possesses approximately 5 x 1013 cells and twenty thousand genes. 4% of these genes are for adhesion, 12% signaling and 6% act as switches. His brain consists of 1012 cells, 1011 neurons and 1014 synopses.
This is what creationists do; point out how complex life is and say that God must have done it. Of course simply saying that God did it is not very interesting. Much of what we see in such a complex metazoan as Brad Pitt is reproduced in simple organisms.
Choanoflagellates are single cell organisms that have a lot in common with sponges. We see that they are able to clump together and act as a singular organism. This could be a precursor to multi-celled organisms. The Choanoflagellate possesses things that were once thought to be unique to metazoans; they have receptors such as tyrosine kinases, cadherins and integrins. Trichoplax adhaerens are in a phylum all by themselves. Think of them as micro organic versions of the Blob. They possess genes found in complex brains like ours. In essence our brain is a glorified digestive system. What we think is special about us exists in simpler organisms, serving another purpose.
But evolution can also create things. Nylonase bacteria eat nylon, a product which did not exist before the 1930s. A Japanese nylon factory was dumping waste into the local river and sure enough within a matter of decades the bacteria had evolved to be able to eat nylon. What we have here is a frameshift where a previously useless protein turns out to be useful in binding to nylon. The bacteria were able to exploit this.
In conclusion, nature is not an engineer. The factors that play a role in change are chance, modularity, multifunctionality, incremental tinkering and contingency.
There was a question and answer session following the lecture where Dr. Myers again proved to be far more congenial and far more open to certain nuances than he is on Pharyngula. He acknowledged the need for multiple approaches such as trying to build bridges as opposed to the no holds barred method of attack usually employed by him and Dawkins. Myers noted that part of the problem with attacking organized religion is that many people out there have deeply religious relatives who are wonderful people whom they love. So when you attack religion people take it as a personal attack on their grandmother or the like. (This is somewhat disingenuous on his part as his attacks can get quite personal.) He talked a bit about the documentary Expelled. He had a great story about him trying to go see a pre-screening with Dawkins. Apparently Myers was recognized and kicked out, but nobody kicked out Dawkins. So they got the best of both worlds. He got expelled from Expelled, which allowed him to avoid having to sit through it, and Dawkins got to watch it and write a nasty review of it. As Myers sees it they made the right decision to actively oppose the film even though it made slightly more money, mostly from atheists going to see it, because at the end of the day the film was received negatively. This was a better outcome than if the film had been allowed to just pass unnoticed.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Religious Fundamentalists Gone Absolutely Insane (Or Just Gripped by a Pathological Desire to Swindle the Ignorant)
Rare 200-year-old book—now back in print—confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible!
PRE-ORDER TODAY TO GET A $10 INSTANT REBATE & FREE-SHIPPING!
The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected Volume 1 + FREE CD-ROM
"Years ago I purchased this rare book from a widow in a small West Virginia town. Her late husband was a collector of old history books. Once I opened the book I couldn't put it down. Intricate maps of the ancient world unfolded before my eyes. Fascinating illustrations with the translation of ancient languages and charts with the ages of the Antediluvian Patriarchs were interspersed throughout the text. I've never seen Biblical and Secular history woven together in this way. I've always known that the Bible's history was true--but my faith in God's Word was strengthened like never before." — Ray Vallorani, Co-Founder of Tolle Lege Press (Publishers of the 1599 Geneva Bible)
This special edition of The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected Volume 1: From The Creation of the World to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire by Samuel Shuckford, D.D. was originally published in 1808. Inside you will find intricate fold-out maps of the ancient world such as the location of the Garden of Eden and the settlements of Noah's descendants. You'll also find charts and graphs on the ages of the patriarchs, ancient languages, and more. The author dramatically weaves the historical accounts of the Bible and secular history together into one powerful narrative. Dr. Shuckford's research confirms the accuracy of the Bible—from the Creation and Fall of Man to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire at the death of Sardanapalus, and to the declension of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, under the reigns of Ahaz and Pekah. Hardback with Leather Binding • 500 pages • Gold Foil Stamping • Gold-gilded pages
PRE-ORDER TODAY TO GET A $10 INSTANT REBATE & FREE-SHIPPING!RETAIL $39.95 • ONLY $29.95 with FREE CD-ROM! • PRE-ORDER!
FREE BONUS ITEM WITH YOUR ORDER!: A CD-ROM of the complete book with searchable/ printable text!
I am often critical of atheists like Pharyngula for falling into hysteria over religious fundamentalists. I am someone who believes in maintaining a civil tone and measuring one’s words. I try to see some measure rationality and sanity in all. (I confess that, as someone with Asperger syndrome, this something that I myself have difficulty with and need to constantly work on.) Then there are things, like this recent ad from Townhall that make me just want to scream, tear my hair out and despair of there ever being a popular intellectually credible opposition to modern secularism. Townhall is a conservative site and I am on their daily e-mail list for conservative commentary. (I am also on a number of liberal e-mail lists.) I have not read the book in question so I am not about to pass judgment on the book itself. That being said anyone who reads two-hundred year old works of history in order to learn history does not understand the nature of historical study. The field of ancient history has changed quite a bit in two hundred years, about as much as the natural sciences have over the same period of time. For example, when this book was written the Rosetta stone had only just been discovered and scholars could still not read hieroglyphics yet. For all intents and purposes, back in 1808 we were ignorant children, who knew nothing about ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. By definition, no book written at the time, no matter how scholarly, could be useful in supporting or undermining the historical accuracy of the Bible.
The only excuse one could have for reading such a book is if one was interested in historiography in general and in early nineteenth century Christian scholarship in particular. Townhall should be ashamed of themselves for peddling such wares to the ignorant. Any conservative writer with an ounce of intellectual credibility should refuse to allow themselves to be associated with Townhall or to allow their writing to be posted on its website. Score one for Pharyngula.
PRE-ORDER TODAY TO GET A $10 INSTANT REBATE & FREE-SHIPPING!
The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected Volume 1 + FREE CD-ROM
"Years ago I purchased this rare book from a widow in a small West Virginia town. Her late husband was a collector of old history books. Once I opened the book I couldn't put it down. Intricate maps of the ancient world unfolded before my eyes. Fascinating illustrations with the translation of ancient languages and charts with the ages of the Antediluvian Patriarchs were interspersed throughout the text. I've never seen Biblical and Secular history woven together in this way. I've always known that the Bible's history was true--but my faith in God's Word was strengthened like never before." — Ray Vallorani, Co-Founder of Tolle Lege Press (Publishers of the 1599 Geneva Bible)
This special edition of The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected Volume 1: From The Creation of the World to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire by Samuel Shuckford, D.D. was originally published in 1808. Inside you will find intricate fold-out maps of the ancient world such as the location of the Garden of Eden and the settlements of Noah's descendants. You'll also find charts and graphs on the ages of the patriarchs, ancient languages, and more. The author dramatically weaves the historical accounts of the Bible and secular history together into one powerful narrative. Dr. Shuckford's research confirms the accuracy of the Bible—from the Creation and Fall of Man to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire at the death of Sardanapalus, and to the declension of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, under the reigns of Ahaz and Pekah. Hardback with Leather Binding • 500 pages • Gold Foil Stamping • Gold-gilded pages
PRE-ORDER TODAY TO GET A $10 INSTANT REBATE & FREE-SHIPPING!RETAIL $39.95 • ONLY $29.95 with FREE CD-ROM! • PRE-ORDER!
FREE BONUS ITEM WITH YOUR ORDER!: A CD-ROM of the complete book with searchable/ printable text!
I am often critical of atheists like Pharyngula for falling into hysteria over religious fundamentalists. I am someone who believes in maintaining a civil tone and measuring one’s words. I try to see some measure rationality and sanity in all. (I confess that, as someone with Asperger syndrome, this something that I myself have difficulty with and need to constantly work on.) Then there are things, like this recent ad from Townhall that make me just want to scream, tear my hair out and despair of there ever being a popular intellectually credible opposition to modern secularism. Townhall is a conservative site and I am on their daily e-mail list for conservative commentary. (I am also on a number of liberal e-mail lists.) I have not read the book in question so I am not about to pass judgment on the book itself. That being said anyone who reads two-hundred year old works of history in order to learn history does not understand the nature of historical study. The field of ancient history has changed quite a bit in two hundred years, about as much as the natural sciences have over the same period of time. For example, when this book was written the Rosetta stone had only just been discovered and scholars could still not read hieroglyphics yet. For all intents and purposes, back in 1808 we were ignorant children, who knew nothing about ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. By definition, no book written at the time, no matter how scholarly, could be useful in supporting or undermining the historical accuracy of the Bible.
The only excuse one could have for reading such a book is if one was interested in historiography in general and in early nineteenth century Christian scholarship in particular. Townhall should be ashamed of themselves for peddling such wares to the ignorant. Any conservative writer with an ounce of intellectual credibility should refuse to allow themselves to be associated with Townhall or to allow their writing to be posted on its website. Score one for Pharyngula.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
History 112: Factory Regulations (Part II)
Part I
Apprenticeship Contract for Young Women Employed in the Silk Mills of Tarare, France, 1850s
Art. 1. To be admitted, young women must be between the ages of thirteen and fifteen, of good character and in good health, intelligent and industrious, and must have been vaccinated. They must present their birth certificate, a certificate of vaccination, and a trousseau.
We are dealing with girls from the country. How many of them have been vaccinated or have birth certificates? In order to get these things these girls are going to have to spend money, which likely means borrowing money. So many of these girls are already going to be starting off in debt. It is a lot easier to take advantage of people who are in debt and are, therefore, not in a position to leave.
Art. 4. The pupil promises to be obedient and submissive to the mistresses charged with her conduct and instruction, as well as to conform to the rules of establishment.
What does it mean to be obedient and submissive? Not to complain about conditions, report abuses or anything to upset the management.
Art. 6. If the sick pupil remains in the establishment, every care necessitated by her condition will be given to her.
Medical care for those who get sick? Not exactly. The management only has to take care of those sick girls that they decide to keep in the establishment. They can just kick out every girl who gets sick and save themselves the trouble.
Art. 8. The director along has the right to authorize or refuse leaves. Hey will be granted only on the request of the father or guardian of the pupil.
Most of these girls are not from the immediate area and their fathers are not on hand to ask for leave. A girl would have to get letter or telegram sent to their father who would then have to send a message back. So for all intents and purposes no requests to leave can be made.
Art. 10. The effective work time is twelve hours. Summer and winter, the day begins at 5 o’clock and ends at 7:15. Breakfast is from 7:30 to 8:15; lunch is from 12:00 to 1:00; snack is from 5:30; supper is at 7:15. After the second year, pupils will receive lessons in reading, writing, and arithmetic. They will be taught to sew and do a little cooking.
So these girls are to be given an education to help them move up in the world. The funny thing is that with all the emphasis on the specific times for everything there is no time given for education. So, for all intents and purposes, we can assume that these girls are not being given a meaningful education. It is not in the management’s interest to do so. People who do not have an educated have fewer options and can be forced to work for less.
Art. 12. Wages are not due until the end of the year. …
Art. 13. Any apprentice who leaves the establishment before the end of her term, or who has been dismissed for bad conduct, conspiracy, rebellion, laziness, or a serious breach of the rules loses her rights to wages for the current year; beyond this, in such a case, the father or guardian of the pupil agrees to pay the director of the establishment the sum of one hundred francs to indemnify him for the non-fulfillment of the present agreement. …
The management can decide to fire a girl in December for bad conduct, conspiracy, rebellion or laziness, which of course can mean anything that upsets the management, and the girl would lose a full year’s pay. Not only that but her father would have to pay the management.
Art. 16. On her arrival, the apprentice will submit to inspection by the house doctor. Any girl who has a skin disease or who found to be sickly will not be accepted and will be sent away immediately at her own expense.
The management can just send girls home whom they decide they do not want and do not have to pay anything. Where would these girls get the money for a return trip? Many of them would have likely needed to borrow money just to make the trip. So will they will have to borrow more money and go further into debt.
(From Documents in European Economic History, vol. 1, the Process of Industrialization, 1750-1870 and Victorian Women: a Documentary Account of Women's Lives in Nineteenth-Century England, France and the United States)
Apprenticeship Contract for Young Women Employed in the Silk Mills of Tarare, France, 1850s
Art. 1. To be admitted, young women must be between the ages of thirteen and fifteen, of good character and in good health, intelligent and industrious, and must have been vaccinated. They must present their birth certificate, a certificate of vaccination, and a trousseau.
We are dealing with girls from the country. How many of them have been vaccinated or have birth certificates? In order to get these things these girls are going to have to spend money, which likely means borrowing money. So many of these girls are already going to be starting off in debt. It is a lot easier to take advantage of people who are in debt and are, therefore, not in a position to leave.
Art. 4. The pupil promises to be obedient and submissive to the mistresses charged with her conduct and instruction, as well as to conform to the rules of establishment.
What does it mean to be obedient and submissive? Not to complain about conditions, report abuses or anything to upset the management.
Art. 6. If the sick pupil remains in the establishment, every care necessitated by her condition will be given to her.
Medical care for those who get sick? Not exactly. The management only has to take care of those sick girls that they decide to keep in the establishment. They can just kick out every girl who gets sick and save themselves the trouble.
Art. 8. The director along has the right to authorize or refuse leaves. Hey will be granted only on the request of the father or guardian of the pupil.
Most of these girls are not from the immediate area and their fathers are not on hand to ask for leave. A girl would have to get letter or telegram sent to their father who would then have to send a message back. So for all intents and purposes no requests to leave can be made.
Art. 10. The effective work time is twelve hours. Summer and winter, the day begins at 5 o’clock and ends at 7:15. Breakfast is from 7:30 to 8:15; lunch is from 12:00 to 1:00; snack is from 5:30; supper is at 7:15. After the second year, pupils will receive lessons in reading, writing, and arithmetic. They will be taught to sew and do a little cooking.
So these girls are to be given an education to help them move up in the world. The funny thing is that with all the emphasis on the specific times for everything there is no time given for education. So, for all intents and purposes, we can assume that these girls are not being given a meaningful education. It is not in the management’s interest to do so. People who do not have an educated have fewer options and can be forced to work for less.
Art. 12. Wages are not due until the end of the year. …
Art. 13. Any apprentice who leaves the establishment before the end of her term, or who has been dismissed for bad conduct, conspiracy, rebellion, laziness, or a serious breach of the rules loses her rights to wages for the current year; beyond this, in such a case, the father or guardian of the pupil agrees to pay the director of the establishment the sum of one hundred francs to indemnify him for the non-fulfillment of the present agreement. …
The management can decide to fire a girl in December for bad conduct, conspiracy, rebellion or laziness, which of course can mean anything that upsets the management, and the girl would lose a full year’s pay. Not only that but her father would have to pay the management.
Art. 16. On her arrival, the apprentice will submit to inspection by the house doctor. Any girl who has a skin disease or who found to be sickly will not be accepted and will be sent away immediately at her own expense.
The management can just send girls home whom they decide they do not want and do not have to pay anything. Where would these girls get the money for a return trip? Many of them would have likely needed to borrow money just to make the trip. So will they will have to borrow more money and go further into debt.
(From Documents in European Economic History, vol. 1, the Process of Industrialization, 1750-1870 and Victorian Women: a Documentary Account of Women's Lives in Nineteenth-Century England, France and the United States)
Sunday, February 8, 2009
History 112: Factory Regulations (Part I)
I would like to discuss the two examples of factory regulations in the reading. It is very easy to what is interesting in the rather lurid accounts by factory workers of their working conditions. By comparison the factory regulations seem rather prosaic. For me it is precisely these factory regulations that interest me. While a casual reading of these regulations may make them appear rather begnin, and this was most likely the intention of those who wrote them, one has to just scratch below the surface to see a far darker picture. These regulations are designed to make it impossible to engage in any form of protest and place workers completely at the mercy of the whims of those in charge.
Rules for Workers in the Foundry and Engineering Works of the Royal Overseas Trading Company, Berlin, 1844
(1) The normal working day begins at all seasons at 6 a.m. precisely and ends, after the usual break of half an hour for breakfast, an hour for dinner and half an hour for tea, at 7 p.m., and it shall be strictly observed. … The doorkeeper shall lock the door punctually at 6 a.m., 8.30 a.m., 1 p.m. and 4.40 p.m. Workers arriving 2 minutes late shall lose half an hour’s wages; whoever is more than 2 minutes late may not start work until after the next break, or at least shall lose his wage until then. Any disputes about the correct time shall be settled by the clock mounted above the gatekeeper’s lodge. … They shall be unconditionally accepted as it will not be possible to enter into any discussions about them.
So we have some pretty extreme penalties for arriving late. Anyone more than two minutes late is in really serious trouble and is going to lose a significant portion of his day’s wages. If there is any dispute or any sort of extenuating circumstances the worker has no means of protest. He is not even allowed to complain.
(5) Entry to the firm’s property by any but the designated gateway, and exit by any prohibited rout, e.g., by climbing fences or walls, or by crossing the Spree, shall be punished by a fine of fifteen silver groschen to the sick fund for the first offence and dismissal for the second.
Why are the entries and exits so carefully guarded? Why is access so carefully monitored? At issue here are not outsiders coming in but the workers themselves. This does not sound like a free and open place full of happy people going about their business. This sounds like an armed fort or even a prison. One assumes that the main concern was sabotage. Why would happy content workers want to damage their own place of work? Why should factory owners be afraid of their own workers?
(7) All conversation with fellow-workers is prohibited; if any worker requires information about his work, he must turn to the overseer, or to the particular fellow-worker designated for the purpose.
This rule seems designed to forestall any attempt to organize or engage in collective action. Considering the hours these workers were putting in, they would not have had any other opportunity to talk to each other about their working conditions except during work hours. What we also have here is what was probably the most common excuse to cover such actions: “I was just asking him to explain something about work.” Again, what we clearly have is a strictly controlled environment in which workers are kept under tight vigilance.
(14) Untrue allegations against superiors or officials of the concern shall lead to stern reprimand, and may lead to dismissal. …
What is the difference between an “untrue” allegation against superiors or officials and a true one, particularly when it is these same superiors and officials who get to decide? For all intents and purposes this clause really means no allegation or complaint, no matter how well based in fact, may be put forth. Anyone who does complain will be fired on the spot.
(15) Every workman is obliged to report to his superiors any acts of dishonesty or embezzlement on the part of his fellow workmen. … Conversely, anyone denouncing a thief in such a way as to allow conviction of the thief shall receive a reward of two Thaler, and, if necessary, his name shall be kept confidential. – Further, the gatekeeper and the watchman, as well as every official, are entitled to search the baskets, parcels, aprons etc. of the women and children who are taking dinners into the works, on their departure, as well as search any worker suspected of stealing any article whatever. …
What we have is a climate where workers are being asked to spy on each other. The rule of the day is complete suspicion of everyone. If this were a government we would label it as absolutely tyrannical.
(To be continued …)
Rules for Workers in the Foundry and Engineering Works of the Royal Overseas Trading Company, Berlin, 1844
(1) The normal working day begins at all seasons at 6 a.m. precisely and ends, after the usual break of half an hour for breakfast, an hour for dinner and half an hour for tea, at 7 p.m., and it shall be strictly observed. … The doorkeeper shall lock the door punctually at 6 a.m., 8.30 a.m., 1 p.m. and 4.40 p.m. Workers arriving 2 minutes late shall lose half an hour’s wages; whoever is more than 2 minutes late may not start work until after the next break, or at least shall lose his wage until then. Any disputes about the correct time shall be settled by the clock mounted above the gatekeeper’s lodge. … They shall be unconditionally accepted as it will not be possible to enter into any discussions about them.
So we have some pretty extreme penalties for arriving late. Anyone more than two minutes late is in really serious trouble and is going to lose a significant portion of his day’s wages. If there is any dispute or any sort of extenuating circumstances the worker has no means of protest. He is not even allowed to complain.
(5) Entry to the firm’s property by any but the designated gateway, and exit by any prohibited rout, e.g., by climbing fences or walls, or by crossing the Spree, shall be punished by a fine of fifteen silver groschen to the sick fund for the first offence and dismissal for the second.
Why are the entries and exits so carefully guarded? Why is access so carefully monitored? At issue here are not outsiders coming in but the workers themselves. This does not sound like a free and open place full of happy people going about their business. This sounds like an armed fort or even a prison. One assumes that the main concern was sabotage. Why would happy content workers want to damage their own place of work? Why should factory owners be afraid of their own workers?
(7) All conversation with fellow-workers is prohibited; if any worker requires information about his work, he must turn to the overseer, or to the particular fellow-worker designated for the purpose.
This rule seems designed to forestall any attempt to organize or engage in collective action. Considering the hours these workers were putting in, they would not have had any other opportunity to talk to each other about their working conditions except during work hours. What we also have here is what was probably the most common excuse to cover such actions: “I was just asking him to explain something about work.” Again, what we clearly have is a strictly controlled environment in which workers are kept under tight vigilance.
(14) Untrue allegations against superiors or officials of the concern shall lead to stern reprimand, and may lead to dismissal. …
What is the difference between an “untrue” allegation against superiors or officials and a true one, particularly when it is these same superiors and officials who get to decide? For all intents and purposes this clause really means no allegation or complaint, no matter how well based in fact, may be put forth. Anyone who does complain will be fired on the spot.
(15) Every workman is obliged to report to his superiors any acts of dishonesty or embezzlement on the part of his fellow workmen. … Conversely, anyone denouncing a thief in such a way as to allow conviction of the thief shall receive a reward of two Thaler, and, if necessary, his name shall be kept confidential. – Further, the gatekeeper and the watchman, as well as every official, are entitled to search the baskets, parcels, aprons etc. of the women and children who are taking dinners into the works, on their departure, as well as search any worker suspected of stealing any article whatever. …
What we have is a climate where workers are being asked to spy on each other. The rule of the day is complete suspicion of everyone. If this were a government we would label it as absolutely tyrannical.
(To be continued …)
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Can You Speak Post-Modern? Embedding Neoliberalism: Crisis, Sexuality and Social Reproduction
This comes from an abstract for a lecture to be given at Ohio State next week, sponsored by the Women’s Studies Department along with the Center for Latin American Studies and the Mershon Center for International Studies. The speaker is Dr. Kate Bedford of the University of Kent UK.
Embedding Neoliberalism: Crisis, Sexuality and Social Reproduction
The talk seeks to intervene in a vibrant and publicly prominent debate within development studies about the role of crisis in “postneoliberal,” or Post Washington Consensus, policymaking. Gender and, especially, sexuality are largely absent from that debate, Dr. Bedford asks: What do contemporary experiences of crisis reveal about the complex interconnections between rupture and shock on one hand, and gender and sexuality on the other? In concrete crisis conditions, which common sense groundworks of the present (re Nikolas Rose) get unsettled, which get re-entrenched, and what is the role of the development industry in this process?
The talk will address how possibilities for alternative regimes of gender and sexuality are affected by economic crisis, using a case study of the World Bank’s response to the 2001-2 Argentine crisis. Using interviews with NGOs and Bank policymakers and fieldwork on a family – strengthening loan entitled PROFAM, Dr. Bedford will argue that the denaturalization of free markets was articulated, in part, through the re-naturalization of monogamous heterosexual couplehood. Changes in the Bank’s agenda were articulated in part through discourses of restoring gender harmony disrupted by economic crisis and in part through a “civilizing” rhetoric that linked “better, more caring” development to the emergence of better, more caring couples. This raises crucial questions about the new regimes of gender and sexuality under construction in contemporary development practice.
Here is my attempted translation and commentary:
This talk is a response to an important debate (at least something that Dr. Bedford thinks is important) within the study of global capitalism’s use of crises now that we have moved past traditional Western thought and now that America is no longer that important (Cheer). Those in power and making policy decisions have not fully embraced radical leftist attempts to change how society views the relationship between men and women. Dr. Bedford asks: What do the experiences of crisis today tell us about the connection between change on one hand and about the relationship between men and women on the other? In specific crisis situations, in which the basic groundworks of today (re Nikolas Rose) are removed, what are the values (that we on the left were supposed to have eliminated) that have (unfortunately) managed to survive, and what is the role of global capitalism in all of this.
The talk will suggest how the economic crisis gets in the way of (leftist) attempts to redefine the relationship between men and women, using the specific case of the World Bank’s response to the 2001-2 Argentine crisis. Using interviews with NGOs and Bank policymakers and fieldwork on a family – strengthening loan entitled PROFAM, Dr. Bedford will argue that the destruction of society perpetuated by free markets has been helped along, in part, by the strengthening of traditional marriage. Changes in the Bank’s agenda were articulated in part by arguing for traditional relations between men and women, which had been affected by the economic crisis, and in part by arguing that caring families made for a caring society. This raises concerns whether those people making policy decisions in developing countries are fully on board with (leftist) attempts to change how men and women relate to each other.
In summary, the point of this piece seems to be that the World Bank is encouraging traditional family values in Argentina and we should not be happy about that.
Embedding Neoliberalism: Crisis, Sexuality and Social Reproduction
The talk seeks to intervene in a vibrant and publicly prominent debate within development studies about the role of crisis in “postneoliberal,” or Post Washington Consensus, policymaking. Gender and, especially, sexuality are largely absent from that debate, Dr. Bedford asks: What do contemporary experiences of crisis reveal about the complex interconnections between rupture and shock on one hand, and gender and sexuality on the other? In concrete crisis conditions, which common sense groundworks of the present (re Nikolas Rose) get unsettled, which get re-entrenched, and what is the role of the development industry in this process?
The talk will address how possibilities for alternative regimes of gender and sexuality are affected by economic crisis, using a case study of the World Bank’s response to the 2001-2 Argentine crisis. Using interviews with NGOs and Bank policymakers and fieldwork on a family – strengthening loan entitled PROFAM, Dr. Bedford will argue that the denaturalization of free markets was articulated, in part, through the re-naturalization of monogamous heterosexual couplehood. Changes in the Bank’s agenda were articulated in part through discourses of restoring gender harmony disrupted by economic crisis and in part through a “civilizing” rhetoric that linked “better, more caring” development to the emergence of better, more caring couples. This raises crucial questions about the new regimes of gender and sexuality under construction in contemporary development practice.
Here is my attempted translation and commentary:
This talk is a response to an important debate (at least something that Dr. Bedford thinks is important) within the study of global capitalism’s use of crises now that we have moved past traditional Western thought and now that America is no longer that important (Cheer). Those in power and making policy decisions have not fully embraced radical leftist attempts to change how society views the relationship between men and women. Dr. Bedford asks: What do the experiences of crisis today tell us about the connection between change on one hand and about the relationship between men and women on the other? In specific crisis situations, in which the basic groundworks of today (re Nikolas Rose) are removed, what are the values (that we on the left were supposed to have eliminated) that have (unfortunately) managed to survive, and what is the role of global capitalism in all of this.
The talk will suggest how the economic crisis gets in the way of (leftist) attempts to redefine the relationship between men and women, using the specific case of the World Bank’s response to the 2001-2 Argentine crisis. Using interviews with NGOs and Bank policymakers and fieldwork on a family – strengthening loan entitled PROFAM, Dr. Bedford will argue that the destruction of society perpetuated by free markets has been helped along, in part, by the strengthening of traditional marriage. Changes in the Bank’s agenda were articulated in part by arguing for traditional relations between men and women, which had been affected by the economic crisis, and in part by arguing that caring families made for a caring society. This raises concerns whether those people making policy decisions in developing countries are fully on board with (leftist) attempts to change how men and women relate to each other.
In summary, the point of this piece seems to be that the World Bank is encouraging traditional family values in Argentina and we should not be happy about that.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
You Can Write Anti-Israel Screeds Based on What You Read on Wikipedia and the Columbus Dispatch Will Print It as If It Were an Op-Ed
The following is a letter I wrote to the Columbus Dispatch in response to a piece they published in the Saturday edition of the paper titled Mideast conflict is based on land, not religion.
I would like to address the editorial board of the Dispatch about its decision to publish Aghlaba Peerzada’s letter, “Mideast conflict is based on land, not religion." This letter was published in such a fashion that it looked like an op-ed from the newspaper. I would say therefore that this letter should be treated, for all intents and purposes, as an op-ed and that the editorial board should be judged as if they had printed Mr. Peerzada’s piece as an op-ed.
I am sure there are many people out there who will respond to Mr. Peerzada’s claims about Israel. I am interested, though, in the Dispatch’s decision to give him the kind of forum that it did. I understand and fully agree that the Dispatch should present a wide variety of viewpoints, particularly those viewpoints that are likely to shock and offend readers. So I have no objection if the Dispatch chooses to print pieces like Mr. Peerzada's that claim that Israel is carrying out a Holocaust. (Just as long as the Dispatch is consistent and gives similar prominent placement to letters from the Ku Klux Klan accusing blacks of perpetrating a racial genocide against whites or from flat-earthers.)
What caught my attention was that Mr. Peerzada used Wikipedia as a source. According to Mr. Peerzada:
According to the Wikipedia article "Land and Property Laws in Israel," these are some guiding principles:
• ‘The imperative to physically acquire and colonize lands vacated by Palestinians who fled or were expelled, and to prevent their return.’
• ‘The necessity of legalizing such land acquisitions in order to pre-empt any future claims made by refugees or their descendants.’
• ‘The goal of proceeding with the nationalization/Judaization process in areas of the country where Arabs still predominated.’
• The Ministry of Agriculture's right to confiscate wasteland under the guise of cultivation.
Also, the Wikipedia article said there were several absentee property laws, which were introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the 1948 war were incorporated into the laws of Israel.
I teach history at the Ohio State University and one of the first things I teach my students is that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of information and should not be used as evidence when writing a paper. Anyone can write whatever they wish on Wikipedia, without any controlling authority. For all I know Mr. Peerzada could have written the Wikipedia article himself. Again, I do not object to the Dispatch printing the ramblings and ravings of anti-Zionists. It would seem reasonable to ask, though, that the Dispatch should demand some basic standard of evidence and insist on something above the level of Wikipedia.
Mr. Peerzada clearly does not understand the meaning of critical writing. This Spring I will be teaching History 112. I extend a personal invitation to him to attend my class in order to learn about critical writing, particularly as it relates to dealing with historical events. Since it seems that the editorial board is just as ignorant they are also invited.
I would like to address the editorial board of the Dispatch about its decision to publish Aghlaba Peerzada’s letter, “Mideast conflict is based on land, not religion." This letter was published in such a fashion that it looked like an op-ed from the newspaper. I would say therefore that this letter should be treated, for all intents and purposes, as an op-ed and that the editorial board should be judged as if they had printed Mr. Peerzada’s piece as an op-ed.
I am sure there are many people out there who will respond to Mr. Peerzada’s claims about Israel. I am interested, though, in the Dispatch’s decision to give him the kind of forum that it did. I understand and fully agree that the Dispatch should present a wide variety of viewpoints, particularly those viewpoints that are likely to shock and offend readers. So I have no objection if the Dispatch chooses to print pieces like Mr. Peerzada's that claim that Israel is carrying out a Holocaust. (Just as long as the Dispatch is consistent and gives similar prominent placement to letters from the Ku Klux Klan accusing blacks of perpetrating a racial genocide against whites or from flat-earthers.)
What caught my attention was that Mr. Peerzada used Wikipedia as a source. According to Mr. Peerzada:
According to the Wikipedia article "Land and Property Laws in Israel," these are some guiding principles:
• ‘The imperative to physically acquire and colonize lands vacated by Palestinians who fled or were expelled, and to prevent their return.’
• ‘The necessity of legalizing such land acquisitions in order to pre-empt any future claims made by refugees or their descendants.’
• ‘The goal of proceeding with the nationalization/Judaization process in areas of the country where Arabs still predominated.’
• The Ministry of Agriculture's right to confiscate wasteland under the guise of cultivation.
Also, the Wikipedia article said there were several absentee property laws, which were introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the 1948 war were incorporated into the laws of Israel.
I teach history at the Ohio State University and one of the first things I teach my students is that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of information and should not be used as evidence when writing a paper. Anyone can write whatever they wish on Wikipedia, without any controlling authority. For all I know Mr. Peerzada could have written the Wikipedia article himself. Again, I do not object to the Dispatch printing the ramblings and ravings of anti-Zionists. It would seem reasonable to ask, though, that the Dispatch should demand some basic standard of evidence and insist on something above the level of Wikipedia.
Mr. Peerzada clearly does not understand the meaning of critical writing. This Spring I will be teaching History 112. I extend a personal invitation to him to attend my class in order to learn about critical writing, particularly as it relates to dealing with historical events. Since it seems that the editorial board is just as ignorant they are also invited.
Friday, January 30, 2009
What Do Textbook Publishers Have in Common With Credit Card Companies? You Do Not Have to Still Be Alive For Them to Try to Sell to You.
The other day I was in the mailroom of the Ohio State history department and I glanced at the stacks of complimentary history textbooks being sent by textbook publishing companies. Textbook publishers usually send us complimentary copies of their textbooks in the hope that we will decide to use them and assign them to our students. The logic being that it makes sense to send a history teacher a free copy for his own use in the hope that he will make anywhere from thirty to two hundred students buy it. Considering that these textbooks regularly cost more than fifty dollars, this strikes me as a remarkably unfair business arrangement for students.
Amongst this stack of complimentary history textbooks was one addressed to Dr. Joseph Lynch. Unfortunately Dr. Lynch passed away a few weeks ago. He was a well respected medievalist. I did not know him well and never took any classes with him, but I did have one conversation with him when I first arrived at Ohio State. He struck me as a remarkable gentleman. As fine a scholar and human being as Dr. Lynch was, unless he decides to follow in the footsteps of his fellow historian Professor Binns, he will not be teaching this spring.
I really despise history textbooks. Not only are they overpriced but they are usually written under the control of committees which have no interest in history, but only want a platform to preach about tolerance and diversity. Not that I have anything against tolerance and diversity; those are fine things just as long as they are taught in some other place besides for a history class. This is the equivalent of handing the writing of science textbooks to the Kansas school board. I am strongly leaning towards not using a formal textbook this coming spring. Instead, I am thinking of either assigning Norman Davies’ Europe: a History or, since I will be teaching modern European history again, Jacques Barzun’s From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life. Barzun might be a bit difficult for students to understand and the book certainly requires that one already possess a basic background in European history. As I see it, if you passed high school you should at least possess a basic background in European history. If you do not have such a background you did not really pass high school and have no business being a student on a college campus. Similarly one should have developed certain reading analytical skills. If you are incapable of reading and comprehending Barzun you have no business being a college student.
Amongst this stack of complimentary history textbooks was one addressed to Dr. Joseph Lynch. Unfortunately Dr. Lynch passed away a few weeks ago. He was a well respected medievalist. I did not know him well and never took any classes with him, but I did have one conversation with him when I first arrived at Ohio State. He struck me as a remarkable gentleman. As fine a scholar and human being as Dr. Lynch was, unless he decides to follow in the footsteps of his fellow historian Professor Binns, he will not be teaching this spring.
I really despise history textbooks. Not only are they overpriced but they are usually written under the control of committees which have no interest in history, but only want a platform to preach about tolerance and diversity. Not that I have anything against tolerance and diversity; those are fine things just as long as they are taught in some other place besides for a history class. This is the equivalent of handing the writing of science textbooks to the Kansas school board. I am strongly leaning towards not using a formal textbook this coming spring. Instead, I am thinking of either assigning Norman Davies’ Europe: a History or, since I will be teaching modern European history again, Jacques Barzun’s From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life. Barzun might be a bit difficult for students to understand and the book certainly requires that one already possess a basic background in European history. As I see it, if you passed high school you should at least possess a basic background in European history. If you do not have such a background you did not really pass high school and have no business being a student on a college campus. Similarly one should have developed certain reading analytical skills. If you are incapable of reading and comprehending Barzun you have no business being a college student.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
History 112: The Case for Limiting Power to White Men of Property
Today we read about the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. The French National Assembly viewed itself as acting “under the auspices of a Supreme Being.” A Supreme Being is not the traditional God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Supreme Being does not care if you believe in him or not, what Church you go to, or whom you sleep with. He is the watchmaker deity of Enlightenment deism, who set the world in motion, but does not interfere. In the absence of a deity running the world and granting political authority all power rests with “men.” Who counts as “men?” According to the Declaration: “men are born and remain free and equal in rights …” It should be noted that this statement goes against all empirical evidence. Everywhere we look, particularly if we are in 1789 France, we see hierarchy, people having power over other people. This lead Rousseau and most of the Enlightenment to have to bend over backwards, trying to justify this notion even though it makes no sense and all rational thought says otherwise. So ignoring all this, once we decide to buy into this “nonsensical” notion, we have to ask: who are these “men” that are born and remain free? Are they just men of property? Are black slaves included? What about women? These questions apply to the other open ended terms in the Declaration. Who is a member of this “nation” upon which sovereignty rests? Who is part this “general will,” which law is an expression of? Those who took part in the French Revolution were, themselves, not sure and the matter was hotly debated.
As moderns, who oppose slavery and support giving the laboring classes, blacks and women the right to vote, it is very tempting to look at the radical side of the Revolution, those who supported these things, as being on the side of reason and tolerance and those who opposed these things as being prejudiced, intolerant and outside the modern spirit. Therefore, if we wish to gain an understanding of past societies, it is important to make all the greater effort to understanding precisely those views which we ourselves do not agree with and which are foreign to our modern discourse.
Why might someone of an “enlightened” disposition oppose giving women the right to vote? Some of the most extreme acts of violence during the Revolution were carried out or actively supported by women. If you support rule of law and having government operate according to reason and not having pike wielding mobs chopping off heads it makes perfect sense to not want women taking part in the political process. Much better that they should stay home and be kept under the control of their husbands, who will make sure they stay out of trouble.
Why might a French Revolutionary committed to the principles of the brotherhood of man support the continued existence of slavery and the disenfranchisement of blacks? Emancipating slaves would not just harm white sugar planters in the Caribbean. It would bring down the entire French economy. It would give the advantage to countries like England which, as of the time of the Revolution, still continue to use slaves. Since we are in a struggle against the forces of monarchy, of which England is a prominent example, freeing the slaves would give the advantage to monarchism and help the cause of tyranny. All liberty loving French patriots should therefore support, for the time being, the continued existence of slavery. Furthermore the emancipation of slaves would not necessarily help those blacks living as slaves; they would be left without a place in society and without immediate means of employment. Also, as events in Saint Domingue demonstrated, freeing blacks and giving them equal rights would undermine public order and lead to violence.
Why might it not serve liberal interests to give power to the laboring classes, who are poor and lack property? As we have discussed previously, one of the major questions in political thought is why people decide to accept a government. As a person with property, one of my concerns about government is that it will decide to take it away and “redistribute” it. I have some money stashed away in a savings account. What is to stop our new president from deciding that, since I am not spending that money, I do not really need it and therefore it should be taken from me and used to pay off the national debt or go to some needy inner city family, struggling to make ends meet? If we give the poor the right to vote some demagogue might come along and get himself elected by promising poor people that he will take from those who have and give it to them. The most obvious solution is to limit the vote to those who own property or have a certain amount of wealth. Those who own property will want to protect what they already have and can be trusted to not use the government to try taking away the property of others.
During the French Revolution the main person advocating for mass enfranchisement was Maximilien Robespierre. We know what he did with this power. With the support of the urban laboring classes he took control and set off the Reign of Terror. Robespierre did not just take people’s property he had people guillotined. Rather than being a model of freedom, Robespierre was the first major mass murderer of the modern era, surpassed only in the twentieth century by people like Hitler and Stalin.
One can make a very good case that the French Revolution was fine as long as it was limited to the elites like the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. It is perfectly reasonable that the representatives of the third estate and the liberal members of the aristocracy and clergy allied with them, left to their own devices, could have worked things out with the king and brought about the necessary Enlightenment inspired reforms to the system. The problem came the moment the laboring masses and women got involved. It was they who turned to violence and brought about the mass slaughter of the Reign of Terror.
As moderns, who oppose slavery and support giving the laboring classes, blacks and women the right to vote, it is very tempting to look at the radical side of the Revolution, those who supported these things, as being on the side of reason and tolerance and those who opposed these things as being prejudiced, intolerant and outside the modern spirit. Therefore, if we wish to gain an understanding of past societies, it is important to make all the greater effort to understanding precisely those views which we ourselves do not agree with and which are foreign to our modern discourse.
Why might someone of an “enlightened” disposition oppose giving women the right to vote? Some of the most extreme acts of violence during the Revolution were carried out or actively supported by women. If you support rule of law and having government operate according to reason and not having pike wielding mobs chopping off heads it makes perfect sense to not want women taking part in the political process. Much better that they should stay home and be kept under the control of their husbands, who will make sure they stay out of trouble.
Why might a French Revolutionary committed to the principles of the brotherhood of man support the continued existence of slavery and the disenfranchisement of blacks? Emancipating slaves would not just harm white sugar planters in the Caribbean. It would bring down the entire French economy. It would give the advantage to countries like England which, as of the time of the Revolution, still continue to use slaves. Since we are in a struggle against the forces of monarchy, of which England is a prominent example, freeing the slaves would give the advantage to monarchism and help the cause of tyranny. All liberty loving French patriots should therefore support, for the time being, the continued existence of slavery. Furthermore the emancipation of slaves would not necessarily help those blacks living as slaves; they would be left without a place in society and without immediate means of employment. Also, as events in Saint Domingue demonstrated, freeing blacks and giving them equal rights would undermine public order and lead to violence.
Why might it not serve liberal interests to give power to the laboring classes, who are poor and lack property? As we have discussed previously, one of the major questions in political thought is why people decide to accept a government. As a person with property, one of my concerns about government is that it will decide to take it away and “redistribute” it. I have some money stashed away in a savings account. What is to stop our new president from deciding that, since I am not spending that money, I do not really need it and therefore it should be taken from me and used to pay off the national debt or go to some needy inner city family, struggling to make ends meet? If we give the poor the right to vote some demagogue might come along and get himself elected by promising poor people that he will take from those who have and give it to them. The most obvious solution is to limit the vote to those who own property or have a certain amount of wealth. Those who own property will want to protect what they already have and can be trusted to not use the government to try taking away the property of others.
During the French Revolution the main person advocating for mass enfranchisement was Maximilien Robespierre. We know what he did with this power. With the support of the urban laboring classes he took control and set off the Reign of Terror. Robespierre did not just take people’s property he had people guillotined. Rather than being a model of freedom, Robespierre was the first major mass murderer of the modern era, surpassed only in the twentieth century by people like Hitler and Stalin.
One can make a very good case that the French Revolution was fine as long as it was limited to the elites like the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. It is perfectly reasonable that the representatives of the third estate and the liberal members of the aristocracy and clergy allied with them, left to their own devices, could have worked things out with the king and brought about the necessary Enlightenment inspired reforms to the system. The problem came the moment the laboring masses and women got involved. It was they who turned to violence and brought about the mass slaughter of the Reign of Terror.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
History 112: Brave New World of Economics (Part II)
(Part I)
I would to turn to the darker side of this economic revolution, slavery. Like tobacco, the trans-Atlantic slave trade is something whose effects are still with us today and which we are still paying a price for. Those who concocted the trans-Atlantic slave trade could not have imagined the sort of problems they would be passing on to future generations.
In your reading you had a passage from the autobiography of Olaudah Equiano, an African slave who bought his freedom and served as a leading abolitionist in late eighteenth century England. How is someone like Equiano useful in understanding the slave trade? As a white person living a comfortable existence in middle class America, I might be inclined to downplay the horrors of the slave trade. “It could not have really that bad. The Africans who came over must have really wanted to come, just like other immigrants to this country.” Reading Equiano might serve to shake me from such a view, just as many comfortable middle Christians in England were shaken in their views of slavery by reading Equiano. The problem, though, is that Equiano is clearly a biased source. He was an abolitionist, writing with a polemical purpose. “He must have been exaggerating and making up lurid details in order to get people to sympathize with the plight of African slaves.” What might convince me otherwise? In addition to Equiano you read a passage from a Dutch slave ship captain, Willem Bosman. His account describes pretty much the same sorts of things that we find with Equiano. Bosman had no interest in making up lurid horror stories to bring down his own profession. This makes him very believable. Ironically as this might sound, when dealing with the horrors of the slave trade, our best source are the slave traders themselves, who confirm the nightmarish picture painted by abolitionists.
Equiano appears in the film Amazing Grace, which deals with the English abolitionist movement in the eighteenth century. The main focus of the film is on William Wilberforce, a member of parliament and an abolitionist. What this film does really well is capture the strongly Evangelical motives of abolitionism. We are trying to establish the kingdom of God here under King Jesus here. All this drinking, gambling and whoring, which England is full off, has got to go. While we are at it, slavery also has to go since all men are supposed to be equal in this kingdom of God. Those people owning slave are not just not nice people, they are serving the cause of Satan and holding back the kingdom of God. If you deal in slaves you are going to go to Hell. The title of the film, Amazing Grace, refers to the famous hymn. The hymn Amazing Grace was written by John Newton, a mentor of Wilberforce. John Newton was a slave ship captain until he had a religious experience and became an Evangelical preacher. Amazing Grace is probably the greatest summation of Evangelical thinking. “Amazing grace how sweet the sound” – how great is that free and unearnable gift of grace to be able to know God and accept his salvation. “That saved a wretch like me” – Grace even saved a wretched sinful slave trader like me. “I once was lost” – I used to be lost in the web of my sinful slave trading ways. “But now am found” – Now Christ has revealed himself to me and showed me that slavery is wrong. “Was blind” – I used to think that my godless slave trading ways were not an offense to God. “But now I see” – Now I have been enlightened by scripture and see that slave traders are hellbound sinners.
I would to turn to the darker side of this economic revolution, slavery. Like tobacco, the trans-Atlantic slave trade is something whose effects are still with us today and which we are still paying a price for. Those who concocted the trans-Atlantic slave trade could not have imagined the sort of problems they would be passing on to future generations.
In your reading you had a passage from the autobiography of Olaudah Equiano, an African slave who bought his freedom and served as a leading abolitionist in late eighteenth century England. How is someone like Equiano useful in understanding the slave trade? As a white person living a comfortable existence in middle class America, I might be inclined to downplay the horrors of the slave trade. “It could not have really that bad. The Africans who came over must have really wanted to come, just like other immigrants to this country.” Reading Equiano might serve to shake me from such a view, just as many comfortable middle Christians in England were shaken in their views of slavery by reading Equiano. The problem, though, is that Equiano is clearly a biased source. He was an abolitionist, writing with a polemical purpose. “He must have been exaggerating and making up lurid details in order to get people to sympathize with the plight of African slaves.” What might convince me otherwise? In addition to Equiano you read a passage from a Dutch slave ship captain, Willem Bosman. His account describes pretty much the same sorts of things that we find with Equiano. Bosman had no interest in making up lurid horror stories to bring down his own profession. This makes him very believable. Ironically as this might sound, when dealing with the horrors of the slave trade, our best source are the slave traders themselves, who confirm the nightmarish picture painted by abolitionists.
Equiano appears in the film Amazing Grace, which deals with the English abolitionist movement in the eighteenth century. The main focus of the film is on William Wilberforce, a member of parliament and an abolitionist. What this film does really well is capture the strongly Evangelical motives of abolitionism. We are trying to establish the kingdom of God here under King Jesus here. All this drinking, gambling and whoring, which England is full off, has got to go. While we are at it, slavery also has to go since all men are supposed to be equal in this kingdom of God. Those people owning slave are not just not nice people, they are serving the cause of Satan and holding back the kingdom of God. If you deal in slaves you are going to go to Hell. The title of the film, Amazing Grace, refers to the famous hymn. The hymn Amazing Grace was written by John Newton, a mentor of Wilberforce. John Newton was a slave ship captain until he had a religious experience and became an Evangelical preacher. Amazing Grace is probably the greatest summation of Evangelical thinking. “Amazing grace how sweet the sound” – how great is that free and unearnable gift of grace to be able to know God and accept his salvation. “That saved a wretch like me” – Grace even saved a wretched sinful slave trader like me. “I once was lost” – I used to be lost in the web of my sinful slave trading ways. “But now am found” – Now Christ has revealed himself to me and showed me that slavery is wrong. “Was blind” – I used to think that my godless slave trading ways were not an offense to God. “But now I see” – Now I have been enlightened by scripture and see that slave traders are hellbound sinners.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
History 112: Brave New World of Economics (Part I)
For the past few sessions we have been focusing on the religious changes occurring during the early modern period. Today I would like to move into the realm of economics. By way of transition I would like to consider the thesis of Max Weber that Protestantism led to the rise of Capitalism. What do people like Martin Luther and John Calvin have to with Capitalism? Justification by faith, reading the Bible and rejecting the Pope and many of the sacraments may all be very nice things, but they do not appear to have anything to do with economics. You have just come into some money, what do you do with it? If you are a Catholic you might give it to the Church to buy Masses for yourself, to support monasteries and to adorn your local cathedral with gold adornment. Come the Reformation and you are now a Protestant; no more lavish Masses, no more cathedrals full statues to that saints (that is all papist idolatry now), no more gold crucifixes adorned with jewels. So what are you going to spend your money on? How about buying shares in a boat going to India. This is Max Weber. As we have seen from our reading, there are Catholic merchants, so things are a bit more complicated than Weber had it; Catholics are also involved in this economic revolution.
The discovery of the New World and the Age of Discovery profoundly affected life in Europe. It was not just a matter of some explorers traveling to some place that no European had been before and planting a flag in the ground. Different countries were affected in different ways. Spain and England offer useful contrasts in this.
Spain hit the monetary jackpot with Mexico and Peru as Hernan Cortez and Francisco Pizaro respectively conquered the Aztec and Incan empires. This was one of the worst things to ever happened to Spain and it was the ruin of Spanish civilization. You have heard stories of lottery winners whose lives were destroyed by winning; the same was true with Spain. People in the sixteenth century did not see things this way. The rest of Europe salivated as Spain was able to spend itself to its heart’s content; war in the Netherlands, sure thing, Spanish Armada, not a problem. Starting in the seventeenth century, though, Spain went into a decline that they never recovered from.
How could finding so much gold be a bad thing? First you should consider what gold is actually worth. You understand that paper currency has no utilitarian value and in of itself is absolutely worthless. If President Obama would decide to try boosting his approval ratings by handing out a million dollars to every single American, no one would actually be helped by it. We would simply have inflation. At the end of the day gold is really no better. Like paper currency gold has little utilitarian value in of itself. Gold from the New World brought no real wealth back to Spain. It gets even worse. Where was the biggest share of this gold going to? The Crown. Regular Spaniards did not benefit from this. Furthermore now that the Spanish monarchy was completely self sufficient, monetarily speaking, it had no need to reform itself. Previously we learned about Charles I needing parliament in order to raise funds. If you are Philip II you have no such problems and can rule as an autocrat to your heart’s content. A modern example of this is Saudi Arabia where the house of Saud is completely protected by their wealth in oil and can safely ignore any call to reform either from the West or from their own people.
England, on the other hand, had a very different experience. For example, they came to Jamestown in 1607 looking for gold. They did not find any. Probably one of the greatest things ever to happen to them. How can this be? Once the colonists, those who survived the first few years, realized that they were not going to find gold they settled down and started growing tobacco. While we know now that smoking is addictive and causes cancer and are paying the price for the introduction of tobacco into European culture, tobacco is an actual product with real value. England therefore received something that was actually worth something. More importantly they developed a culture of trade. They become a model of Max Weber’s Protestant work ethic. Spain on the other hand, as the Catholic country par excellence, become a model of Weber’s Catholic non mercantile culture.
(To be continued …)
The discovery of the New World and the Age of Discovery profoundly affected life in Europe. It was not just a matter of some explorers traveling to some place that no European had been before and planting a flag in the ground. Different countries were affected in different ways. Spain and England offer useful contrasts in this.
Spain hit the monetary jackpot with Mexico and Peru as Hernan Cortez and Francisco Pizaro respectively conquered the Aztec and Incan empires. This was one of the worst things to ever happened to Spain and it was the ruin of Spanish civilization. You have heard stories of lottery winners whose lives were destroyed by winning; the same was true with Spain. People in the sixteenth century did not see things this way. The rest of Europe salivated as Spain was able to spend itself to its heart’s content; war in the Netherlands, sure thing, Spanish Armada, not a problem. Starting in the seventeenth century, though, Spain went into a decline that they never recovered from.
How could finding so much gold be a bad thing? First you should consider what gold is actually worth. You understand that paper currency has no utilitarian value and in of itself is absolutely worthless. If President Obama would decide to try boosting his approval ratings by handing out a million dollars to every single American, no one would actually be helped by it. We would simply have inflation. At the end of the day gold is really no better. Like paper currency gold has little utilitarian value in of itself. Gold from the New World brought no real wealth back to Spain. It gets even worse. Where was the biggest share of this gold going to? The Crown. Regular Spaniards did not benefit from this. Furthermore now that the Spanish monarchy was completely self sufficient, monetarily speaking, it had no need to reform itself. Previously we learned about Charles I needing parliament in order to raise funds. If you are Philip II you have no such problems and can rule as an autocrat to your heart’s content. A modern example of this is Saudi Arabia where the house of Saud is completely protected by their wealth in oil and can safely ignore any call to reform either from the West or from their own people.
England, on the other hand, had a very different experience. For example, they came to Jamestown in 1607 looking for gold. They did not find any. Probably one of the greatest things ever to happen to them. How can this be? Once the colonists, those who survived the first few years, realized that they were not going to find gold they settled down and started growing tobacco. While we know now that smoking is addictive and causes cancer and are paying the price for the introduction of tobacco into European culture, tobacco is an actual product with real value. England therefore received something that was actually worth something. More importantly they developed a culture of trade. They become a model of Max Weber’s Protestant work ethic. Spain on the other hand, as the Catholic country par excellence, become a model of Weber’s Catholic non mercantile culture.
(To be continued …)
Friday, January 16, 2009
History 112: The Challenge of Political Authority in the Seventeenth Century
The second most interesting question in political theory is why government authority fails. Yesterday we looked at the English Civil. The Monarchy of Charles I collapsed and he lost his head. This sort of collapse has happened many times in history. Think of France in 1789, the Bastille, or Berlin in 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall. Throughout much of the world, particularly in Africa, the collapse of a political system is a regular occurrence. This is an interesting question, one that I do not have an answer for; I cannot predict which regimes will be overthrown or when it will happen. The most interesting question, though, is why governments manage to stay up in the first place. There is a man by the name of George W. Bush. He says that he is my president and that I should pay taxes. Next week there is going to be a man named Barack Obama claiming to be my president and he also will also want me to pay taxes. Why should I care? Why do we take it as a given that, come next week, George W. Bush will peacefully step down from power and assume life as a private citizen? Maybe he will retreat to his ranch down in Crawford TX and declare himself King George W. Bush. Maybe the state of Texas will break away from the union and form their own country under Bush’s most Christian rule. Alternatively, why should Obama allow Bush to peacefully step down? It is dangerous to allow one’s leading opponent to stay alive; much safer to eliminate them. There are millions of Republicans out there who do not support Obama. Maybe Obama should send his Gestapo police knocking on doors and ship outspoken Republicans to concentration camps to be reeducated. The state capital of Ohio is only a few miles down High St. and does not appear to be well guarded. Why not, instead of sitting around in class, grab some assault weapons, storm the capitol building so I can make myself the new governor of Ohio. Keep in mind that all of these things do happen around the world on a regular basis. Law and order functional governments are hardly the norm.
For people in England in the seventeenth-century, these issues were very real. We have all the religion wars in Europe. England itself is going to have its own civil war and numerous revolutions. What authority can government claim that people should obey it? In your reading, you have seen a number of possible answers from James I, Charles I, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
James I claimed that he ruled by divine right and used the Bible, but he also showed recourse to rational arguments. He compared himself to the father of a family. He saw the state as a single organism made up off all of his subjects, with him as the head. Charles I, in making his case in front of parliament, sounds downright liberal. He argued that it was his duty to protect the liberty of his subjects and that if he would submit to parliament there would be no legitimate government authority left. Everything would therefore collapse and chaos would reign. These are perfectly plausible arguments that even an atheist could accept.
Thomas Hobbes most likely was an atheist. He was clearly not someone who accepted the authority of religion or the Bible. If we were to accept the Whig narrative than we would expect that someone like Hobbes, the one secular person we are dealing with here, would be a supporter of Liberty and Democracy. Hobbes, though, supported absolutist monarchy. John Locke, on the other hand, is our supporter of constitutionalism. While Locke was an Englishman, for all intents and purposes, he is one of our founding fathers. Much of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution comes straight out of Locke. Locke was also one of the premier advocates for religious toleration of his time. We might think this was due to his secularism. On the contrary, Locke was trying to build a Christian state. He believed that by tolerating even non-Christians such as Jews, they would come to see how wonderful Christianity was and convert, hardly a secularist agenda.
As with religion, absolutism is also part of the modern story. James I, Charles I, and Hobbes were not simply relics of the Middle Ages to be defeated by John Locke. The absolutist state, with its absolute monarch backed by a well developed bureaucracy, was a major innovation that did not exist in the Middle Ages. Those who defended absolutism were also reacting to the changes of the early modern period just as the supporters of constitutionalism were. Everyone was affected by the Reformation. There is now no one Christendom. One cannot simply appeal to God and the Bible; which God, the Catholic, the Lutheran, the Anglican or the Reformist one? In such a situation, everyone is looking for an alternative. Much of what goes on in the modern story is precisely this search for an alternative. Our liberal Democracy was simply one of the possible solutions. We should not assume that the victory of liberal Democracy was inevitable or that it was obviously the best solution.
For people in England in the seventeenth-century, these issues were very real. We have all the religion wars in Europe. England itself is going to have its own civil war and numerous revolutions. What authority can government claim that people should obey it? In your reading, you have seen a number of possible answers from James I, Charles I, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
James I claimed that he ruled by divine right and used the Bible, but he also showed recourse to rational arguments. He compared himself to the father of a family. He saw the state as a single organism made up off all of his subjects, with him as the head. Charles I, in making his case in front of parliament, sounds downright liberal. He argued that it was his duty to protect the liberty of his subjects and that if he would submit to parliament there would be no legitimate government authority left. Everything would therefore collapse and chaos would reign. These are perfectly plausible arguments that even an atheist could accept.
Thomas Hobbes most likely was an atheist. He was clearly not someone who accepted the authority of religion or the Bible. If we were to accept the Whig narrative than we would expect that someone like Hobbes, the one secular person we are dealing with here, would be a supporter of Liberty and Democracy. Hobbes, though, supported absolutist monarchy. John Locke, on the other hand, is our supporter of constitutionalism. While Locke was an Englishman, for all intents and purposes, he is one of our founding fathers. Much of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution comes straight out of Locke. Locke was also one of the premier advocates for religious toleration of his time. We might think this was due to his secularism. On the contrary, Locke was trying to build a Christian state. He believed that by tolerating even non-Christians such as Jews, they would come to see how wonderful Christianity was and convert, hardly a secularist agenda.
As with religion, absolutism is also part of the modern story. James I, Charles I, and Hobbes were not simply relics of the Middle Ages to be defeated by John Locke. The absolutist state, with its absolute monarch backed by a well developed bureaucracy, was a major innovation that did not exist in the Middle Ages. Those who defended absolutism were also reacting to the changes of the early modern period just as the supporters of constitutionalism were. Everyone was affected by the Reformation. There is now no one Christendom. One cannot simply appeal to God and the Bible; which God, the Catholic, the Lutheran, the Anglican or the Reformist one? In such a situation, everyone is looking for an alternative. Much of what goes on in the modern story is precisely this search for an alternative. Our liberal Democracy was simply one of the possible solutions. We should not assume that the victory of liberal Democracy was inevitable or that it was obviously the best solution.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
History 112: Who are these Folks? (How Religious People are Part of the Modern Narrative) Part II
Part I
Let us move this to the Christian context. Haredi Jews do not have the numbers to really affect American society. There are millions of fundamentalist Christians on the other hand. One of the things that I find very interesting about religious Christians is that unlike Haredim they do not dress differently and, from the outside, are completely indistinguishable from ordinary Americans. The person you meet on the street wearing a tie-die shirt, cut-off jeans and shoulder-length hair might very well be a very religious Christian. Fundamentalist Christians have also developed their own counter-culture. For example, the Left Behind Series was a mega-bestseller a few years ago. Over the past few decades, it has been the Evangelical churches that have been really successful and not the mainline or even liberal churches. How can this be; in our modern liberal age shouldn’t people be running to join liberal churches? Why would someone bother to join a church that accepts LGBTs and preaches that there are other means to salvation besides Jesus Christ? If you do not have to accept Jesus as your personal savior then why bother going to church? Evangelical Christianity preaches a doctrine that is worth caring about; there is heaven and hell, sin and sinners, such as gays. The very salvation of your soul rests on you coming to church and accepting Jesus as your personal savior. The moral “decline” in our society also helps their cause. It creates an easy target to polemicize against. It is hard to justify taking an adversarial relationship with the general society when the general society holds similar values. If I am in 1950s America and there is school prayer and officially society is opposed to pre-marital sex then I do not need the Christian right.
In What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank makes the argument that there are many poor white Christians in this country who would benefit from government welfare programs and should really be voting Democrat. The Republicans, though, keep them focused on issues such as guns, gays, and abortion and get them to vote against their economic interests. What Frank does not consider is how government welfare strengthens religious fundamentalists. We are used to thinking of big government advancing the cause of secular liberalism; it also, though, allows dissident groups, like fundamentalist Christians, to stand outside of mainstream America.
To reverse Frank’s question, there are a lot of fairly conservative blacks voting Democrat. For example, 70% of blacks voted for Proposition 8, against gay marriage. Why are blacks who oppose things like gay marriage still voting Democrat, against their own ideological beliefs? It would seem that the two main reasons for this are that blacks associate Republicans with segregation and that they see the Democrats as the ones who will give them the government aid they require.
If you remember, back in 2000, when George W. Bush first ran for president, he ran under the banner of “Compassionate Conservatism." Compassionate Conservatism was the belief that government should be engaging in welfare programs, though in a more socially conservative-friendly fashion. For example, through faith-based initiatives, government dollars would be channeled through religious organizations as a means to help those in need. This can be seen both as an attempt to protect Republicans against the sort of vulnerability outlined by Frank and to reach out to conservative minorities, particularly blacks. Poor white Christians would get the government aid they need in a manner they could feel comfortable with and would have no need to turn to the Democrats. As for conservative blacks, they would finally have a Republican party they could feel comfortable with, one that took their concerns seriously and offered government aid, likewise, in a way that would be consistent with their conservative beliefs. This had the potential to create a political alliance that would have kept the Republicans in power for the next generation. History, though, caught up with George W. Bush, after only a few months in office, on September 11. This radically changed his presidency and, for the most part, placed Compassionate Conservatism on the political backburner.
One can see Barack Obama as trying to put together his own version of the proposed Compassionate Conservatism coalition. When I first heard Obama speak, back in 2004, what struck me about him was that he was a Democrat who could talk intelligently and believably about faith. This man was clearly a sincere and believing Christian. I had a flash of him running for president, canvassing Evangelical churches and talking about how he came to accept Jesus as his personal savior, bringing over white Evangelicals to the Democratic party; clearly, this was a man who would be a dangerous candidate in a general election. As it turns out Obama did not run on his faith; he had no need to as the Republicans fell apart. That being said, Obama has not abandoned this potential alliance with white Evangelicals. He has invited Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. Rick Warren is an Evangelical pastor known for his interest in social welfare issues such as AIDS and the environment. As such, Warren is precisely the sort of Evangelical Obama would wish to ally with and he can serve as a bridge to the larger Evangelical community. It may be possible to get many white Evangelicals to go along with such socially liberal notions as gay marriage and abortion if these things are sold the right way. As we can see, religious voters are important to American culture and to American politics and not simply as the dark forces of superstition waiting to overturn modernity.
Why have I been spending all of this time talking about this topic? We are used to thinking of modernity in terms of liberalism and secularism. In the Prop 8 piece we saw at the beginning of class, the good guys of modernity are liberal. Then there are these dark scary buffoonish religious characters lurking in the background trying to ruin everything; seeming to be outside of modernity. In truth, these religious characters are also part of the modern story. Much of what goes on in modernity plays into their hands and benefits them as well. If you do not understand the role of religion, even fundamentalist religion, then you have failed to understand the modern story. This goes for dealing with the sixteenth-century and the twenty-first century as well.
Let us move this to the Christian context. Haredi Jews do not have the numbers to really affect American society. There are millions of fundamentalist Christians on the other hand. One of the things that I find very interesting about religious Christians is that unlike Haredim they do not dress differently and, from the outside, are completely indistinguishable from ordinary Americans. The person you meet on the street wearing a tie-die shirt, cut-off jeans and shoulder-length hair might very well be a very religious Christian. Fundamentalist Christians have also developed their own counter-culture. For example, the Left Behind Series was a mega-bestseller a few years ago. Over the past few decades, it has been the Evangelical churches that have been really successful and not the mainline or even liberal churches. How can this be; in our modern liberal age shouldn’t people be running to join liberal churches? Why would someone bother to join a church that accepts LGBTs and preaches that there are other means to salvation besides Jesus Christ? If you do not have to accept Jesus as your personal savior then why bother going to church? Evangelical Christianity preaches a doctrine that is worth caring about; there is heaven and hell, sin and sinners, such as gays. The very salvation of your soul rests on you coming to church and accepting Jesus as your personal savior. The moral “decline” in our society also helps their cause. It creates an easy target to polemicize against. It is hard to justify taking an adversarial relationship with the general society when the general society holds similar values. If I am in 1950s America and there is school prayer and officially society is opposed to pre-marital sex then I do not need the Christian right.
In What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank makes the argument that there are many poor white Christians in this country who would benefit from government welfare programs and should really be voting Democrat. The Republicans, though, keep them focused on issues such as guns, gays, and abortion and get them to vote against their economic interests. What Frank does not consider is how government welfare strengthens religious fundamentalists. We are used to thinking of big government advancing the cause of secular liberalism; it also, though, allows dissident groups, like fundamentalist Christians, to stand outside of mainstream America.
To reverse Frank’s question, there are a lot of fairly conservative blacks voting Democrat. For example, 70% of blacks voted for Proposition 8, against gay marriage. Why are blacks who oppose things like gay marriage still voting Democrat, against their own ideological beliefs? It would seem that the two main reasons for this are that blacks associate Republicans with segregation and that they see the Democrats as the ones who will give them the government aid they require.
If you remember, back in 2000, when George W. Bush first ran for president, he ran under the banner of “Compassionate Conservatism." Compassionate Conservatism was the belief that government should be engaging in welfare programs, though in a more socially conservative-friendly fashion. For example, through faith-based initiatives, government dollars would be channeled through religious organizations as a means to help those in need. This can be seen both as an attempt to protect Republicans against the sort of vulnerability outlined by Frank and to reach out to conservative minorities, particularly blacks. Poor white Christians would get the government aid they need in a manner they could feel comfortable with and would have no need to turn to the Democrats. As for conservative blacks, they would finally have a Republican party they could feel comfortable with, one that took their concerns seriously and offered government aid, likewise, in a way that would be consistent with their conservative beliefs. This had the potential to create a political alliance that would have kept the Republicans in power for the next generation. History, though, caught up with George W. Bush, after only a few months in office, on September 11. This radically changed his presidency and, for the most part, placed Compassionate Conservatism on the political backburner.
One can see Barack Obama as trying to put together his own version of the proposed Compassionate Conservatism coalition. When I first heard Obama speak, back in 2004, what struck me about him was that he was a Democrat who could talk intelligently and believably about faith. This man was clearly a sincere and believing Christian. I had a flash of him running for president, canvassing Evangelical churches and talking about how he came to accept Jesus as his personal savior, bringing over white Evangelicals to the Democratic party; clearly, this was a man who would be a dangerous candidate in a general election. As it turns out Obama did not run on his faith; he had no need to as the Republicans fell apart. That being said, Obama has not abandoned this potential alliance with white Evangelicals. He has invited Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. Rick Warren is an Evangelical pastor known for his interest in social welfare issues such as AIDS and the environment. As such, Warren is precisely the sort of Evangelical Obama would wish to ally with and he can serve as a bridge to the larger Evangelical community. It may be possible to get many white Evangelicals to go along with such socially liberal notions as gay marriage and abortion if these things are sold the right way. As we can see, religious voters are important to American culture and to American politics and not simply as the dark forces of superstition waiting to overturn modernity.
Why have I been spending all of this time talking about this topic? We are used to thinking of modernity in terms of liberalism and secularism. In the Prop 8 piece we saw at the beginning of class, the good guys of modernity are liberal. Then there are these dark scary buffoonish religious characters lurking in the background trying to ruin everything; seeming to be outside of modernity. In truth, these religious characters are also part of the modern story. Much of what goes on in modernity plays into their hands and benefits them as well. If you do not understand the role of religion, even fundamentalist religion, then you have failed to understand the modern story. This goes for dealing with the sixteenth-century and the twenty-first century as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)