Mike Oren.com

This Discover piece reminded me of the other part missing from the debate about Sociology's standpoint as a science or not, as (it seems to me) that many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is or claims to be. To be fair, part of the blame for this misunderstanding must be placed on the shoulders of introductory science courses (pre-college) science where (too often) the rhetoric tends to suggest something as an absolute, universal fact when, in fact, science only claims that "this is what is known at this time, given this evidence". Science is always reinventing itself, and I (personally) know of nobody in any of the sciences (biology, physics, etc.) who claim that something is absolutely true now and forever. There are very few actual laws in the sciences (although there are many theories that are 'accepted' as true, but they are not established as truth). But this could become a long ranting blog post in itself, so without further ranting, I'll end this discussion at that and this choice quote:

"First off, there is no such thing as scientism. What he is describing is simply science, because science by its very nature is an attempt to explain all things using natural processes. And he seems to think science has no imagination.

That’s insane. Without imagination, all we can do is categorize the world. Assigning names and numbers, statistics and categories. And while that sort of thing is important in the scientific process, it’s not science itself. Without imagination, science is a dictionary."

On a side note (and to rile some feathers that I probably shouldn't be), try reading the article replacing 'religion'/'supernatural' with [de]constructionism (that's how I have started reading some [de]construction texts anyway, only in reverse--sadly, that is not a joke, I have fallen into that habit, although I admit it is a bad one as it makes me too dismissive and it's not my intention to just dismiss anything off-hand).

Anybody offended by the conception of sociology as a science (I am in favor of that conception--in case anybody missed that) may skip this paragraph as you'll simply dismiss the argument anyway (so I save your blood pressure from rising a little):

On my drive to and back from the Midwestern Sociological Society (MSS) meeting on Sunday, I got into a discussion with a classmate from my contemporary sociological theory course about which theories should (and should not) be the focus on modern sociology. Despite the controversial nature of the debate, it was kept on civil terms with both of us recognizing that the other had a different conception of 'sociology'. I would like to say that my conception of sociology as a science is simply due to my background in computer science/logical sciences; however, to do so would be an injustice to my background--which is more than one of the most rationally oriented sciences in existence (computers only think in binary, so to program them, you must be able to think using the same type of logic). If that were the case, that it was simply due to the way I have been taught to think, then the debate would have been less pertinent. Instead, it is because I have been taught to think in many, many different ways and try to keep up with as much as I can of other academic fields through taking a diversity of classes and through interacting with a wide range of people. My opponent in the debate expressed an interest in other fields but admitted to a relative ignorance of fields outside of sociology, where almost all undergraduate studies had been concentrated (beyond the general education requirements, of course). As such, during the debate it became painfully obvious that my advocacy of sociology as a science comes just as much from my knowledge of the fact that modern sociologists (that aren't treating it as a science) are simply repeating the labor of other fields, such as Englih, philosophy, linguistics, etc. but in ways that are either insufficiently refined or through "quasi-science". That is not to say that individuals conducting Sociological research outside of the scientific framework don't have their place, that is just to say that I feel that they are doing a disservice both to themselves and to the field as a whole--since the field has become torn in an epistemological pissing war, not over the conception of societal systems as they currently exist, but over units of analysis ([de]constructionists view the world from the individual level--which, in my opinion, clearly has no place in sociology as that then ceases to look at how GROUPS form a COMMON view that allows them to communicate, negotiate, divide labor, etc.) Again, I am not saying that these conceptions of people are flawed, simply that they are asking the worng questions and leading to an unsustainable structure under the umbrella of a word that needs to be more clearly defined in order to continue to stand. Weber, roughly a hundred years ago, provided such a definition of 'sociology' (while admitted to its plurality of meanings) when he says that it means: "the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it produces" (1994:7). One can simply dismiss all of this as the ranting of an 'elite white male' and the definition of science as constricting knowledge and whatever else, but I say even if a model is not perfect, we have to start somewhere and (as in most sciences) the model should be refined as time goes on to account for weaknesses. It could be that the model is flawed and must be replaced, but then (as with most sciences) both models should be in co-existence until one model proves to be superior to the other in PREDICTING future outcomes given a cause and the conditions in which it can be duplicated. And even then, the old model often lives on so future scholars can learn from what it got right and what it got wrong, it should not simply be dismissed off hand. It is wrong to go to texts with a dismissive eye, looking only for what one disagrees with and not what one can learn from the texts--even though I disagree with whether or no [de]constructionism has a place in sociology (as a science), I do note it's potential in explaining variance and serving as a philosophical argument about an individual's conceptions of reality; however it is not a model that can lead to predictions or provide causal explanations so it does not qualify as a scientific underpinning. One can argue about what it means for something to be a 'science', but then one can argue every word, we must have some common ground to lay a foundation for a field on and Weber's definition, using casue and effects, is pretty well established view of science (in both the East and West).

Now that my discussion of sociology as a science is over, let me discuss Weber in slightly more detail. Whereas Durkheim focused almost exclusively on the causes that led to the creation of functional system pieces (stating that function is the effect), Weber does not argue that the function is the effect of various causes but does argue that we must start from the function to "determine which social action it is important to interpret and understand if we are to explain a particular system" (1994:18). Similarly, Weber does not stop at the functioning system as the focus of his analysis and calls for an attempt to understand MORE than what the natural sciences are able to learn about their objects of inquiry: "we are in a position, not only to formulate functional interrelations and regularirites (or 'laws'), but also to achieve something which must lie for ever beyond the reach of all forms of 'natural science' (in the sence of the formulation of causal laws governing events and systems and the explanation of individual events in terms of them). What we can do is to 'understand' the behaviour of the individuals involved, wheras we do not 'understand' the behaviour of, say, cells." (19). From my previous paragraph this is something that, in some ways, I disagree with, as the field of individual understanding seems better suited to psychology (and other disciplines) and less within sociology; however, in the case of how the individual fits into the group that seems to be within the domain of a study of societies/groups (it is only when you begin looking soley at the domain of the individuals interpretation that you enter a grey zone). In fact, later, Weber does make a statement that places the study of the individual clearly within the context of the group/scoiety: "For the question which must always be asked first before the real empirical work of sociology can begin is: which motives led and continue to lead individual functionaries and members of this 'community' to believe in such a way that it came into being and continues to exist?" (1994:21). The question is not 'how does an individual actor understand the world' but 'how does an individual actor accept and find himself/herself belonging to the system in which they exist'--or, in Weber's terms, "The formation of function concepts, in terms of relationship to the 'whole', is simply part of the preliminary work" (1994:21-22).

Later parts of the Weber make it clearer that his views are more along the 'antipositivist' line of thinking, often leaning toward looking at the conceptions of individuals and critiquing the system of causality. However, throughout these readings he does maintain a focus on what ends up on the group level (such as an exchange). I think Weber, rightfully, points out the flaw in looking at the whole without looking at the parts, but I also believe that some of his arguments were taken to an extreme that I, personally, did not feel he was advocating for--he still seemed to be arguing for some form of a model of interactions that included some objective points, but allowed some subjectivity. That's assuming I didn't misread anything, at least.

To retun the question of social power that began this blog, Weber defines power as: "every possibility within a social relationship of imposing one's own will, even against opposition, without regard to the basis of this possibility" (1994:38). In addition, power is described as "diffuse" since there are innumerable conditions and combinations of conditions that allow power to manifest itself within a social structure. And since I have reached a full circle from the first post to this post (the last post before all posts are reviewed), it seems that I have come to a logical stopping point for this blog, although much more can be said about Weber (and perhaps more will be said in posts beyond the review period--if time and motivation allows).

This post is a bit later than usual, but the reading for March 31st were some history of Pitrim Alexandrovich Sorokin, the first head of Harvard's sociology department, and Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class. The reading about Sorokin was interesting, to me, less because of the politics involved (I've always contended that academia has more politics than any other field--other than politics proper, of course) but rather for the fact that Sorokin, despite having been marginalized and outcast from the field was still respected by enough of the field to obtain his impressive victory of over 60% (considering the campaign was only to give him a 2nd nomination as ASA president in order to honor him, not necessarily the presidency itself). The campaign was nice and simple, obtaining a supporter from each major region of the US who supported honoring Sorokin with the traditional 2nd nomination for ASA president by mailing out letters asking for support of his nomination before the actual nomination (originally employing a snowballing strategy where each individual would personally mail several other individuals and they kept one master list to prevent multiple mailings to the same individual). Simple enough, but very effective.

As for the Veblen piece, once again I have to admire his biting tongue-in-cheek rhetoric as he discusses the leisure class comparing their activities to that of babarians, discussing the wastefulness of consumption, the necessary ugliness of fashion as a status symbol and the rejection of that ugliness leading to the constant cylce of new fashion, and even a critique of higher education as a means of wasting lots of time and resources so that students may learn useless information like the languages of dead Southern European people (e.g. Greek and Latin). Veblen sum up the constant wastefulness iin the consumerism oriented leisure class, looking down on what we would today refer to as 'cheap crap': "So thoroughly has the habit of approving the expensive and disapproving the inexpensive been ingrained into our thinking that we instinctively insist upon at least some measure of wasteful expensiveness in all our consumption, even in the case of goods which are consumed in strict privacy and without the slightest thought display" (112). Truthful in its absurdity and absurd in its truthfulness, it makes me wonder what he would have accomplished had he turned his pen to the novel as opposed to his colorful examination of society. A particularly fun passage, that sums up Veblen's model of the requirements for what is valued by the lesiure class comes near the end: "English orthography satisfies all the requirements of the canons of reputability under the law of conscious waste. It is archaic, cumbrous, and ineffective; its acquisition consumes much time and effort; failure to acquire it is easy of detection" (257). Veblen explains ownership as motivated by emulation which is then, in turn, emulated within society structures all for the sake of 'honor' through a display of weath-based status (35). There are a few other choice quotes throughout, such as 124 with the critique of fashion, but this summary has gotten at the gist of the argument and made Veblen's unique style. While the insights Veblen has brought to the field have been repeated by others in academia and popular media, none quite match his combination of bitter satire with insightful critique that make Veblen a timeless read.

In this piece, Durkheim levels some heavy volleys at contemporary theory, although at the time of the writing what we now call 'contemporary social theory' was 'Middle Age social philosophy' where instead of looking at everything objectively and examining facts (as Durkheim advocates) we apply value-driven interpretations of the world--albeit the 'contemporary theories' often focus on marginalized values rather than supporting the 'dominant norms' (Durkheim 1982). It should also be noted that Durkheim takes care to note that a plurality of societies exist and each society has its own sets of norms, further he takes pain to say that we should not judge one society as 'superior' to another, but rather that we should look at general trends and establish what is 'normal' for a given type of society (Durkheim 1982:64-65). Durkheim, therefore, is not trying to impose a 'Western European' model on all societies, rather he is asking that we seek clear objective views of society to understand the structure in which they operate and the components that allow it to operate. I have heard this view criticized as promoting the extension of society in a balanced structure forever, which he does suggest, but he also notes that it is important to understand societal change--he, in fact, notes that some change is natural and appropriate within society, although he does not want to see society collapse completely (Durkheim 1982:90 and 104-105). Furthermore, Durkheim establishes that no generalization matches everybody as everybody will deviate in various degrees from the norm, so he is not saying that all people are the same (or should be), merely that society is set up in a way that promotes certain norms and by objectively examining society we can establish and understand these social facts (Durkheim 1982:86-87 and 102). In fact, the only thing I would really consider faulting him for, personally, is that he appears to fix the unit of analysis at the societal level (and has, in my opinion, a flawed/incomplete conception of all societies stemming from one societal structure), although he does note that as we establish an understanding of the societal level we can begin to explore smaller organizational structures within society (Durkheim 1982:114-117).

In short, I have to say I'm generally a fan of Durkheim. I am hoping that upon further reflection, I can form a better grasp of the elements of contemporary theory that Durkheim feels should be rejected and the elements of it he supports although some contemporary theorists appear to reject or ignore his understanding of the multifaceted aspects of the world and society.

Durkheim, Emilie. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Methods. New York: Free Press.

This is a short 'bonus post' for this week, since I came across this article in Science Daily after I already posted for this week, plus if I'm remembering correctly Durkheim's primary discussion of hereditary succession was in the previous week's readings, although it did resurface this week as he discussed ways in which division of labor are corrupted. Apparently, hyenas use the advantages their parents have gained in order to gain their own higher place in society, see the Science Daily article. You can also read the article in Behavioral Ecology if you're interested in a more detailed scientific discussion.

In Durkheim's sobering concluding chapters, he discusses the pathological/corrupted forms of division of labor that exist in today's society. In contrast to Book I & II, Book III discusses the division of labor as a source of unnatural inequality when it is forced upon people or regulations are not in place to keep the division just. It seems that Durkheim sees this corruption occurring partially because economists have misinterepreted the division of labor as merely leading to increased efficiency when, in fact, the division of labor is a means of social solidarity that allows greater freedom for the individual (Durkheim 1997:308). Further, this solidarity is partially dependent on the government being properly organized in a fashion that allows it to serve as a means of connection between people leading otherwise diverse lives and having the regulations in place to ensure that production is in balance with consumption (Durkheim 1997:296 and 303). With that said, Durkheim does not call for negative regulations nor does he deny that the economic system eventually corrects for inconsistencies, but he sees regulations as necessary for stability of the system to avoid crashes like we are seeing in our current economy (Durkheim 1997:303).

Rather than go into further summary of this last section, I'm going to diverge slightly here and discuss some contemporary theory that seems like it might be seeking to achieve some of the goals of solidarity within division of labor. I am speaking of coordination theory, a theory which I have only recently stumbled upon (literally stumbled upon) and one that comes out of the world of management information systems (MIS) and has found application within human-computer interaction (HCI). This theory seeks to form a model of the ways in which activity within a system is divided and the ways in which they communicate and interact to achieve a shared goal where their tasks are divided. In application, it seeks to find ways in which information technology can be utilized to make it easier for the individual actors performing their separate tasks to be informed when the dependency they are waiting on has been met so they can fulfill their role in the system. Again, I have done very little readin on this particular theory, so I cannot speak of it in detail, but I'm pointing it out in case their interest in it, although I'm personally very skeptical as to its originality but I do enjoy its general practicality and seeming simplicity. It's of particular interest to me as I'm beginning to delve into the emerging area of service design, which is an area of current expansion within HCI that I'm planning to cover in a course I'm teaching this summer on the 'emerging practices of HCI', although like coordination theory, service design seems to not be wholly original either as many aspects of it seems to simply be a relabeling of 'experience design' where the focus is on the entire user experience rather than just the usability of the product's functions. On a side note, if any reader wishes to take this course, it is being offered online and on-campus as HCI 596X at Iowa State University (feel free to request a copy of the syllabus). The group project will be service design oriented, but the individual projects will be more traditional interaction design focusing on the usability of a computer application or web site. My apologies for the plug of the course in this blog post, but I'm hoping to get some students in the course with an interest in the social sciences as it will be a good addition to the group of primarily engineers and psychologists that make up the core of Iowa State's HCI program (it should be noted that internationally, HCI as a discipline is shifting in the direction of the social sciences as computers continually serve as a means of connecting people and become less about an individual performing isolated work).

Durkheim, Emile. 1997 (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. W.D. Halls, trans. NY: Free Press.

Durkheim challenged the classical economist view of the causes of division of labor stating that the economists are wrong to think that human pursuit of happiness caused them to divide up labor to seek greater leisure time and happiness (Durkheim 1997:180). Instead, Durkheim sees the primary cause of the division of labor as a necessary result of population growth and condensing (Durkheim 1997:205). Essentially, because populations were growing and people were in close proximity, they divided up labor in order to more efficiently produce the means of sustenance as well as a way of reducing conflict. Unlike Marx, Durkheim believe conflict is a natural state of mankind when individuals have overlapping functions and can get in the way of one another's success; however, when labor is divided and tasks are separated in a way so that the scientist can be successful in conjunction with the business owner, politician, etc. since they serve different functions in society and therefore do not often come into points of contact where they might have competing interests (Durkheim 1997:210). Of course, through this division of labor, organic solidarity increases while mechanical solidarity (and the collective conscious) decrease, so that the individual opinions and personal beliefs are able to grow (Durkheim 1997:146).

While individuals continue on a path of diversity that allows for individual circumstances, Durkheim notes that society becomes increasingly rational due to a necessity to focus on what is universal since "[w]e can onlyponder effectively upon the general" (Durkheim 1997:232). In some ways this presents a conflict, although Durkheim does not acknowledge it as such, the reason behind this appears to be that Durkheim sees a need for individuals to be connected with one another in a way similar to mechanical solidarity as he sees organic solidarity as only functioning when a society has first established a 'sameness' (Durkheim 1997:222-223). Durkheim believes in a need for a level of collective conciousness, and he feels that collectivity formed through rational thought leads to a reduction in categorization of the collective consciousness and allows for greater free development of individual variations (Durkheim 1997:233). Contemporary theorists have questions this idea of rationality leading to increased freedom, with C. Wright Mills declaring that this focus on rationality has led to a loss of reason and what he refers to as the conversion of people into "The Cheerful Robot" (Mills 1963:236-246).

I would argue that rational thought has, in many ways, allowed greater freedom such as that described by Durkheim, although I would also tend to agree with Mills that a blind faith in rational thought without an eye to reason can lead to inhuman decisions if the only rationality is the thought of personal gain. However, if the rationality is an objective view of the consequences for the larger system, and not just the immediate gains, then I think many of the negative consequences of rationality are mitigated as most of the negatives of rational thought are due to a blindness of future consequences in favor of the immediate effects, but this is often difficult (if not impossible) with pure logical thought. To dismiss rationality is, according to Durkheim, to dismiss the universal and to dismiss the ability to effectively ponder the general, which I would argue would prevent us from seeing the forest among the leaves and prevent us from being able to effect the system in a positive manner (Durkheim 1997:232). Still, the pure logical positivism professed by Durkheim has limitations that we should be equally cautious of as following this to the letter would prevent us from seeing the leaves from the trees and blind us to the possible larger impact that simple causality often cannot see, so while the particular may defy the understanding (I'm assuming Durkheim means understanding of causality, mechanisms at play, etc.) they are still necessary to "keep things real" (Durkheim 1997:232). We need to keep both the forest, trees, and leaves in perspectives in order to understand how to effect change as well as to keep things in proper perspective, we should not as some social theorists seem to suggest throw the baby out with the bath water and completely reject the Enlightenment focus on rational thought (Ardorno 1991:53-84). I don't believe Mills was calling for an end to rational thinking within the social sciences but rather a need to rethink the focus and add an element of reason to the objective views of science.

Adorno, Theodor W. 1991. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London: Routledge.
Durkheim, Emile. 1997 (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. W.D. Halls, trans. NY: Free Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1963. Power, Politics, and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills. New York, NY: Oxford U. Press.

In Durkheim's introduction to The Division of Labor, he discusses how not only industry but all of society is on a track of continuous specialization and division of labor (Durkheim 1997:2-4). He discusses the fragmentation of philosophy into a host of special disciplines and the further fragmentation of those disciplines into minutely narrowed, specialized fields of research. The typical saying with graduate studies is that the further you go along in your education process the more and more you should be specializing in your education in order to find your 'niche' that will earn you respect in your field, tenure, etc. Taking the field of Sociology as an example, we see people specializing in such sub-fields as criminology, rural sociology, urban sociology, etc. These fields are then FURTHER subdivided into areas of further specialization that I would be the wrong person to ask about, but I know they exist. There are also additional divisions based on researchers epistemologies, or there understanding of what makes something true (in Durkheim's time positivism was the rule and the way), that not only further divide things into sub-specializations but often form entirely separate schools of thought so even when individuals are tackling the same problem they may not accept one another's results as 'true' or understand one another's view of 'truth'. In some ways, this repetitive labor calls to mind Durkheim's notion of organic society, but rather than forming the organic solidarity he spoke of we are finding fissures that Coser's introduction to this version of the book discusses Durkheim's reaction to: "if the division of [...] produces a low degree of social cohesion and solidarity, if technical developments have outstripped the growth of an appropriate regulative apparatus--it behooves social scientists to warn decision makers that only creation of new institutionalized bonds can prevent social decay through strife and spreading of social disorder" (Durkheim 1997:xxi). In some ways, this is what is happening with the social sciences, a low degree of social cohesion and solidarity has emerged through the development of sub-specializations within sub-specializations and splits between social scientists on what 'truth' means, but there is no social scientist to warn the social scientists in charge of their field of this division (or at least not one all sides would listen to), there is no policy that they can influence aside from the journals that are counted toward tenure application but due to the ease of publication with modern technologies ways of subverting the system can easily be found, not to mention that the social sciences produce the works that analyze subversion of social structures, norms, etc. and would be the ones most able to break any system in place. This is a topic Dr. Woodman has broached in class on at least one occasion this semester and in reading Durkheim, we should be well aware of the perils the current state of things places the discipline as a whole. While it could end up as a "mostly harmless" splintering into additional disciplines, reading Durkheim should make it clear to all of us that there is also a very real possibility of it splintering into non-existence, collapsing like a house of cards.

The other part about this very brief section I chose to narrow my focus down to (in the interest of division of labor and specialization), is what he has to say for people like me who try to spread to many disciplines (computer science and creative writing undergrad, human-computer interaction Masters with some elements of psychology and working with a geoscientist, and now human-computer interaction and sociology for my PhD) and refuse to fully specialize: "It appears to us that such a state of detachment and indeterminateness is somewhat antisocial" (Durkheim 1997:4). Maybe to society such an approach is viewed as antisocial and maybe the traditional view of the tenure process is a narrow niche that you can own and that pays you back with tenure, but I see the approach as the opposite--but taking this wide view of research, I am able to cross not just disciplinary bounds but bounds of colleges in order to find research collaborators from a wide area to explore larger issues, seek out larger grants, and publish more widely (you'd be amazed at how much further data takes you when different parts of that data are of interest to different fields). I haven't applied for any grants, but in looking through the call for grants and in discussion with various faculty members from different parts of campus the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other large grant boards are increasingly searching for less specialized research that is taking more of this interdisciplinary approach. Besides enriching my vita and pockets, this wider view also enriches my life more because it allows me gain friends in other disciplines such as biology, physics, etc. who specialize in obscure areas of their field (fields that I only have passing formal education about) but we are able to find common ground in portions of a wider area of research and still discuss their work in ways that inform me of their fields and widens my area of understanding in general. So while Durkheim is definitely right about societal expectations for specialization, and he may be right about the negative views society gives to those who do not specialize, I nevertheless claim that by not FULLY specializing one is able to gain a competitive advantage if the rest of the field blindly specializes. I say not fully specializing because breadth of knowledge only gets you so far and some specialization and depth is definitely needed--you just have to make sure that no matter how deep you dig you dig horizontally on occasion or remember to tie a rope to the top so you can occasionally climb up for air and a horizontal walk to explore a hole in another area.

I'll possibly decide to 'specialize' less on this post at a later time this week. I'm generally really enjoying Durkheim, especially since he generally does not cause the same amount of conflict between my two social selves the way Marx did causing me to decide how much I value luxuries gained through manipulation of social power vs. how much I value a fair shake for all (I think I, generally, ended up in realizing that I am mostly a Social Democrat--much to my younger brother's smug approval since he's been a Social Democrat for years and I always had fun taking an overly conservative stance just to mess with him). Durkheim has a style though where I feel like he is at least "telling it like he sees it", if not always telling it like it is due to the limited knowledge of the time--there is no ideological baiting or anything that puts one side or the other of me on an offensive defensive mode. Durkheim is what I see a social scientist as needing to be: an objective observer seeking to understand a system so that proposals can be made to try and change things, to fix flaws in the social structure, and not to simply "whine" about a problem without explaining how it's a problem or ways it can be fixed. I do not gain understanding from 'understanding' a specific case, I gain understanding by understanding the system in place and how that system might be changed to allow for a specific improvement. I do not expect that a model of society will be perfect and explain everything or that a solution will fix all problems, I expect a model to be "good enough" to explain the phenomena "most of the time" under certain conditions and that it will be expanded and modified as needed as new information becomes available. Likewise, my assumption is that solutions are just "steps in the right direction" and not end all solutions as progress is a constant process and maybe one day one problem will be solved, but I expect another problem (possibly caused by the solution of the first problem) will crop up to be solved. Some may call this posivist grounded approach 'oppressive' and 'dominant culture', but I look at this 'science' that seeks understanding but no solutions and I ask 'what's the point?' I may very well be part of that problem of division within social sciences by taking that approach, but if somebody wants to give me an answer about the point that doesn't attempt to attack in attempt to justify itself, then I'm all ears.

Durkheim, Emile. 1997 (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. W.D. Halls, trans. NY: Free Press.

I found this video today, and I thought I'd share it, notice the similarities between this story and Veblen's explanation of the rise and fall of the Vikings:


The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

In Veblen's wonderfully enjoyable essay on the rise and fall of the viking empire and its parallels to Capitalism (An Early Experiment in Trusts), I found myself unable to resist making the connection with the Capital One Viking commercials:


I'm not sure if Capital One did, in fact, take the inspiration for these commercials in part from Veblen's essay, but if they did it would add an additional undertone of irony considering the all too ominous warning Veblen gives as to the results of excesses of greed. Like Vikings, Capitalism began as small, independent farmers (or small business owners) banning together to form expeditions in search of greater profits. Capitalism, like the Viking enterprises, eventually led to most of the smaller companies being gobbled up and a difficulty of new small companies to compete in the face of large corporate trusts; however, Capitalist governments (unlike Vikings) made regulations intended (in theory) to keep the large corporation from becoming too big and putting in systems of protections (to a degree) for the small upstarts. Viking corporations ended in the way that free, unrestricted Capitalism would have in the emergence of a single Viking company controlling all assets and then under poor leadership and an over extension of its power collapsing under its own weight. Capitalism managed to delay this collapse by putting in systems of regulation and protections, but (like the Vikings) greed has shown itself to be excessive (I am not one to argue against taking gains and becoming wealthy, but I do see issues with becoming wealthy while driving an organization into the ground or taking excessive amounts of wealth--is it better for one person who will not reinvest or spend $1 billion to have that money or for that person to have $150 million, still very wealthy, while the remaining money is distributed to start up new companies, pay employees extra--almost surely to be spent on luxuries by the middle class and thus helping to reproduce the means by which the modern economy functions). Thus, we now find ourselves in an economy crippled by the excessive greed of the banking industry, not to mention the Enrons and several other companies over the past decade or so that have shown that the underpinning of Capitalism (money begetting more money) has reached the ceiling inherit in the fact that we live in a closed system with limited resources and the only way to reach further gains at this point is to merge and risk a monopoly or play the imaginary numbers game. There are no more markets that can be opened, the world market has been fairly well saturated. Until colonization of space begins (NASA promised it in promotional videos I saw in elementary school--we should have had it about a half decade ago), no new trade markets will open up nor will we see any new (huge) infusions of raw materials. Clearly instead of continuing a system focused on ever increasing greed, we need to rethink the system and build one focused on sustaining economic conditions and conservation of resources (and colonization of space). That or we let Capitalism have a few more 'good years' and set it free to the open market while we sit back with a bucket of popcorn and watch the Viking horde of Capitalism consolidate, rape and pillage the land and workers, and then collapse in a gluttoness heap.

*I should note that I realize companies continue to expand their markets in other countries the economies of India and China are growing every day, but it seems reasonable that their growth will lead (if it is not already) to the slow down or death of other economies or (if nothing else) at some point in the future those economies will reach a relative plateau state, when perhaps the economies of Africa can be further tapped (or South America) but when all of these economies are tapped, where will the bourgesie obtain its proletariat? To me, in my admitted economic naivety, it seems incomprehensible that under conditions of full (or near full) saturation we should expect, nay DEMAND, a never ending increase in capital. Especially when capital has the tendency to be hoarded, reducing the consuming power necessary to sustain and reproduce the elements of the system.

As I stated in class today, things written for propaganda purposes tend to generally upset me because I tend to feel they insult my intelligence as the holes in such things tend to be large enough to stick a bowling ball through. The Communist Manifesto is definitely no exception to that rule, and I apologize to anybody who loves the document and was at all offended by my intent to argue against some of the ideas it espouses. While I do wholeheartedly believe that Marx was fundamentally wrong about the nature of human nature and that most individuals will usually seek to gain over other individuals (that they do not know--the rules change when direct social bonds exist) and thus the notion that everybody will choose to share and share alike in some idealistic community of the world while a very nice notion (it would be very nice to see something similar happen) is not realistic in the world that I know. In class we began discussing how such a system could be made to work and while we could socialize everybody to believe that sharing is the nrom (opposite of current) and that will fix part of the problem (for those born into that system) there is still the problem of those born into the system of self-interest known as capitalism and the fact that not all those born into the new system and socialized to share will end up subscribing to those norms. We could eliminate all of the capitalists and those socialized into the ideals of self-interest, that would end up being a bloodbath and the loss of knowledge resulting from those deaths would be extremely tragic. Imprisoning them all and keeping them from inserting the ideals of self-interest into the system is equally impossible. We may still be able to assume that as time goes on the current ideals of capitalist society will be replaced by the new ones and, for the sake of argument, we can assume that through this socialization people will stop acting in their self-interest and will be happy having an equal share of the profit. Until such a thing happens (if ever, again I note I'm a pessimist), we would need some type of system to ensure that individuals are not trying to take more than their share. However, by setting up such a group we introduce a source of inequality that (based on the history of almost every government ever set up) has the potential to (and almost certainly will) abuse this social power to take advantage of others. However, for such an abuse to occur individuals have to be able to hold power long enough and have enough of an understanding of the system. If we eliminate professional politicians, have compulsory government service, and limit the terms to a reasonably short period that prevents a single individual from gaining enough of a foothold that would allow them to gain enough social power to control the system. The panel in power would need to be limited to a sufficient number that all governing and enforcement decisions are not stuck in constant debate but large enough that it would be difficult for an individual to gain power over the entire group. The governing body should be explicitly forbidden to extend terms, allow more than 1 term, or assign any individual executive control. However, it is recognized that in the event of emergencies, large panels are completely ineffective and during such times a small group of 9 individuals will be in charge for a period not to exceed 1 year--all decisions will be based on a simple majority vote and the executive powers will be limited as they will lack the power to pass any laws that extend beyond their tenure as executives, cannot extend the executive term, and do not have direct control over any military forces (which pledge their loyalty to the populous). To maintain some semblance of organizational memory the installation of new members to the governing body will be stratified so each year a portion of the governing body (most senior) are removed to be replaced by the new members.

The military is another beast that would need to have clear controls to prevent abuse, but I have not pondered that beyond how to prevent an executive body from using it to advance their own self-interest. Astute students of history will likely see echoes of the Athenian and Roman governments within this system, and I do not deny that I have taken elements from each (more heavily borrowed from the Athenians, whereas our current government borrowed more heavily from Rome). I see the most important elements as being limits to the number of years of a term and limit to terms for ALL government officials and for the government officials to be pulled from the entire populous (otherwise what's to stop one group from deciding they are 'better' than another and shoring up the power--sure this may result in individuals who are less than mentally capable being part of the governing body but I fail to see how that is different than our current government). As was pointed out in class today, Marx himself came to realize that while the idealist dream of one of his periods of life was a nice dream that revolutions often resulted in a single individual ascending to power (Tucker 1978:594-617).

I make no claims that this is a good form of government, nor do I make any claims that this is a desirable direction. I still stand by my previous claim that throughout the history of the world there have always been some individuals held above others and that there's nothing wrong with that so long as it is based on MERIT and that there are CAPS on rewards an individual can gain (and that slightly more than basic needs are provided to all people--not just enough for them to survive until the next day). I see this as more of a blending of socialism and capitalism that FDR began as an attempt to move the country out of the Depression, although since that time most of the efforts to expand said programs have been consistently blocked and those defending the notions of the long dead 'pure capitalism' have labeled such measures as 'pinko commie propaganda'. While I will not deny that the Communist Mainfesto is propaganda (and offensive to me), nor do I deny that the young Marx was full of mostly hot air, but I will say that Marx (primarily the economist, when not a propagandist swing, and occasionally the social historian) makes some very astute observations of the failings of Capitalism and the crisis that the current economic slump illustrates that it has not found a way around. I think how far down the line of socialism we need to go is up for debate; however, I don't think whether Capitalism can survive without walking somewhat down that line is possible (we did it once in the past and it saved us, but much of what was built up to allow Capitalism to be more sustainable was destroyed by those foolish enough to believe that pure Capitalism results in anything less than oligarchal businesses in the BEST case scenarios), but I don't think going all the way to full socialization of all businesses and resources is practical or desirable at this time--if ever (although I am aware that some of my colleagues will disagree with me on this point).

After the discussion I sat in on following 'formal' class time, I realized that there are some thoughts and background I should provide that explain what I call my 'double life' academically, politically, socio-economically, and several other metaphysical and intellectual ways. This also may help explain my choice of L.F. Ward as my theorist to focus on. Academically is the easiest one to discuss as there is nothing personal about it: I am both 'left and right brained' and I need both a dose of cold, rational mathematics and analysis as well as a dose of humanistic, social, holistic view of the world. That need for the balance in different academic pursuits led me to co-major in computer science and English (creative) writing as an undergraduate, led me to the interdisciplinary major of human-computer interaction, etc.

Religiously, while I continue to lean more and more toward atheism, part of me still feels the need for religion (it should be noted that the linked to post of mine from just over 2 years ago needs some revision--it is written very much from a control-based perspective framed as something more innocent). My socio-economic status through my family has been solid middle class with two working parents with a joint income of around $60k, lower middle class after my parents divorced with my mom working two jobs just to pay the bills, upper middle class during my mom's 2nd marriage (separated now) with a joint income at that point of $150k, and on my father's side from lower class (he usually pulls in about $25k or less a year) to poor (he's been below the poverty line before). My mom went from a low level corporate employee while working at then Amoco and rose to supervisor of her area and is currently at Fannie Mae in a mid-level management position (although she mostly interacts with their slew of consultants in charge of the various records management IT solutions). My father has never held a job for more than 2 or 3 years that I can remember, although he's always been in sales of one type or another (currently he works for a Lowes doing cabinet/kitchen design and retail sales). Neither of my parents graduated college--my father went to college on a fencing scholarship before dropping out when he failed to do well in Calculus and his dreams of becoming a medical doctor were crushed (and he had no idea what to do after that). My grandparents on both sides of my family were immigrants from Eastern Europe--although the only grandparent I have ever known is my maternal grandmother (from Poland) who helped raise me and my 3 siblings after selling her house to help my mother and fatehr buy a larger house to accommodate all the children. My older brother went to college for 2 years seeking a marketing degree before dropping out and working as an assistant manager in retail for a number of years before going back to college for a history degree (he completed it the same year I completed my Masters) and he is currently working retail (2 jobs--the 2nd one was needed to help pay back college debt), my youger sister had a baby at the age of 18 the father died due to a medical condition within a month after she kicked him out (my mom had let the both live in the house and had converted our living room into a bedroom they could use) within a year she got married to a different guy she knew for about 2 months (they eloped) they were together 2 years and had a baby (she moved out and separated from him over the summer and is currently living with my mom and her two children), my younger brother has a friend who went to rehab for dealing drugs but other than questionable choices in association and his earlier years in high school he seems to be fairly well balanced (he started this year at Carthage College to pursue a degree in psychology--he wants to become a clinical psychiatrist). So I have a 'colored' family background to say the least.

I, myself, have not had a period of unemployment for roughly 14 years now--I had my first job (a paper route) at the age of 10 (at the age of 15 I took a job at the concession stand at a movie theater, 16 I took a job at McDonald's, 17-18 I worked at Meijer--a Michigan-based all-in-one store, at college I worked IT support, built databases, etc. and during summers I took internship at an aerospace defence company, an internship at a division of LexisNexis that due to their recent acquirement was still operating as a start-up but the corporate overlords could be seen encroaching), and in grad school I've had a research assistantship for the past 2 and a half years with an internship at Google the summer after the first year of my Masters. So my work experience, while short lived in most places, has been decently diverse. My undergraduate was financed entirely on loans minus the merit scholarship (I went to a small, private college with a liberal faculty and conservative student body--although most of my friends were liberals or moderates, I had a decent number of conservative connections as well). I joined a fraternity (for 1 week--I quit because I saw greater opportunities for power elsewhere, I saw the fratnerity not as a group that would gain my network connections but as something that would limit me and try to shape me).

Politically, my mother is a Democrat and my father is a Republican, and perhaps it is natural for me to associate myself with neither party. In many ways both are the same to me, and in every Presidential election I vote for Senate members that are in the opposite party as the Presidential candidate I vote for (I had no problem voting against Harkin because I feel he has been in office far too long, plus I knew he would win no matter what my vote was). I think the House of Representatives is too large and nothing more than a partisan playground fight with votes around ideological perspectives, too much talk, and too little action. The Senate I see as generally productive although rife with corruption, but at least they seem to get things done (usually be trading favors/votes and quite possibly by less appropriate means). I'm in favor of the electoral college for the precise reason that I do not trust the 'wisdom of the masses'. I'm an elitist, and I have never denied that fact. However, I feel it is wrong to allow people to starve or otherwise flounder, and I am well aware that the reason people are homeless or jobless or otherwise tends not to be faults of their own and that our government is failing a huge mass of people. I believe in merit-based inequality but not 'natural inequality' (which is nothing more than a means of oppression)--if somebody is better at a particular task then they deserve greater rewards, if somebody is smarter than they deserve greater respect, etc. I believe everybody is BORN equal, but I do not believe everybody stays that way. I am aware that socio-economic circumstances do give individuals different advantages that allow them to rise to the higher eschelons. I believe in equal opportunity and that our school systems are not allowing for that--the current system teaches those in the lower socio-economic brackets to be followers and 'wage slaves' whereas the school systems at the upper levels teach social networking skills and other 'trust fund baby' life skills.

To tie this back into Marx, I see the young Marx as a trust fund baby rebelling against his father but too intellectually weak to make a point (he reminds me of individuals I've met from Stanford and other liberal, top tier schools--well intentioned but no practical understanding of things). However, middle Marx (the economist Marx) has thrown off the whiney trust fund brat attitude and has a deeper understanding of the actual human condition as opposed to what he has read in books and discusses it in a fairly reasoned and well rationed manner that displays an admittedly ingenius understanding of the high level system. I disagree with Marx's view of humans wishing to collaborate and seeking equality--even if that were true for the MAJORITY of individuals, it only takes one individual with enough social power to break the system and take personal gain (or to subvert the system and sneak personal gain). I know, I personally, enjoy my luxuries and while I would not willing 'screw over' somebody I know, I have no issue 'screwing over' somebody I have never met (or somebody I dislike) to make a personal gain so long as I do not feel I am hurting their survival. Socialism works for small groups, but when it comes to large groups there are more nameless, faceless individuals that people have no qualms taking advantage of for personal gain (or people they dislike/enemies that not only they have no qualms taking advantage of but they take pleasure from crushing).

I might add more to this post later, but right now I need to finish up some work for Soc 511.

The question posed for this week is "What is the nature of Social Power?"; however, before I get into the answer I want to revisit some of my thoughts from last week (briefly). First of all, while the Early Marx discussed in last week's post was fairly tautological and often failed to drive home a point, the 'economist' Marx as seen in Das Kapital, while still not one to conserve words, was very rational in his thought process and made clear points. Along with that, some of my thoughts about modern day alienation of the mind were addressed in some of these 'middle period' Marx works as well. With that said, Marx did seem to have a somewhat idyllic view of what life would be like in a nation where the populous no longer focuses on manufacture/industry work and shifts to the mental and creative labors--much as the modern Western states have done (although, rather than doing it through furthering automation, we did it by shifting industrial operations to other nations where we can exploit workers outside of our borders and thus make a feeble attempt to hide the exploitation from the public eye). Now instead of 'wage labor' we have 'salary labor' and instead of being forced by profiteers to give up our leisure time to produce tangible objects that we do not own, we voluntarily work at home after 'clocking out' to get reports and other intangible 'products of the mind' created for others. Marx seemed to view the intellectual labors as ones where the workers have more ownership of the product, and it's true that workers have more freedom to personalize their labor and even a degree (or illusion) of flexibility as to when to work on the 'products of the mind', but I believe that ultimately this is a false consciousness (Tucker 1978:284-285). In fact, Marx believed that capitalism would be desitned to end with the end of wage labor (Tucker 1978:215). However, my ideas are still not fully baked on this topic, so I will move on to the actual question of this week.

As somebody who has sought power in various forms for various reasons from the age of 5 (maybe 7) to the present, I still have trouble clinching down on a single answer to the question of the nature of social power. Sometimes power has simply been a personal thing, to be in control of myself and reject perceived control structures--a simple rejection of authority to exert my indpendence and taking actions to prove that I can survive without those authorities. At other times, I have gained power within an institution such as my time on various university boards and student organizations as an undergraduate that allowed me to make changes effecting individuals other than myself (it helped that my executive boards for the student organizations I ran were handpicked by me--including handpicking one member who I knew would disagree with most of my ideas). Since those days, however, I have learned that true independence is undesirable--while relying on authorities is distasteful, I have found that it is important to rely on other people for various specializations. So while one can have the 'power of independence', it is my belief that independence as a form is social power is either a dead end or an illusion (or false conscience, if you will). Sometimes in those more institutional roles, I've had varying degrees of power where I have had agenda items given to me by administrators or have had to consider the opinions of my constituents (although in the debate of increasing the general education requirements at my undergraduate institution, I went against what I assumed my constituent desires would be by voting and speaking in favor of the changes). With power granted by an institution, there are clear limits and rules bound by governing documents, those with more power than oneself, and sometimes "the people" (although, generally speaking, "the people" only have the illusion of power and their wishes are only followed if there is fear of a dissolution of the structure).

So far these anecdotes have not really gotten at the nature of social power, here I'm defining nature to mean the 'essentials'. The title to this post gives a hint, but it is deceptive as well. In life, I have found that in order to acquire power one needs power of one form or another--whether it is Obama's oratorical power, Caesar's strategic power (the power of his family connections didn't hurt either), etc. It is the end part that is deceptive though because while I believe that power can be an end in itself, I also believe power can have other ends. Sometimes individuals desire and obtain power for the purpose of maintaining the "old guard" with its structure, ways, and privileges for the then current elite (e.g. the Roman Senate in the late Republic, the Bush administration, etc.) Conversely, there are those who seek power (or at least claim to--we can't read their minds) for the purpose of change and destrcution of the "old guard" (e.g. Gorbachev, although I don't believe him; the Gracchi, Caesar, although he likely had additional motivators; and Obama, although it is too early to tell). It should be noted that when Napoleon first rose to power it was on populist message of change and destruction of the European monarchies (Beethoven originally dedicated a symphony to Napoleon for this reason) and while change did come, Napoleon's motives were clearly not the ones he claimed as he crowned himself emperor and proceeded to try to take the world by force (Beethoven changed his mind about dedicating the symphony to Napoleon on this news). Thus, there is considerable skepticism about the true motivations for those who seek power for the sake of change (incidentally, I voted for, donated to, and even did some door knocking for Obama's campaing--but then my favorite US President is FDR whom I consider to be the United State's most successful dictator).

So I return to the quesiton for a third and final time: what is the nature of social power? Simply put, the nature of social power is to force one's own ideas on to others--whether those ideas are about preserving a structure and "way of life" or whether those ideas are changing the way people view the world. Social power is as intangible as knowledge and information and as concrete as an individual at the top of an organization's 'pyramid of power'. It is as basic as a spouse influencing their spouse to try out a new restaurant or as complex as leading a nation in a time of war. One can obtain power over oneself, convince a small band, or subjugate nations--the more power one seeks, the more power one needs to obtain that end. While ideas have social power, if a person does not have the power of written or spoken word then the person can only obtain a limited set of power with that idea (although if one of the people he convinces to follow him and his idea has the power of spoken or written word then the powers can be combined to create more power, but then it is shared power).

To quickly sum up this, admittedly meandering, post: power begets power but the end goal of power is to force others to accept one's vision (which can be interpreted as power as well, but I am separating the two here--where power is the process to get what one wants and when one already has it that is no longer power, per se, since at that point it is just 'accepted' and one doesn't have to make other's agree with an idea or force it on to another person). Although, I will freely admit that I have sought power for the sake of power, but to me information is power and the more I can know then the more I understand how things work and can find ways to subvert the system or use the current system to achieve my goals, but then this does not always fit well with my ethical imperative that I can do whatever I want as long as I harm nobody when I know the truth is that you cannot do anything without harming somebody else in one way or another. So it's nice to have an illusion that power goes beyond an end to itself, at least. Marx saw knowledge as a power that could be objectified through the creation of intellectual products and science (Tucker 1978:285). To me knowledge is the ultimate power as it allows one to understand the whole and all of the individual pieces, knowing which ones can be subverted and which ones can be used to reach a certain point. Knowledge also allows one to understand that power gained by certain means, such as those granted by an institution, often comes with constraints that cannot be broken without severing the source of power--thus an individual that rises to power granted by an institution may find that while they are able to change the institution to a degree they also end up serving the interests of the institution and thus reinforce it. Similarly, while one can gain individual freedom through rebellion against authority may gain the power to be dependent from that authority, possibly all authorities, but ultimately they must depend on somebody for some things. The way power is acquired and the goals for acquiring power often determine if its ends will be for nefarious purposes or for ideological reasons and changes that might be necessary.

*Update 9 Feb 2009*

I was watching M*A*S*H this evening and the following line was said by Charles Winchester after he finds out Hawkeye and BJ have gotten a bathtub "Your middle-class sense of decency and fair play will overcome the malice you now bear me, and soon I shall be luxuriating in that canvas Xanadu. And if that craps out, I'll just bribe you silly." When that didn't prove to have results, Winchester threatened blackmail (telling the camp) and got the access to it he wanted. Social power at work. Continuing on the 'popular culture' kick, I also realized a discussion of social power could not be complete without mentioning "A Little Priest" from Sweeney Todd (lyrics), some of the better nuggets include:

Sweeney Todd: The history of the world, my love-- 

Mrs. Lovett: Save a lot of graves
 Do a lot of relatives favours 

Sweeney Todd: --Is those below serving those up above 

and

Sweeney Todd: For what’s the sound of the world out there? 
[...]
Sweeney Todd: It’s man devouring man, my dear

The entire story of Sweeney Todd is made possible by an abuse of social power
as illustrated by these quotes. Both of these examples of social power
demonstrate 'evil' uses of it.

Another form of social power that I was recently reminded of is one's ability to
assert oneself onto another, leave an impression. This is a particularly useful
form of social power when interviewing for a job (or in this case a prospective
grad student). This is social power on the micro level, where personal favors
(as mentioned in the Sweeney Todd lyrics) also falls but these micro level social
powers are often needed to rise to higher levels of social power.

As this is the first post and this is accessible to those outside of Iowa State's Sociology 506: Classical Sociological Theory course, I refer outsiders to the course blog for information on these weekly posts.

1) What is "alienation" and what do you know about it at an experiential level (have you experienced/seen/felt it) and does reading Marx make you think or feel about alienation differently?

"Alienation" in Marx is the feeling of existing outside oneself, of becoming property owned by another through one's labor: "The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labour becomes an object, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power of its own confronting him; it means that life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien" (Tucker 1978:72). In the modern world, we talk constantly about being "connected" with the Internet, jet transportation, cell phones, Internet on our cell phones, etc. However, if one has time from the constant barrage of e-mails, checking things off a never ending to-do list, and scheduling every moment of our lives then we may realize that we are trapped within a system that promotes blind ambition and constant focus on goals over control of one's own life, although we have the illusion of control. Writing, as he was, soon after the industrial revolution had won out over the old merchant and fedual systems, Marx's focus was on the entrapment and alienation of the blue collar, industrial worker and the mindless trap of wage slavery. However, in the 21st century while industrial labor is still a case of wage slavery--now being exported outside of the Euro-American powers--a new type of slavery and alienation is taking place, but unlike the alienation of the proletariate in the 19th century forced down from above for subsistence, we are now seeing the self-alienation of the intellectual working class, not for subsitence, but for blind ambition and goal obsession. Wheras Marx discusses the alientation of the worker from his intellectual labor, the modern Euro-American worker's sole labor is an intellectual act no longer producing industrial goods but producing 'value adds' and 'ideas' in the new 'knowledge economy'. Our ancestors saw the alienation of body from being of the mind, but our generation is seeing the alienation of the mind from the being. Previous generations worked twelve hour days as wage slaves, modern generations are constantly on call, constantly responding tow ork e-mail, officially on eight hour days but voluntarily (or unofficially) working twelve hour days, fourteen hour days, practically twenty-four hour days. Whereas the previous generations left work when they left work, modern workers in Euro-American society carries work with them, the work of the modern intellectual laborer is chained to herself through her Blackberry, iPhone, or whatever electronic communication device she has with her--not taking a break for family events, weekends, or vacation. Marx envisioned the alienated worker, mental work separated from his physical work, slave to a wage, realizing his enslavement and banding together with his bretheren to overthrow his masters. The modern reality is far worth. Our minds have become slaves to ourselves, our ambitions tied to the materialist possessions we convince ourselves we need, when it is our own minds enslaving us, making us unable to close that line of communication because we fear that the world will fall apart if work calls and we aren't there to answer that our work is so important that we must be constantly connected to it. Who will free us from ourselves?

I should note that the ideas presented in the previous paragraph are not all fully formed, some are admittedly half-baked at best. I am stuck in this enslavement myself, scheduling my life and constantly keeping up with e-mail. Getting an iPhone was a relief for me as it meant I was no longer tethered to a laptop to get my e-mail and news fixes. This drug of information that I am so dependent on, so much so that while on a cruise of the Western Caribbean this past summer I had to sign on for at least a few minutes to check my e-mail, to make sure I had not missed anything critical (I, of course, had not). I am aware of the cage I have found myself in, aware of the disconnect caused by the need to be connected, yet even if I knew the weakness of the cage and could break free of it, I am not sure I would take the steps to do so. This is the modern enslavement, that while we do not have to fight for our existence in the way the proleteriat of Marx's day did, we do have to fight for our humanity, for our connection to people not through the wires but through face-to-face interaction.

I can't say reading Marx makes me feel any differently about any of this, I can say I find Marx to be naively idealic in his vision (at least his Early Works) and generally about as half-baked as my little mental exercise above, although his is likely better edited. Capital ruled the day long before capitalism entered the vocabulary, the division of labor, while unequal, has allowed society to advance from our hunters and gathering past to the swarm of mass consumer locusts bent on controlling nature (as opposed to being controlled by nature) that we have become. Without capital, Athens would have been unable to devote itself to philosophy and the arts, Rome would not have built its roads, and Marx would not have been able to write his idealic views of a proleteriat revolution. While it is clear that true laissez faire is doomed to failure, the current crash of Western economies in their quasi-free market economies is proof enough of that, I would also hesitate to view communism or pure socialism as the solution--generally, speaking, the extreme opposite of a failed solution is just another failed solution. But, I suppose I should likely temper my argument there given the fact that I have met few moderates and pragmatists in my life and most people tend to fall on one side of the wall or the other and while I do enjoy a good debate, I'd rather not find myself on top of a wall as both sides seek to tear the middle down to justify their rejection of the other side.

2) What of the Marx readings in Tucker did you find really hit home; that is, what had a strong and significant impact on you and what parts have left you a bit fuzzy as to what was going on and what could possibly been the point?

This is the first time I've ever read Marx, and I have to say that so far from my readings of him, I could never see myself being a Marxist. While he makes some points that seem valid, he takes the arguments to ideologic extremes that just grate with my moderate sensibilities--to me it is like he ignores or glosses over facts of history to make a point, he seems more political than realpolitikal. For example in his Ecomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx states:

If the product of labour does not belong to the worker, if it confronts him as an alien power, this can only be because it belongs to some other man than the worker. If the worker's activity is a tormet to him, to another it must be delight and his life's joy. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over man. (Tucker 1978:78)

While, generally, I feel these statements make sense on the surface level, I think it would be the short sighted of us not to place this in light of historical sight and realize that since the advent of civilization man has always produced for other men--that is what the division of labor that necessiatated the creation and advancement of civilization is all about. With civilization, came the hierarchies of man over man, although even in nature there are animals over animals (wolf packs have leaders, for example), there is simply no historical precedence for a civilization in which man is truly self-sufficient. Isolated individuals can be self-sufficient (there is plenty and only animals to compete with), small communities can be self-sufficient (and even then there is a division of labor and usually an emerging or existing leader--if not one man as leader, then rules above man as leader so if not one man dominating many men then the rules of many men dominate all men), etc. And if not the motivation of competition and accumulation of capital, then of what motivation drives advancement? Perhaps human kind truly does have a natural curiousity and drive to advancement, but I think a look at progress throughout history would show that much of that drive stems from man's desire to dominate man (e.g. war technologies) and man's desire to prove himself worthy to other men (e.g. achieve a degree, that is really just a piece of paper that only has worth because we've mutually agreed it has more worth than somebody who has learned the same amount simply by pouring over volumes of literature from their local library).