Violence is Never the Answer. Violence is the Question. The Answer is Yes!

As you all know, the first four pages of our research paper are due on Monday. What I've been working on is looking into the reign of Louis XIV and evaluating him in Machiavellian terms. A natural beginning for this paper would be a comprehensive literature review of The Prince. However, in a roughly 16 page paper, a complete review might be too cumbersome. Therefore, the first part of my paper is an explanation of Machiavelli's ideal prince.

Machiavelli argues that almost all people live lives of imitations, saying "Men, almost always traverse paths beaten by others, .... A wise man ought to traverse the path of a great man" (Machiavelli, p 21) He goes on to list several ideal princes of the past that the reader could imitate. Machiavelli's favorite is Moses as he is portrayed in Exodus, but because Moses had the help of God he might not be one we can imitate entirely. There are several others: Romulus, Cyrus, and Theseus. (Machiavelli, p 22-23)

All of these princes have something in common. They were very violent people. Moses got his start by killing the Egyptian guard. Romulus killed his brother Remus. The Jews who had forsaken the God of Abraham and were worshiping the Golden Calf as Moses descended Mount Sinai were slaughtered.

Now, in terms of power, I do not think it matters for Machiavelli whether or not this violence was justified. Moses' violence against the Egyptian guard would have been justified if it is true that the Egyptian guard was beating a slave to death. Moses' violence against the Jews worshiping an idol would not be justified according to our contemporary standards, but this might be a question for Mr. Perdue. Romulus' murder of his brother Remus would probably not be justified morally, but he successfully wrested control of Rome in doing so, or so the legend goes.

Louis XIV, the king appointed by God Himself, a complete absolute monarch seemed to be able to do anything he wanted regardless of the ethical implications. I won't go so far as to say he was infallible morally, but rather that he was exempt from the repercussions of an immoral act legally speaking. In my research into Louis XIV I've learned of a great deal of violence. Particularly the execution of Fargues who had previously been pardoned and the expulsion of the Hugeunots.

The beginnings of my paper examine the use of violence as a means for gaining power, and this will be the extent to which Machiavelli plays a part in the theoretical background of my paper. The rest of my research will explore the ways in which Louis XIV used violence in his reign to gain power and to keep power. Part of my working thesis is that everything that Louis XIV did was either violent itself or backed up by the threat of violence.

Source:

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998

Caesar's point of view

While studying about Cleopatra and how Romans viewed her is the most important aspect of my research, there are some other main characters that deserve mentioned such as the Caesar family. Julius Caesar restored Cleopatra to her throne while his nephew- son, Octavian, put Cleopatra's downfall and effected the views of Cleopatra throughout his reign as Augustus Caesar.


Julius Caesar documented his experience throughout the civil war and parts of the Alexandrian war. In his interpretation of his experience, Caesar only met with Cleopatra to discuss politics and warfare. It wasn't until later that Lucan, a Roman poet, made Cleopatra into a whore and Caesar as a victim to her foreign rule that barely escaped with his life. This fictional interpretation of Caesar's Civil War was produced under Augustus after the propaganda war that occurred during the Alexandrian War.

Caesar, Caius Julius. "De bello civili (Civil Wars): Book 3." Translated and edited by W. A.        McDevitte and W. S. Bohn. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1869.

The Foucauldian Toolbox and Sites of Inscription

            Foucault’s analysis and account of how power acts in Discipline and Punish makes it clear that there are many avenues or places to begin an inquiry. Therefore, organizing and outlining the possible targets of my analysis for the latter part of paper is a decisive move that I am (still) currently working towards.

The question, more simply put, is what immediate evidence is most pertinent and representative of change here at Drury? That is, should I be focused on the conduct and relationship between faculty and the administration, the reorganization of departments, or possibly the documents that detail the direction of the university? The likely answer to this is, a little bit of it all. However, I must be cognizant of the number of types of analysis I attempt here, as this is only one part of a relatively short paper.

I have given serious thought to the use of my analysis of Drury’s mission statement and its “vision statement” for the 2015-2018 time period. This is a good source because it is representative of the values of those that have made the decisions, and will presumably continue to do so, that change the trajectory of Drury. It is also a good source in Foucauldian terms because some of the ideas laid out in this document have received some resistance and Foucault considers sites of conflict as a place to begin an analysis. It is also possible that an analysis of the change in the physical layout of the newly formed Humanities department could be seen as an expression of power; this particular idea is hard for me to ignore after having read about the effects of spatial organization in Discipline and Punish.

Most importantly, the documents I choose should allow me to discuss curriculum change in the most positive sense. By positive I mean additive, I must be able to contribute to evaluations of change and produce the possibility of further constructive discussion.

The Mind of a Dictator

So far I have discussed, blogged and presented the driving forces behind the creation of Kim as a political force. I spoke of his past, providing insight into his prior life and involvement in guerilla warfare. I attempted to show his inadequacies as a leader and how the influence of Soviet networks would mask these shortcomings.   Finally, I spoke of how these shortcomings would later resurface in the form of poor economic policy and how this would contribute to the eventual collapse of the North Korean economy. The goal throughout the duration of my studies has been to create the best possible analysis of Kim; to know who he was, who he would become and what this would do to the country led by a cult of personality.

What remains in my work, is to show how each of these different elements (guerilla warfare, puppet government etc.) pay tribute to the personality himself. That is, to undergo a psychological analysis of Kim by evaluating the impact of key events throughout his life.

This becomes important when answering questions like: “What led him to form this judgment?” or “Why did he disregard this?” or “How could he be so callous?”

Historically, we know that Kim: 1) experienced a traumatic childhood, 2) sought to escape his troubles by joining reactionary groups, 3) developed a violent nature as part of a guerilla unit, and 4) underwent immense change and pressure as a candidate for puppet dictatorship. The task is to piece this all together into one cohesive psycho-analytical picture.

I recently came across a piece done by Dr. James Fallon, a professor of neurobiology at the Irvine School of Medicine. Fallon was asked to perform a comprehensive psychological analysis of dictators throughout history. In order to do this, Fallon did a comparative study of primary works from a number of dictators, including those of Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Kim Jong-Il.

Fallon discovered some commonalities between them. Nearly all of them experienced some form of childhood trauma; be it the loss of a parent etc. They were often charming and charismatic, and, in addition to this, he found them to be pathological liars, believing their own lies to a great extent, and possessing a grandiose sense of self. All of these traits, he said, were accompanied by an overarching narcissistic attitude.

He made the distinction that we shouldn’t always perceive these qualities as bad, because in certain situations (surgery, politics etc.) we wouldn’t want the professional to be compassionate, as it might hinder their better judgment. He also stated that perhaps a greater percentage of the population may possess this disposition than realized (1% of women and 3% of men) and, that during times of turmoil, women would tend to bond with men that possess these characteristics, which he called the “warrior genes,” because they felt safe.

It is therefore possible that Kim possessed these attributes to an extent as well. If we examine the context of the situation, we know that Kim’s father was a staunch revolutionary during a time when Korean citizens were under Japanese oppression, lending to the possibility that Kim’s mother chose his father because of his “warrior genes.” Kim also experienced a traumatic childhood, with his father going in and out of jail, and eventually dying to exposure (at age 13). We also know that Kim exhibited callousness during his time as a guerilla warrior, when he would regularly steal from Korean elite and peasants alike. Furthermore, we know he had a great amount of confidence and held a passionate cause, which is why Stalin selected him in the first place. All of these contribute to the possibility that Kim could match the stereotype given by Fallon.

Link to the discussion.

A Slightly Altered Title: The Hunt for a Thesis

As we begin the first four pages of our paper so to begins the search for the perfect thesis.  As I read and reread my primaries and some of my secondaries I notice that children seemed to have a positive effect on the older soldiers.  I also feel like just having the effect on moral as a thesis might make it a little hard so I decided to add in their roles as soldiers.  I will connect these two points by saying that winning battles is good for morale thus allowing the two ideas to feed off each other.  And with that thought in mind I attempt to formulate my thesis.  I am thinking for now that my thesis might read something like:

Children played a vital role in combat positions during the US Civil War in two ways, as soldiers performing daunting tasks and being afterwards portrayed as heroes and as boosters of troop moral.

For providing for better moral, battle victories aside, I plan to use as part of my evidence, "Well, the soldiers would have missed other comrades far less than the lively little drummers, and many marches through scorching sun and suffocating dust would have been much harder to bear had it not been for these little musicians.  Lagging foot-steps often quickened and weary faces brightened at the sudden sound of drum and fife, and many a 'God bless you, boys; you give us cheer' went out to them in the long march." (Wisler 14).  This was quoted in When Johnny Went Marching: Young Americans Fight the Civil War, the original owner of this quote is Edwin Forbes who was an artist and war correspondent. 
For the providing a boost to moral through actions and valor I have a treasure trove to offer.  I could mention Johnny Clem, Orion P. Howe, the VMI cadets or Richard Kirkland.  For this blog post however, I will use Richard Kirkland's case of valor.  Richard Kirkland was a youth soldier, a soldier older than 17 but younger than 19 when war broke out.  Kirkland was 19 when he got his claim to fame.  Kirkland was a Confederate soldier at the Battle of Fredericksburg.  Fighting had stalemated at a place called Marye's Heights where Confederate soldiers had taken positions behind a stone wall while Union forces tried to advance across an open field.  The Union advance was met with deadly fire and the Union took many casualties while the Confederates were mostly safe behind their stone wall.  Now to quote Wisler again, "For an hour and a half the young South Carolinian made his rounds, pausing only to refill his canteens.  One time firing resumed, only to stop when Kirkland reappeared.  Shamed by the selfless act of a solitary soldier, the generals arranged a truce, and the following day surgeons attended the wounded and carried them from the field."  (Wisler, 38).  Yes his actions were peaceful but affected change and earned him the title "The Angel of Marye's Heights." 

G. Clifton Wisler When Johnny Went Marching: Young Americans Fight the Civil War (HarperCollins Publishers, 2001).

Questions Before Writing

Although I am not going to focus on my thesis in particular, my blog still will concentrate on how to approach my subject as we begin to delve into the writing process. I have now narrowed my primary source emphasis on four memoirs in particular- three of which are autobiographical narratives situated in the 1690s. The commonality between these three sources is that three women were recalling their life stories near the end of their lives, yet still within the first fifty years of the Quaker Movement. The fourth source, unlike the others, was published in the 1660s at the relative beginning of the movement, comprising two women’s experiences of Inquisition. Granted this difference, I still find that all four sources share common strands of experience, as well as demonstrate culminating perceptions of their power and gender. Therefore, my question isn’t necessarily – can the sources form a cohesive set of evidence? - but more so a question of how can I place these women in an overall study of Quaker Women?

The five women I’m examining were not Margaret Fell, the only incredibly infamous female Quaker leader to emerge from the century, yet the sources do inform of how average Quaker women travelled, practiced their spirituality, persisted, and ultimately, garnered some degree of power. As contributors to a female body of writings from 1650-1700, I give credit to the accounts as informants of a larger picture. On the other hand, the extent to which I can draw some universalities of experience is limited. Mostly, I would like to find a balance between setting out these compelling accounts and supporting a broader thesis. Any ideas for maintaining this as I go into the writing process?

To Steal A Title: Thesis in Progress

Sorry Cory. At this point of my research, I'm feeling very comfortable. I have finished almost all of my readings, and I have figured out what my main goals are. First off, a return to the analytical analysis of Hume and away from the opinionated attack of Sarantakes. Second, to use the 1980 Olympic boycott as a case study of the inconsistency of Carter foreign policy. Normally when scholars speak of Carter's foreign inconsistency, they mean in his "flip flopping" nature on human rights. Indeed the lexicon of his speeches is draped in human rights, equality, and personal liberties, while his policy is something of another nature. In the case of the Olympic movement, Carters inconsistency stems from his methodology. In a symbol of protest for stolen freedom of the people's of Afghanistan, Carter stole the freedom of Olympic athletes and private corporations. Finally, and most importantly since this is the most argumentative, is that the efficacy of the boycott was ruined in the early days by two reasons. To begin, the ideology that motivated the boycott was outside of the scope of the Olympic movement. And second the Carter administration lacked understanding of the Olympic system and underestimated the fight in the Olympic officials. Now that I have my goals, it is time to set a thesis. I think the first two goals can be highlighted within various sections of the paper, the third goal however will make up the bulk of my writing. It seems to me that my thesis will come from within the third goal, but needs some fine-tuning to be worthy of a semester of research. To conclude, thanks again for the title Cory.

Thesis in Progress

Over the course of compiling my primary and secondary sources in the outline, I have made huge strides in forming a thesis. The variety of perceptions in ancient Athens were difficult to fathom as a whole, and this became convoluted when I realized the perceptions in the pre-Classical and Classical eras were not different enough to compare and contrast. Ultimately, I’ve decided that the fixation on wisdom in old age indicates its importance. I want to argue that wisdom was a necessity in old age in ancient Athens because it compensates for an elders’ physical ability and burden.

In a nutshell, here is my current rationale:

The physical plights of the elderly and the burden of care compose a significant part of the negative perceptions in ancient Athens because they limited a person’s utility in society. To regain or continue contributing to Athens, elders had to fulfill the roles of counselors.

From the primary sources I’ve examined, Aristotle is the only figure who believes that the elderly are inferior for something other than their declining health. As mentioned in previous posts, he thinks that the elderly are morally inept because they are passionless, conniving, and fickle (109-111). He also states, “They guide their lives by reasoning more than by moral feeling; reasoning being directed to utility and moral feeling to moral goodness” (Aristotle 110). On the surface, this statement contradicts my thesis in the way that I believe wisdom is a positive attribute, but in reality, the elderly did not have a choice but to be wise. Therefore, it is not a matter of ethics as much as it is survival.

Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. Hazelton: Electronic Classics Series, 2010. Web.

Louis XIV Bourbon and Queen-Mother Anne von Habsburg? More like Cersei Lannister and Tommen Baratheon!

The following is an anecdote of a hunting party and the actions by King Louis XIV that followed which the Duke of Saint-Simon attended and wrote about in his memoirs.

One day there was a great hunting party at Saint Germain. The chase was long and hard, it was so long that the King lost interest and returned to Versailles. The rest of the party continued the hunt. They never found their prey, but they did find the country home of a wealthy man who had retired to the country side. The party entered the home and the master of the home warmed them by the fire, provided them rest, and had a supper prepared for them. The master of this house was called Fargues. Fargues was a member of the Parisian Parliament during the troubles instigated by Monsieur de Broussel. For more information on these troubles please check out my blog on the subject, linked at the bottom.  

When the party returned to the court the king inquired about the hunt. The members of the party apparently praised this generous and hospitable man who had given them comfort after many days of being in the wilderness. The king asked the name of this man, when it was given to him he exclaimed, "What, Fargues! Is he so near here, then?"

According to Saint-Simon, the King and the Queen-mother were annoyed that he was living in luxury and peace so near Versailles, thinking it was extremely bold to do so even though he had been included in the pardoned after rebellion. They decided to punish him for this boldness and his former insolence. 

The King appointed Lamoignon to essentially frame Fargues for a murder that had occurred during during the troubles. Lamoignon did so and along with armed men arrested Fargues and brought him before the king. Fargues argued his own defense before the court, claiming that this murder must be under the original pardon. The king had him decapitated immediately after Fargues had made his defense. All of Fargues' wealth and lands were granted to Lamoignon as a reward.  


There are two things in this story that really strike me. 

First, Louis XIV is out hunting. He is doing a very physically intensive task that is similar to military duty. As he is doing this he is becoming more familiar with the land around his palace. This is something that Machiavelli claims is very important. Machiavelli argues that a prince must be a military leader, and in order to do this the prince must be intimately familiar with the land that he might have to fight in. For this, he recommends touring the lands and this can be done through hunts. 

Second, the relationship between Louis XIV and his mother Anne of Austria. The memoir does not indicate the date of this hunting trip, it only says "one day". However, we know that it must have been some years after the troubles because Louis XIV is now a grown man capable of ruling and his mother is no longer regent, so it must have happened in 1651 (the end of Anne's regency) or later. However, the plan to indict Fargues on trumped up charges simply for vengeance was a plan that Louis XIV and his mother came up with together. It appears that Queen-Mother Anne was one of Louis XIV close advisers. I will try to find more information on their relationship and Anne's standing in relation to Louis' other advisers. It makes sense that Louis XIV was very close with his mother, because his father died when he was only five years old. 




Sources: http://seniorseminarhistory.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-arrest-of-parisian-parliament.html

Saint-Simon, Memoirs of Louis XIV and His Court and of the Regency. Vol. 1. New York: P. F. Collier & Son p. 407-418

Contemporary Historical Conservatism in the Study of the Olympics

While Derick L. Hulme Jr. wrote the first scholarly analysis of the 1980 Olympic boycott in 1990, Nicholas Evan Sarantakes seems to be the most ardent and outspoken contemporary scholar on the issue. Interestingly enough, the two take very different positions on the event. Hulme seems to see the boycott as a whitewash, that is to say that any positive effects from an American perspective were outweighed by the damage the boycott did monetarily to private American corporations and ethically to the Olympic spirit itself. Sarantakes see the event as the final and most major catalyst in the “re-ignition” process of the Cold War and the end of détente; as well as a prime example of Carter’s foreign policy ineptitude. As one could guess, the two authors have highly differing background. Sarantakes is a United States Naval officer who teaches at the Naval War College postgraduate studies university. Hulme has a more liberal background, he got his Ph.D. from Tufts University and now teaches at Alma College. Sarantakes has gained steam since the publishing of his book “Dropping the Torch: Jimmy Carter, the Cold War, and the Olympic Boycott” Sarantakes has also written several articles that have been published in a political sport secondary source reader, Diplomatic History, and the English Historical Review. Interestingly enough, he also had an article posted on ESPN.com. The fact of the matter is, Sarantakes hard line conservative stance holds a lot of sway in the contemporary study of the boycott, even though Hulme seems to have more of an objective stance. My research will hopefully be a return to the analytical views of Hulme and a retreat from the conservative attack that is found in Sarantakes writing.