Idyllic Simplicity
From Jackscolon, quoting Richard Weaver on what might have been lost to the modernism j. morgan criticized a few posts back:
"We might take as a single instance a Vermont farmer of the 1850's, certainly not one to give himself airs, yet a vessel of some responsibility and, to that extent, an aristocrat by calling. He has been properly admired for his independence, by which is meant not isolation from community life - on the contrary, he appears to have been active in town meeting and at the poll - but opportunity and dispostion to decide for himself according to a rational and enduring code of values. His acres may have been rocky, but he appraised his situation and assumed direction. He rose early because of the relationship between effort and reward was clear to him. There was a rhythm to his task which humanized it, each day bringing a certain round of duties, and the seasons themselves imposed a larger pattern, as when haying time arrived. At the end of a day he might remain up until nine oclock with the weekly newspaper, not flipping through comics and sporting news but reading its political disquisitions to weigh and consider as carefully as Bacon could have desired. He observed the Fourth of July, thanksgiving, and Christmas with some recollection of what they signified. He remained poor, but was not unmanned; he had enough character to say No.
With the advance of industrialism this type of individual is expoited and then, because he is exploited, contemned. native dignity becomes an old fashion, and character is often an obstruction to the wheels of economic progress. Indeed, the sort of social hierarchy we have described as reflecting knowledge of value is abolished, and there is a substituted a structure consisting of a mass of workers below and small group of elite, who are themselves technicians, at the top. The workers are likely not to know what they are producing, and the managers are not likely to care. Division of labor may become so minute that it is impossible for the individual to grasp the ethical implications of his task, even if he were disposed to try."
Was this really "typical?" I could believe more typical then than now, but I do wonder if this guy was truly the norm. Pre-industrial revolution America held all sorts of people, and I feel like this charicature unjustly portrays the past as materially and spiritually superior to the present. It's also worth noting that the 1850's were a time thoroughly entrenched in modernism, despite it's still pending fulfillment in the crude efficiency of the American economy.
It's not that this quote doesn't resonate with me. I'd love to live such an idealized life of simplicity and efficiency, doing productive and satisfying work both for necessity and leisure, developing the land and myself, and having something beautiful to show for my efforts. But was this realistic? Did American corporations really remove the soul from American culture by de-humanizing the peasant, the common man? Are people really that much different today than they were 150 years ago?
posted by RJ @ 10:24 PM
28 comments
28 Comments:
Redness - good points. I think the worker back then was trying to do the same thing most workers are trying to do now - put food on the table and support a family. It is the elite group at the top that seems to change. The means might be different, but the goal is still the same - live a happy and productive life. I think that is the creed of most "normal" people regardless of the age. I mean, each different period had add ons (the middle ages had the "don't get the Black Death" clause) but the essentials are still there. Good points.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The idea that exploitation has increased since Industrialization is laughable. Most exploitation today is willingly submitted to (consumer exploitation is a choice of ignorance vs. being informed. Baiscally the choice to care enough not to be exploited). Before Industrialization, the most common social structure was Feudalism. In Feudalism exploitation was complete. Everything the average person had -- including a man's wife -- was exploited by the Lord of the land. During the 1800's in rural areas of the US (read the South) the situation was much the same -- except that they had slaves rather than "normal" citizens working for them. So baiscally it was the same. During the early IR there was a lot of exploitation, but I don't see how it could be more than Feudalism since feudal exploitation is complete. What we have today is definetly better than the past, or at least the recent past (the average Roman or ancient Egyptian citizen might have been exploited less). The man in the story was very privileged if he owned his own land. He was not one of the masses being exploited by the feudal aristocricy. After the IR he might have been exploited, but a lot more people who were exploited pre-IR no longer were. Or at least they no longer were to such a complete extent. So its not so much that exploitation has arisen as it has shifted to a different group. And I think that the group unwillingly exploited today is smaller and exploited less completely than before. I guess thats pretty Utilitarian of me, but it's the only way I know of saying "our system is better than the past, even though its not perfect." The bottom line is that most people in the US today are only exploited, as I said earlier, when they allow themselves to be.
First, I am going to thrash standingoutinthecold’s post:
“The idea that exploitation has increased since Industrialization is laughable. Most exploitation today is willingly submitted to (consumer exploitation is a choice of ignorance vs. being informed. Baiscally the choice to care enough not to be exploited). “
Wrong. See, your entire argument is based on the assumption that humans are free-willing agents who are fixities with impermeable consciousnesses. As such, they are presented with a catalogue of societal/cultural options of which they are free to choose. To the extent to which they don’t have all the choices they desire (presumably, that desire is a biological reality and fixity to you) they experience the same kind of emotions and thoughts no matter the context. It just doesn’t work like that. Will, agency, consciousness, and everything else about human beings is contengient upon the sociocultural context in which that human being’s self, his/her subjectivity, is constructed. Your example of ignorance (in both the wide, educational sense as well as the narrow consumer sense) is completely wrong because it isn’t as simple as choice; it is more like formation. Industrialization, commidification, urbanization, beurocratization, and the entire mechanism of the market don’t just present us with different choices, they redefine who and what we are. Exploitation has increased due to industrialization.
“Before Industrialization, the most common social structure was Feudalism.”
Not in America, friend; especially not in Vermont.
“In Feudalism exploitation was complete. Everything the average person had -- including a man's wife -- was exploited by the Lord of the land.”
Wrong. That isn’t exploitation. It is only exploitation by post-Enlightenment, democratic standards. The justification for a Feudal system was part of the fiber of every meaning-giving institution in Feudal society that it would be impossible for a peasant to understand it in the terms you are suggesting. It is totally anachronistic and just plain wrong.
“During the 1800's in rural areas of the US (read the South) the situation was much the same -- except that they had slaves rather than "normal" citizens working for them. So baiscally it was the same. “
I could write a book... but I won’t. Chattel slavery and bound serfdom are completely different concepts that function completely differently and that have radically different impacts on the function of societies. Apples and oranges friend. The rural areas of the South, by and large, were the domain of the yeomen farmer, to whom Jefferson gave repeated praise. This farmer was much like Weaver’s hypothetical Vermont farmer, with obvious and important regional differences. The point is, you are way off the mark about the South as being basically the same as Feudal Europe.
“During the early IR there was a lot of exploitation, but I don't see how it could be more than Feudalism since feudal exploitation is complete.”
Wrong. See above thrashing. Let me make this point clear: From our liberal, democratic, educated, industrialized vantage points, the empirical amount of “exploitation” was higher in 1350 than in 1850. That said, phenomenologically, for the peasants bound to feudal lands in 1350, they would not have experienced or understood life as such; for the factory work at Lowell, on the other hand, they would have experienced a great degree of anomie, alienation, etc. When we are making historical claims – as you are – meaning claims are only meaningful insofar as they are phenomenological and contextualized.
“What we have today is definetly better than the past, or at least the recent past (the average Roman or ancient Egyptian citizen might have been exploited less).”
In some ways and not in others. Industrialization has not be a victory without deep consequences.
“The man in the story was very privileged if he owned his own land. He was not one of the masses being exploited by the feudal aristocricy.”
Wrong. He was pretty typical of an early Nineteenth Century, Northern farmer. His farm would have been small (between 90 and 300 acres), but self sufficient, bearing a modest surplus in good years. He would have lived comfortably in the material sense only because he lived by intense labor, broad self-provision, general labor skills, and long hours in every other senses. He would have had nice things because he built them, not because he bought them. His society was still largely pre-monetary in the daily acquisition of commodities. His life was much harder than yours or mine, but because of the circumstances of his existence, it would have yielded greater material benefits and would have been grounded in a much larger, more encompassing system of meaning.
Redhurt:
“Was this really ‘typical?’”
I think it is safe to say that it was typical. Let me tell you why I think so by providing a few impressions (painted in very broad strokes) I have about nineteenth century America and then trying to tie them all together.
1) We are dealing with an interesting time of transition in America. It is essential to understand that pre-Twentieth Century America was both more unified and more particular than America circa 2005. I mean that, while there really was broad consensus concerning foundations, local expression was all-important and widely divergent.
2) It is also important to remember that, at this point, America was still backwater by European standards. Enlightenment thought didn’t really reach America until the 1820s (despite what you were taught in high school about America’s foundation on “Englightenment principles” and as “the great experiment in democracy.” So, while the 1850s were thoroughly Modern, that was not felt or generally known in America at the time, especially among the agricultural classes.
3) Information travelled slowly before the Twentieth century. Consequently, consciousness, lifestyle, and community changed slowly. This was especially true among those who were landed and agricultural. Urban wage earners in the 1850s – like those at Lowell - were thoroughly industrialized, aquanted with anome, felt trapped and decieved by the economic processes of their day, etc. The intellectual elites - the Boston Unitarians and Transcendentalists, the Philadelphia Enlightenment advocates, and the New York economic establishment - were familiar with European thought, had largely adopted a post-Christian understanding of the society, etc. Meanwhile, yomen farmers and the landed patrician class in the South, the skilled workers and landed farmers in the North, and the Westerward-pushing, semi-autonomous communities of the frontier could not have been farther removed from it.
With that said, I think it is fair to say that the Vermont farmer that Weaver writes about was typical. He would have been emblematic of the agricultural class, by far the largest class, in the North and similar, although perhaps more Modern and progressive than his Southern or Western counterpart (in the sense that he was undoubtedly more educated). So, while there were many Americans who did not live like this and did not understand life like this, there were still many – even a majority – of Americans that did. This farmer would have known about industrial wage earners and urban elites, but would not have related to them or understood fully their life.
Now, as you suggest, this does – at least to a degree – romantacize the past by glossing over the hardships of life. Materially, life was better in the sense that this man really did live comfortably; probably living in a spacious and, while auster, comfortable home, having a fairly large library (20-100 books depending on how educated his parents were), thick, religiously oriented community, etc. It is important to understand, however, that that material life was not made possible through extensive means, but through extensive labor, sacrifice, and thrift. His daily life during the hours while the sun was in the sky were grueling and difficult. One season in five could be expected to bring a shortage of food. Sickness was regular, life-threatening if acute. The list could go on.
In short, his life is not one that we would like to nor very well could lead. That said, if divorced from the process by which such things were attained and sustained, what it provided for him in the material, spiritual, and intellectual realms was, in general, a much better standards of living and a much thicker and grounded self than most of us will be able to achieve in our lifetime.
There is more to say, but that should begin my contribution to this conversation.
J. Morgan, if I read your "thrashing" correctly then what you are saying is that exploitation is something that cannot be quantitatively measured. That because the sefs felt better about their situation they were better off even though they had more taken from them in measurable terms (I'm assuming you can't measure feelings). By that line of reasoning a Brave New World type of society would be ideal -- everyone is happy all the time even though they don't have freedom. Society functions at its peak and no one suffers. Therefore there is no exploitation. If that is what you are saying then I have to disagree completely.
The point is mostly irrelevant, but since I am some what offended by your "thrashing" I will point out that between half and 1/3 of the population of the South was slaves in the 1800's
http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us
Although the rural areas of the South may have been the domain of the yoeman farmer, close to half of the South were slaves, so I don't think that point is entirely true.
Ask the Scots if sefdom is really so different than slavery. They, and everyone else who rebelled against the Feudal system, seemed to think that they were being exploited. Apparently they were wrong and should have taken a more contexualized and phenomenological view of the situation.
Finally, your entire argument is based on the assumption that humans are not free-willing agents who are fixities with impermeable consciousnesses. I see no more proof for that than against it, except that you make the assertion.
Standing, I think you missed the point of the "thrash" paragraph. It's not that everyone should be happy at all - it's that more meaning can be derived from a culture where people aren't exploited by their economy into "needing" things that are really meaningless, like the track jacket I'm wearing right now, or the drive-through Starbucks going in across the street from my house which is seriously not 1 mile from 2 grocery stores, both of which have actual starbucks stores inside.
That said, J. Morgan didn't really mean to thrash you so much as your ideas. He quickly rises to do mighty battle with certain ideas, often not thinking others might not distinguish person from topic in the same bold manner he does. I'm sure it was not meant to be offensive.
j. morgan - thanks for your analysis and synopsis, and for giving more historical basis to the article. I'm less trained in these areas, so I appreciate it.
While I'm not against moving past modernity, I'd still like to caution that it's only from the enlightenment and the western focus on critical and systematic analysis of problems that we come to find fault with the modern system. Modernism itself gave us the tools to criticize it with. As such, I feel it's disingenuous to assess modernism as a "failed" project; rather it's simply another system of belief that did not live up to all of it's promises, all of the time in all places. I think the more important issue then is whether it's possible to derrive substantial meaning in our thoroughly modern and post-modern world, and in what specific ways of living is this possible?
As I see it, redhurt, there are at least two important questions in your original post:
(1) Is this farmer typical of his age?
(2) How is he affected by industrialization?
To answer (1), we are going to have to (unfortunately) define "typical." Does anyone have any suggestions? j. morgan implicitly offers his take in this statement:
"While there were many Americans who did not live like this and did not understand life like this, there were still many – even a majority – of Americans that did."
I can't agree with that. Weaver's praise is too high:
"He has been properly admired for his independence, by which is meant not isolation from community life - on the contrary, he appears to have been active in town meeting and at the poll - but opportunity and dispostion to decide for himself according to a rational and enduring code of values...reading [the paper's] political disquisitions to weigh and consider as carefully as Bacon could have desired."
Thus we know that...
(A) He's been admired by his community for his independence
(B) He's active in town meetings
(C) He votes
(D) He has an enduring and rational code of values
(E) He reads the newspaper every day
(F) He considers and weighs what he reads carefully (indicating open-mindedness)
Was this typical (on any definition of typical) of 1850s Americans? Was this how a majority, or even a plurality, lived? No. Caveats for the other side: literacy was high in New England by the 1850s; newspaper consumption was high as well. Still, NOT typical.
(2) is more difficult, and volumes could be written as to how this yeoman farmer was affected by the industrial revolution. j. morgan puts his cards right on the table:
"What [this lifestyle] provided for him in the material, spiritual, and intellectual realms was, in general, a much better standard of living and a much thicker and grounded self than most of us will be able to achieve in our lifetime."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I reject j. morgan's committing me to a lifetime of mediocrity attempting to live up to this Vermont farmer. j. morgan, no one is arguing that his life was unfulfilling by either his OR our standards, which is a position you seem to be arguing against; do you take it to be implicit in what standingout and redhurt are saying? I fail to see what our answers to (1) or (2) above DIRECTLY have to do with the question of how fulfilling his life was to him, or how he felt about himself when he went to sleep at night after carefully reading all 57 books in his library. Certainly, they're related questions, but no one was attacking him.
I'd also like to point out that despite the fact that j. morgan aggressively attacked standingout's view, on several key points they agreed. Cf. these two statements:
standingout:
"The idea that exploitation has increased since Industrialization is laughable."
And j. morgan:
"From our liberal, democratic, educated, industrialized vantage points, the empirical amount of exploitation was higher in 1350 than in 1850."
I hope I cleared the ground a little. I'd like to get into question (2) above and would be interested to hear anyone's take on it. Answering the more abstract question of "whether exploitation increased after the IR" is much harder and much more subjective.
According to the 1850 U.S. Census, literacy rates among white males in Vermont (not even controlling for age) were nearly 98%. At that time, there were 30 public libraries in the state, circulating just over 21,000 volumes (and that doesn’t include libraries housed in colleges, public schools, parochial schools, churches, Sunday schools, etc.).
In that same year, only about 2.7% of Vermonters were employed in manufacturing. At the same time, there were 29,463 working farms in the state. That is one farm for every 2.14 white males age 20-49 in the state. Once we factor in family living arrangements of the time, we see nearly universal property ownership among white males in Vermont in 1850.
I don’t have time to produce reliable voting statistics for Vermonters in either the 1848 or 1852 Presidential election, but since voter turnout among those eligible in the nineteenth century hovered around 90%, I think we can make some fairly reasonable inferences.
You've shown that Vermont farmers were literate and civic-minded, which I agree with. That's why I said, in my comment:
"Caveats for the other side: literacy was high in New England by the 1850s; newspaper consumption was high as well."
Unfortunately, that's not enough to prove this:
"While there were many Americans who did not live like this and did not understand life like this, there were still many – even a majority – of Americans that did."
You can't prove that a majority of Americans lived like Weaver's farmer with statistics about sweet Vermonters. I could grant, for the sake of argument, that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in New England was just like Weaver's farmer, and your above statement would STILL not be true.
I'm going to run with this:
"I don't know about the rest of you, but I reject j. morgan's committing me to a lifetime of mediocrity attempting to live up to this Vermont farmer."
While I'm no deconstructionist, I think J. Morgan is on the right path when describing meaning as a result of the interactions between the self and society. But I also believe that the self, while not having a fixed idenitity, is a fixity - the self exists independent of society, though that self may not know who it is or how it is to live or what it is worth or what it values, etc. The self gains knowledge of the self and society from their interactions, and this gives rise to identity and meaning. At the same time, I assert that the self is a willful and causal agent, capable of interpreting and defining, anaylizing and reassessing. So while the self is gathering concepts of identity and meaning from culture, the mind inherent in the self is synthesizing and analyzing, comparing and contrasting, interpreting and defining. The will behind the self to a large extent gathers it's values from it's culture, but is still free, and in that freedom granted the ability to weigh it's current values against those synthesized later, make value judgements, and determine how it will allow itself to be changed in light of new forms of societal interaction.
I believe meaning is derived through the active engagement of the self in culture to varying extents, and that our souls are not entirely victims of circumstance. That we recognize the influence of culture is very important; it does not imply that we are slaves to it.
This is all to say that I believe meaning to achievable to any extent in any circumstances. It might be harder in some circumstances than others, and the way meaning is derived will certainly be different. I believe application of myself within this culture can lead to a life of fulfillment on par with the idyllic farmer, though I do admit the freedom to practice nihilism inherent in 20th century comforts might make this more difficult.
Hey, after nihilism practice I'll meet you guys at Lenin's. Cool?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
redhurt:
“Modernism itself gave us the tools to criticize it with. As such, I feel it's disingenuous to assess modernism as a "failed" project...”
Modernity has provided a wealth – even a glut – of tools, but a paucity of resources. That is why I think it is a failed project. There aren’t very many resources in Modernity to provide meaning, which is why you so many people appealing to either the past or the future as sources of meaning.
“I think the more important issue then is whether it's possible to derrive substantial meaning in our thoroughly modern and post-modern world, and in what specific ways of living is this possible?”
I wouldn’t be writing to my friends and interlocutors on a blog if I didn’t think it were possible. On different posts, I have advocated a very self-conscious, limited engagement with technology, for instances. I think using the tools of Modernity with self-conscious reflection about what they are is important. I think that contextualizing them is important. I think limiting our engagement with them is important so that we don’t mistake tools for content.
But, I think that your question is exactly right. I think this is something that we all need to be working very hard on. I am not sure what the answer is.
“I also believe that the self, while not having a fixed idenitity, is a fixity - the self exists independent of society, though that self may not know who it is or how it is to live or what it is worth or what it values, etc. The self gains knowledge of the self and society from their interactions, and this gives rise to identity and meaning. At the same time, I assert that the self is a willful and causal agent, capable of interpreting and defining, anaylizing and reassessing. So while the self is gathering concepts of identity and meaning from culture, the mind inherent in the self is synthesizing and analyzing, comparing and contrasting, interpreting and defining. The will behind the self to a large extent gathers it's values from it's culture, but is still free, and in that freedom granted the ability to weigh it's current values against those synthesized later, make value judgements, and determine how it will allow itself to be changed in light of new forms of societal interaction.”
Wow, very excellent. I think that is very well done. I would, however, contest the use of “self” and “mind.” I would, instead, use “homo sapiens” and “brain,” respectively. I think that you are right to point out that there are certain biological fixities that are real and capable apart from culture. The materials with which that biological fixity interacts and engages is, as I am arguing, not a biological fixity.
“I believe meaning is derived through the active engagement of the self in culture to varying extents, and that our souls are not entirely victims of circumstance. That we recognize the influence of culture is very important; it does not imply that we are slaves to it.”
Again, I absolutely agree. I would just point out that the exercise of will is limited by our conceptions of how to do so. That, I think, is largely contengent upon the option available to us in our particular time and space. I don’t think, however, that we are enslaved by culture. Culture sets the terms and provides the materials, but it doesn’t make the choices. Humans really do have agency, but , contra Nietzsche, that agency isn’t absolute.
“This is all to say that I believe meaning to achievable to any extent in any circumstances. It might be harder in some circumstances than others, and the way meaning is derived will certainly be different. I believe application of myself within this culture can lead to a life of fulfillment on par with the idyllic farmer, though I do admit the freedom to practice nihilism inherent in 20th century comforts might make this more difficult.”
Could you maybe flesh that out a bit more? I think I get it, but I am not positive. If you are saying, basically, that there are means enough in our culture for you to live well and meaningfully, then I agree. I would probably even be willing to say that your statement has always held true FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LIVING IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT. I would reject it if we are working from some god’s-eye view.
Charles:
“I can't agree with that. Weaver's praise is too high.... Was this how a majority, or even a plurality, lived? No.”
My statistics about Vermont were, for the most part, representative. With the exception of Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, the vast majority of Americans were engaged in agricultural production (and even there, a majority were also). Excluding the Western states and territories, literacy among white males was still about 96%. Land ownership in the South was, with a few exceptions, higher than in the North.
I am not arguing that this way of life was not contested or was totalizing, I am arguing that a) it could be considered typical in a purely demographic sense, b) it was considered normative in America in 1850, and c) those who did not find themselves in the position of Weaver’s farmer would have understood that they were deviant (I am using that without any moral connotation).
“I don't know about the rest of you, but I reject j. morgan's committing me to a lifetime of mediocrity attempting to live up to this Vermont farmer.”
Could you flesh that out a bit? I am just not getting the point here. What do you mean by mediocrity? What do you mean by “living up to this Vermont farmer?”
“no one is arguing that his life was unfulfilling by either his OR our standards, which is a position you seem to be arguing against; do you take it to be implicit in what standingout and redhurt are saying?”
Yeah, I think so. In denying that either a) exploitation as our contemporaries experience it was also true of the past or b) that this example was a typical life in the past, I think the implication is that the way we experience life, right now in 2005, is pretty typical of most humans in most places at most times (even though the circumstances of our lives are different). Weaver’s example then becomes a mythological type – like Odysseus or something - that demonstrates the beauty and simplicity of the past that is intended to make us feel unsatisfied by our present. If we deny that he was both typical and possible, the situation becomes a hypothetical, not historical narrative. That, to me at least, is an important distinction.
“You can't prove that a majority of Americans lived like Weaver's farmer with statistics about sweet Vermonters. I could grant, for the sake of argument, that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in New England was just like Weaver's farmer, and your above statement would STILL not be true. “
As I said before, statistics about Vermonters in 1850 are not perfect, but generally representative. In as much as Vermont was not representative of a particular region of the country in 1850 (such as a comparison of literacy rates between Vermont and Kentucky), there were other structures in those other regions that compensated (e.g., what Church service was for Methodists as opposed to what Church service was for Congregationalists).
j. morgan, I'd thank you please not to start out your paragraphs with dismissive comments like "totally wrong" when the fellow comentator you're replying to has already expressed that they feel slighted and offended by your dismissal. I treasure and cherish your knowledge, but I've been on the receiving end of your acute intellectual razor before, and I can say your position would be considered by others more honestly if you took the brief moment to consider how they'll interpret your opinion before thrashing them. Feel free to thrash me or charles or hans, but those who don't know you personally will not know how to take it. I'm not trying to pander to the dysfunction of others here - it's just common decency and simple manners. I've been on the receiving end of your thrashings before, and it took me a while to understand you don't think I'm an absolute idiot.
In conclusion, "Braveheart as Comprehensive Scottish History" would more likely be BCSH.
"I would probably even be willing to say that your statement has always held true FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LIVING IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT. I would reject it if we are working from some god’s-eye view."
Right - individuals in a particular context have the freedom to determine the value of their interactions with society, and thus derive the entire spectrum of meaning from them.
I've just stumbled upon something I'd like your input on, j. morgan: If, simply put, our values are dependent on our culuture, then where does the value that "meaningful lives are better" come from? And how did we learn to interpret "meaning" in the first place? Lastly, if one of the ways in which meaning is derived is through application of the brain, essentially through "work", then wouldn't "working" to derrive meaning from an essentially meaningless culture be just as fulfilling and meaningful an enterprise as working the ground like our 1850's yoeman? If so, the 20th century isn't any more meaningless - it's just that now we must work in and with our minds and culture where before we could do less abstract and more manual labor.
Ok... I'm going to run off on a bit of a tangent here, but to tie it in I'll make my hypothetical person a totally sweet, literate, civic Vermonter. He could even be the modern descendant of Joe Farmer from 1850. I'll name him Clarence Waterford.
I'll start with my assumptions:
1) Clarence's self, ("Will, agency, consciousness, and everything else about human beings)- is contengient upon the sociocultural context in which that human being’s self, his/her subjectivity, is constructed." (Sticking as closely to J. Morgan's construction of human reality as possible)
2) Modernism is exploitive to humanity by the redefinition of humanity under economic terms and as it replaces truths (relationships between men and men, men and God, meaning of life) with facts (scientific knowledge). Basically, the queston has changed from how many angels can fit on the head of a pin to how many transistors can fit on a microchip. (Drawing heavily on some more Richard Weaver there...)
3) Ancient social systems deemed currently to be exploitive, were not exploitive under the socio-economic
agreements of the day.
If the above are true, is it possible for Clarence to be exploited unknowingly? On one hand, Clarence doesn't feel like he is being exploited under the socio-economic agreement of today, but it has been shown that modernism is inherently destructive. It almost seems to me that Clarence would have to be aware of the dangers of modernism to be exploited (in the sense that 13th Century serfs needed to understand free markets to understand how exploitive fuedalism is). Is modern ignorance bliss?
Also, if humanity is continually redefined, then it seems pointless to me to argue that we need to return to premodern ideals. I mean, yeah they seem great, but we aren't the same people anymore, are we? Or are there truths related to humanity that exist independentally of cultural redefinition? Wouldn't that defeat the point in assumption #1 above?
And sorry about missing Nihilism practice, but I guess if you thing about it, it doesn't really matter than I wasn't there...
Jackscolon: that's pretty much what I've been trying to say but failing at. Thanks.
redhurt:
”Right - individuals in a particular context have the freedom to determine the value of their interactions with society, and thus derive the entire spectrum of meaning from them.”
Yeah, I’m in. Now, can I ask you a question? Do you think that the entire spectrum of meaning is an absolute standard apart from time, place, and culture or do you think that it is part of the story? In other words, do you think that the entire spectrum of meaning in 1305 is the same thing as the entire spectrum of meaning in 2005?
”If, simply put, our values are dependent on our culture, then where does the value that ‘meaningful lives are better’ come from?”
Well, I am not denying that there are ends presented in our culture that are more valued than others. I am arguing that Modernity has no way of providing the means to attain those ends. I think the ends of living – meaningful lives – are very much a part of the story. I would also add that I have been talking about Modernity as if it was wholly separated by a tremendous gulf from other periods in history. In large part, we are inheritors of previous systems of meaning and previous beliefs about the good and meaningful life. It’s just that, in the process of Modernizing, we have destroyed the historical means of attaining those and have proposed no new ones.
“And how did we learn to interpret "meaning" in the first place?
That is a much more difficult question. I have absolutely no idea. I am tempted to play the God card right now (because the other option, evolutionary biology, puts me way out of my comfort zone), but I don’t think I will.
“Lastly, if one of the ways in which meaning is derived is through application of the brain, essentially through ‘work’, then wouldn't ‘working’ to derive meaning from an essentially meaningless culture be just as fulfilling and meaningful an enterprise as working the ground like our 1850's yeoman? If so, the 20th century isn't any more meaningless - it's just that now we must work in and with our minds and culture where before we could do less abstract and more manual labor.”
Yeah, I totally agree. I think it is more difficult to work properly as you suggest than it was to work as Weaver’s farmer, but I also think that it could be more rewarding. I mean, Weaver’s farmer had a built-in incentive to be disciplined (namely that his work didn’t just provide a means to the good life, but a means to life in any form), whereas there are so many ways to work the mind without doing anything important and no consequences (and often even rewards) for picking the wrong way, that the discipline has to come from within. That said, I agree with you.
Jackscolon:
“If the above are true, is it possible for Clarence to be exploited unknowingly? On one hand, Clarence doesn't feel like he is being exploited under the socio-economic agreement of today, but it has been shown that modernism is inherently destructive. It almost seems to me that Clarence would have to be aware of the dangers of modernism to be exploited (in the sense that 13th Century serfs needed to understand free markets to understand how exploitive feudalism is). Is modern ignorance bliss?”
Well, this is similar to what Marxians call false consciousness. I think your point is good, but it might be different than mine. That said, I think you draw attention to something weak my argument: I don’t know how to reconcile very well two competing methods to which I am, right now, committed:
a) Social and culture claims, historical or present, should be, to the greatest extent, phenomenological. That is, claims should concern themselves with examining how reality is experienced by those who participate(d) it, not how the present claims-maker understands that reality.
b) Important claims about societies, historical or present, are normative not demographic. That is, claims about society and culture aren’t so much concerned with what individuals do or think or believe or practice (the demographic, or that which, presumably, could simply be asked of them on a survey), but with the normative, cultural elements of that society (something that is, admittedly, much more soft).
At this point, all I can say is that I think the way to resolve this is the understand how the products of a society would have functioned as, been intended as, and been understood as symbols of meaning in that society, regardless of whether or not it was actually always understood that way by every individual. A little weak, I know, but I am working on it. At the end of the day, that might be all we can do. Thoughts?
j. morgan - I think you missed some of my question here:
”If, simply put, our values are dependent on our culture, then where does the value that ‘meaningful lives are better’ come from?”
The paragraph you wrote in response was really good, but either I'm missing what you're saying or you missed my question, so I'll rephrase it a little: your argument seems to rest upon the notion that the value labled "living a meaningful life", whatever that happens to look like, is a fixity. If values are derrived through interaction with culture and society, then wouldn't the value that meaning itself is valuable have to be derrived from your culture somehow? Maybe your point was that modernism transmits this value but doesn't provide a context in which it can be easily experienced? Playing devil's advocate, why should we "choose" this value, if values are as fluid as culture? I want to know whether there are value absolutes. It seems like you've implied that there are while specifically saying that there are not, so I'm asking for some clarification on that point.
j. morgan:
"In other words, do you think that the entire spectrum of meaning in 1305 is the same thing as the entire spectrum of meaning in 2005?"
I don't know. I haven't considered carefully enough what "the entire spectrum of meaning" means. As a rough draft, I'll say yes - I'm admittedly idealistic that everything from an unfulfilling life to a totally fulfilling life is available regardless of context. This is another God card moment - I think meaning is ultimately derrived through some sort of state of being in regards to God, and insomuch as this fact alone (and not it's form) is independent of culture, the entire spectrum of meaning is indeed absolute.
I think this line of reasoning requires me to acknowledge the absolute-ness of a human condition that is involved in this relationship that provides absolute meaning, which is why I've been asserting that while much of the human being is fluid, not all of it can be. Values, preferences, perceptions, and the form of more abstracts like meaning and truth are derived from interaction with culture, but "meaning" itself and "truth" itself are absolutes and fixities tied to the fixed part of humanity.
RedHurt:
Yeah, you were right, I didn’t exactly tell you what I think in my last comment. I will see if I can do better without hanging myself....
“your argument seems to rest upon the notion that the value labled ‘living a meaningful life’, whatever that happens to look like, is a fixity. If values are derrived through interaction with culture and society, then wouldn't the value that meaning itself is valuable have to be derrived from your culture somehow?”
Yeah, I want to say that we think living a meaningful life is better than not doing so because of our culture. So, not only what constitutes a meaningful life but that as a value in itself is a cultural construct in my argument. That said, I think that this is both a value that is commonly expressed in our culture and one that has been commonly expressed in other cultures.
I mean, “A Purpose Driven Life” has sold something like 9 million copies to date. Think about how much self-help literature is produced every year. Now, as far as I can tell, this is not only a cultural suggestion of (mostly worthless and groundless) means to attain a meaningful life or a glimpse at what that is supposed to look like for Moderns, but it is also, at a more basic level, a cultural argument that living a meaningful life in the first place is something that one should value.
Also, as I was trying to say before, we as Moderns aren’t nearly as insulated as we think. We have inherited a lot from other eras of human thought, including a value of the meaningful life as well as at least some sense of what that looks like. Now, I think that has been deeply altered (e.g. a meaningful life is now conceived of in far more material terms than ever before), but still has a lot of family resemblance if you look hard enough.
My argument about Modernity, however, is that we have systematically discredited the historical means of achieving these ends (and have also altered those aspects of the meaningful life that we now consider to be uncomfortable) and have provided no new ones. Those we have provided, lead to disastrous Nihilism, which is abhorrent by our own standards (Foucault again comes to mind).
“Why should we ‘choose’ this value, if values are as fluid as culture?”
Because who we are, what we want, what we value, what we choose, etc. and the cultural options and ideals available to us are intimately related and mutually dependant. In other words, our desires – that is what we want to choose, what we are looking for – and our cultural conception of the meaningful life are reliant on each other and impossible apart from each other. To the extent we choose one path over another, then, we are shaping and responding to cultural conceptions of the meaningful life rather than apart from them.
So, in terms of making a moral claim, I think we could say that, to the extent that we agree on what the good life is and that it is valuable, we can adjudicate between effective and ineffective means of achieving that.
When we don’t agree on what the good life is (or that it is a value to begin with), then the situation becomes more complicated. This in my mind is related to your early question about origins and is where I am tempted to play the God card and construct a grand narrative about the Fall and the thoroughly cultural and linguistic means by which God reveals Himself in light of sin and in which the Holy Spirit plays a central role. But, I think I will hold off on that for now.
“I want to know whether there are value absolutes.”
Well, no, in my argument, they are not in the sense that the atomic weight of oxygen is an absolute. But, let me ask you a question: Why do we consider something less real, less reliable, less meaningful, less believable, etc. if it is cultural and malleable as opposed to biological/chemical/physical and presumably unchanging? I mean, this has to do with your question (“I think meaning is ultimately derived through some sort of state of being in regards to God, and insomuch as this fact alone {and not it's form} is independent of culture, the entire spectrum of meaning is indeed absolute.”) I think. I think you can see where my grand God card narrative would go in light of this question...
well, I wouldn't consider a cultural construct to be "less real." It's certainly just as real...which is what makes reasoning at this degree of abstraction so difficult and pragmatically useless - whether the value of living a meaningful life is cultural or absolute, it is our common value nonetheless - real, reliable, believable, etc., to all of us.
I don't think I have any vested interest in seeing some values as absolute - that just seems to be the way things are to me. As you said, we've inhereted some values from cultures previous to ours...I'd just take it a step further and say that every culture has had some sort of representation of this value, and every culture after ours will also. I agree that it's not as absolute as gravity, but I would say it IS as absolute as values can be - as absolute as the value that senseless death is wrong, that being hurt without cause is wrong, etc. Maybe this value is absolute because it arises from necessary biological fixities. As such, the value itself is not as absolute or common as our biology, but as a direct result of those, could in some circumstances be considered "absolute" within the realm of human values. What do you think? C.S. Lewis' description of right and wrong from Mere Christianity come to mind.
Hey. Just thought I would check in since my first vacuous comment is totally different than everything that followed. Alright, see you guys at Lenin's. Cheers!
RedHurt:
“It's certainly just as real...which is what makes reasoning at this degree of abstraction so difficult and pragmatically useless - whether the value of living a meaningful life is cultural or absolute, it is our common value nonetheless - real, reliable, believable, etc., to all of us.”
I have to disagree with that. Now, I will grant to you that this is a completely meaningless and irrelevant discussion to the guy who assembled my desk chair. At the same time, I think there are two reasons that this discussion is vitally important:
1) The way we conceive of the problem has direct implication for the solutions we propose. If you are right – “Maybe this value is absolute because it arises from necessary biological fixities. As such, the value itself is not as absolute or common as our biology, but as a direct result of those, could in some circumstances be considered "absolute" within the realm of human values.” –the solution to nihilism can/could be found in the biological, the physical, the material, the medical, etc. The implication is that it is not to be found in the historical, cultural, aesthetic, theological, etc. This line of thinking is often couched in the final triumph of scientific knowledge over myth and superstition narrative. This is, in part, why you can market psychoactive drugs for anything even remotely inconvenient or unpleasant. I don’t want to leave the problem of meaning to the scientists.
2) It makes a great deal of difference to those of us who are thoughtful Christians. If our faith is a historical one, and our view of historical culture is contingent upon how we answer this question, then it radically affects our understanding of our faith and our Creator. Was Paul essentially the same as us, with a biologically fixed awareness of the value of a meaningful life that Christ filled for him just as He does for us or was Paul’s entire conception of meaning and the value of meaningful living contingent on his particular cultural setting, and hence demands a great deal of work for us to understand his purposes and points? Did God create us with some innate, biological need for Him or did God reveal Himself in time and space and language and culture to radically shape/alter what it meant to be human? If valuing the meaningful comes out of biology, then revelation is only the content. If, however, this value is rooted in the cultural, then revelation is not only the content that God provided for a meaningful life, but also the genesis of the human self as we know it.
Post a Comment
<< Home