Statuette Commentary of Perceptions of the Elderly?

There are three distinctive stylistic periods of Ancient Greece: Archaic (circa 750 BCE to 480 BCE), Classical (480 BCE to 323 BCE), though some distinguish Early Classical and High Classical, and Hellenistic (323 BCE to 30 BCE). As one would expect, sculpture and art evolved as time progressed. Archaic sculptures, referred to “kouros” for male sculptures and “kore” for female sculptures, were static and slightly off proportionally, though there was improvement within the period. For example, the “Metropolitan Kouros” (circa 600 BCE) lacked detail compared to the “Anavysos Kouros” (circa 520 BCE). Active, more proportionally correct sculptures emerged in the Classical era. Sculptors in this period were more aware of the human body. Sculptures utilized natural, contrapposto stances, like Polykleitos’ “Spear Bearer” (450 BCE) or the “Riace warrior” (circa 450 BCE, unknown artist). This focus on activeness, often called dynamism, was further enhanced in the Hellenistic period, such as with “Laocoön and His Sons” (circa 100 BCE/CE).

Though the stylistic periods had their differences, they share an important similarity: the focus on idealism. Male sculptures were muscular, which further reiterates the Greeks’ patriarchal society. Female sculptures, such as Praxiteles “Aphrodite of Knidos” (circa 350 BCE), depicted the female body preference at the time, though its purpose was objectification as opposed to male glorification. Ultimately, this is why the statuette featured is so strange. It’s said to be sculpted in the late 5^th century, which would place it close to the “Riace Warrior.” This old man is not idealized, detailed, nor dynamic; he is comical. According to the Artstor description, the statuette is an actor, but I have yet to find the piece’s specific purpose, which is important because it’s evident that it serves a fundamentally different purpose than sculptures like the “Riace warrior.” But an important consideration to factor in is that this could be considered commentary on old age. According to Robert Garland (1998), Athenians’ “contempt for the elderly seems to have become something of a national characteristic by the late fifth century BC” (p. 66). They were legally required to care for the elderly, but the respect seen in Homeric poems had seemed to vanish (Garland, 1998).

Garland, Robert. Daily Life of the Ancient Greeks. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998.

N.A., Terracotta Statuette of an Actor, circa 5th-4th century. Terracotta, 3 1/2 feet. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York. 

The Function of Power: The Sovereign in the 'Classical Age'

On my last blog post I summarized the first section of Discipline and Punish, this meant describing the shift from punishing the body to disciplining the soul. As I discussed in that post, these changes did not occur on their own, they were expressions of a change in the body of knowledge and power over time. In Foucault’s terms, the nature of the penal system changed between epistemes. Before I begin applying these concepts to education it will be important to understand how these epistemes, or bodies of knowledge, are defined.

In the second section of Discipline and Punish, Foucault goes into more detail in describing how punishment functioned in, what he calls, the classical age. This was the 16^th, 17^th, and most of the 18^th centuries. As alluded to in my last post, brutal public executions were common in this time. Based on my reading of this section, it is useful to outline the content in terms of a couple questions. These questions are: what function did these public displays have? What about the classical age necessitated them? And why would these spectacles fade away?

Foucault paints public torture and execution as an expression of the sovereign’s power. In other words, when a law is broken, retaliation is necessary because it is a direct attack on authority. This means that these public executions can be interpreted as the revenge of those in power. This is why these executions could be so brutal, so that the power of the sovereign was as visible as possible. Though Foucault does not go so far to say this, based on the account that he gives these public displays of brutality must have been necessitated by the way power was concentrated in one or a few individuals.

Towards the end of Foucault’s more detailed account of how torture and public execution functioned, he introduces an additional factor. The people. An important part of the public execution was the public. So that the power of the sovereign could be witnessed and experienced, however this did not come without risks. If the sentenced criminal was, by chance, supported by the people then an execution is a direct confrontation between the people and the sovereign. This is why riots after, or sometimes during, an execution would become more common. Though the execution could restore the sovereign’s power it also was a medium that could channel rebellion. Notably, Foucault’s account seems to indicate that instances of rebellion became more common closer to the end of the 18^th century, a time when the divine right of the kings would be suspect. And also a time when the penal system would begin to ‘reform’. The classical age of torture and public execution would end as executions were moved out of the public sphere and punishment would begin changing towards a more efficient reformative approach. 

A New Focus: Machiavelli, the Sun King, and Louis XVI

As I've looked into Divine Right, and some information provided to me by Dr. Wolbrink, I've become very interested in King of France Louis XIV, also known as Louis the Great and the Sun King. Louis XIV was one of the most powerful and successful kings in history. During his reign France was the leading military power in Europe. He consolidated absolute monarchical power that lasted until the French Revolution.

Yet, with just one king in between them, King Louis XVI was decapitated by revolutionaries and the French aristocracy that could be found was murdered en masse. This raises the question as to why the Sun King was so successful and why Louis XVI was so unsuccessful (The French Revolution happened on his watch, after all).

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the book on successfully obtaining and keeping power. I am currently researching the reigns of Louis XVI and Louis XIV and brushing up on Machiavelli's magnum opus, The Prince. I will evaluate the reign of Louis XIV and explain why he was so successful in Machiavellian terms. I will also look at the failures of Louis XVI, essentially asking what he could have done differently to prevent the French Revolution and keep his head.

So why should we trust Machiavelli? He was never a king. So how can he claim to know how to be a great king?

Machiavelli was the first political philosopher who moved away from conducting political science in the ideal (Looking at you, Plato!). Machiavelli moved away from looking for the ideal and instead focused on the practical. He focused on questions of how to secure political power. How do I make men willing to die and kill for me? How far can I abuse my people without them turning on me? As a ruler, is it better to be loved or feared? How should I occupy my time once I've taken power? The prior questions are all questions that Machiavelli answered in The Prince.

Machiavelli ought to be trusted because his answers to these questions were based on his observations as an official in the government of the Florentine Republic, a city state in what is now Italy. He was an official after the Medici family were removed from power, and when they returned to power he and other officials were imprisoned. Machiavelli did not wish to be imprisoned, and he wrote The Prince in order to be useful to the Medici, so that he could recover his old position and be freed from prison . 

Therefore, despite never being a king, I believe Machiavellian philosophy will likely explain the success of Louis XIV and failures of Louis XVI.


Sources:
http://www.egs.edu/library/niccolo-machiavelli/biography/
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/p/the-prince/niccolxf2-machiavelli-biography 


   

A New Outlook

Through my research over the past few days, and much to my chagrin, I have begun to uncover yet another dark fragment of the Korean War. Originally, I was under the impression that the invasion of South Korea in 1950 was primarily owed to either Russia’s agenda of communist dissemination, or an exercise of power from the newly appointed, Kim Il Sung. While both of these are important contributions to the conflict, evidence suggests there are other factors at play as well.

An exchange of dialogues took place in the year preceding the invasion between Stalin and Kim (1949). The exchange reveals Stalin’s initial dissent towards the idea of engaging in military conflict with the South. However, the attitude shifts towards a positive stance at the start of 1950. The question that emerges is, what altered the position of the USSR? A number of things may have contributed to this decision, as historians may point out. One thing being a certain level of tranquility obtained over the recently emerged, and communist, People’s Republic of China, following a civil war. Another possible contributing factor may have been the Soviet’s acquisition of successful nuclear warheads in August of 1949. There are two, possibly lesser known, facts that also exist.

The first of these I contribute to the outspoken demeanor of the U.S. appointed president of South Korea. On numerous occasions, he was known to have spoken of invading North Korea, boasting of the strength of South Korean soldiers. Ironically, this eventually led to a fear of trust between him and the U.S., causing a withdrawal of resources, as well as limited provisioning of rifles and ammo (excluding tanks and artillery).  The extent to which the USSR took him seriously is uncertain.

The second issue, which was a failure on the part of the U.S., came from the speech of the 51^st secretary of state, Dean Acheson. During a speech in January of 1950, Acheson failed to include South Korea within the defense perimeter of the U.S. This mistake, although unknown to the USSR and N.K., may have acted as the green light for the invasion.

The exact impact of these issues still remain unclear, however I think they are each worth noting.

-As always, your thoughts and perspectives are welcomed in this quest for knowledge.

https://web.viu.ca/davies/H323Vietnam/Acheson.htm - Excerpts of Acheson’s Speech

Still looking for a good excerpt of Syngman’s speech – Updates to follow

Joan on Canvas

The above image depicts Joan of Arc at her now infamous Inquisition Trial, dating back to 1431. A record of the trial itself was kept, although artists and historians are often left having to interpret their own illustration of the event. Many key details of Joan that modern readers are quite interested in knowing were not recorded, such as her exact clothing (although we do know the gender specific clothing she donned) and the precise length of hair (she cut it – but how short?) The above image was painted by Louis Maurice Boutet de Monvel, a French artist, with the specific piece dating back to 1911. Aside from being a stunningly appealing visual, the audience is left with many of the artist’s own interpretations of Joan. The image shows Joan to be an authoritative figure, presented to be literally and physically standing in her own defense. The artist is also creating subliminal messages regarding Joan’s political alliance, as her clothing reflects a royal blue, indeed similar to the blue of the shield of French royalty and Charles “the Dauphin.”

The scene of the trial itself as depicted by Boutet de Monvel is also telling, as Joan’s accusers are all male, stoic looking, and appear either upset or bored with Joan’s seemingly passionate defense. A religious-looking male presides over the trial in the far back center of the audience, illustrating the indeed religious component of Joan’s trial. Finally, the artist chose to include the presence of scribes in the background of the trial, a truly essential component of the event, and many are surprised to learn of existing trial records dating back to the days of Joan. Overall the artwork is both extremely beautiful and extremely telling about how artists and even historians are continually evaluating and reevaluating the history of Joan, and how, like so many others, the events that took place in 1431 are still being discussed, evaluated, and construed. It is images and artwork much like this that reveals to historians the interconnected ways history, fiction, and illustration often work alongside and opposing one another. Thus, artwork much like Boutet de Monvel’s will be instrumental in my paper when analyzing popular culture depictions of the trial, which has allowed (sadly) for a slew of misinformation and misinterpretation of Joan over the centuries.

Louis Maurice Boutet de Monvel, The Trial of Joan of Arc, 1911. Oil and gold leaf on canvas, 29.75 in x 67.5 in.  Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. William A. Clark Collection.

Reproduced from Artstor: http://www.artstor.org

Presidential Confrontation and Olympic Spirit: Examination of the relationship between Lord Killanin and Jimmy Carter

Recently, I found several of what will probably be my most prolific primary sources. From what I have found so far, it seems there was an interesting power play between Jimmy Carter and the president of the International Olympic Committee Michael Morris the Third Baron of Killanin. What gives this conflict weight is the interplay between the U.S. domestically and other National or Federal Olympic Committees. In this situation, Jimmy Carter held all the cards. That is to say, there was no realistic option of Lord Killanin other than to object to the American-led boycott. How then did this proxy battle between the two end up reaching far into the Carter administration? Between Carter’s presidential memoirs and diary, and a book of speeches from Lord Killanin I expect to find the answer.

Killanin has a powerful vantage point. He served as president of the IOC from 1972 to 1980. Those eight years had no shortage of political events in the Olympics. In the Munich Olympics of 1972, several Israeli Olympians were held hostage and ultimately murdered by members of Black September. In the 1976 Olympics, two separate boycotts occurred. The Republic of China refused to participate since they would be forced to change their Chinese Taipei due to pressure from the People’s Republic of China. Then the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa organized a boycott, partially led by Arthur Ashe, since the IOC had refused to remove New Zealand from the games. This was after New Zealand played several rugby league games with Apartheid South Africa who was under an Olympic suspension for their racially led teams. All this led Killanin to say in 1977: “Sports and politics unfortunately are frequently interrelated. Our Objective is to bring everyone together regardless of race, creed, or political belief.” This was all before the massive 66-nation boycott of the Olympics in Moscow. Was Killanin's vehement opposition to the boycott in 1980 an attempt to save face over what may be the worst 8 years in Olympic history, or was it more of a moral objection to try and save the purity of the Olympic movement?

Carter on the other hand, probably took the “soft power” warranted by the Olympics for granted. In international politics, soft power is any form of propaganda for co-operation, rather than the use of money or force to coerce co-operation. After the success of the “Miracle on Ice” hockey team in the 1980 winter games and all the national attention it garnished, Carter may have thought that the pressure put on the U.S.S.R. from an Olympic boycott would be enough to force them to leave Afghanistan. Obviously, whatever Carter thought, the boycott was an ineffective strategy since the Soviets did not withdrawal until 1989. What was Carter really thinking he could gain from the boycott? And how did he plan to sidestep Lord Killanin?

In conclusion, the diaries and memoirs of both serve as an interesting inside look into the proxy battle at the top of the Olympic boycott. They will provide insight into the top two decision makers of the entire process, and hopefully open the door for new historical conclusions.

Sarantakes, Nicolas Evan. Dropping the Torch: Jimmy Carter, the Olympic Boycott and the Cold War: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

US Department Of State. Meeting At The Kremlin. May 12, 1980. https://foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchText=*&caseNumber=F-2011-00809

Margaret Fell: A Shout-Out to Eve

After a time of quandary, I decided to proceed with the topic of early Quaker women in England. The topic drew my attention to the plethora of areas to explore regarding Quaker women, from pamphleteers to prophecy to power. One of the main women I will likely be exploring in my paper is Margaret Fell, a seventeenth-century Englishwoman who is recognized as one of the key founders of Quakerism. Fell is referred to at times as the “Mother” of Quakerism, a categorization I take issue with as it attempts to confine Fell to a maternal and therefore, in some ways, lesser position of power within the Quaker movement. However, her words reveal strength, authority, and agency. As an example, I will utilize Fell’s Women’s Speaking Justified, Proved and Allowed by the Scriptures, a work by Fell in 1666.

In particular, Fell discusses the biblical story of Eve being persuaded by the serpent to eat from the forbidden tree. In reference to Eve’s confession of her deeds to God, Fell argues that “the woman spoke the truth unto the Lord,” which is aimed at establishing an honest characterization of women. Furthermore, Fell argues, “for he [the Lord] hath put enmity between the woman and the Serpent; and if the seed of the woman speak not, the seed of the Serpent speaks.” In this manner, Fell not only combats the traditional lumping of woman and serpent, woman and evil, together, she even suggests that to disallow women to speak is to permit evil to take hold. To a modern eye, she limits her argument for women’s claim to power generally by stressing that women must be allowed to speak in the “power of the Lord.” On the other hand, her own power could not be separated from the religious context in which she wielded it; thus, in such circumstances, her invocation of the Lord demonstrates a need for women’s authority aptly appropriate to the religious movement she was a part of. Secondly, her argument is one that shows a unique understanding of the traditional discrediting of women in power prior to the time period. For me, the images of the medieval association of woman and serpent immediately come to mind when regarding Fell’s argument.  As you can see in the fifteenth-century image below, Eve not only takes from the forbidden tree, but the snake has taken on a gendered appearance, one of a woman. In distinct contrast, Fell actually utilizes the story of Eve to prove a certain necessity of women’s voice in decisions and processes of authority.  Overall, Margaret Fell proved a unique awareness of the ways in which women had been denied power traditionally, which ironically empowered her own access to it.  

 

Primary Source- https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/Felltext.html

Image Source- https://mediaevalmusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/adam_eve_detail.jpg

 

 

Contra Faustum Manichaeum: A New Primary Source

One of the hardest parts of doing a research paper is accumulating enough primary sources to act as the basic scaffolding on which to place the rest of your research and your arguments upon. For many, the topic is so obscure and so hidden that simply finding what primary sources to use is difficult enough, let alone actually finding said primary sources.

Fortunately, this is not the case for St. Augustine. Since he is considered one of the founders of Catholic orthodoxy, the Catholic Church and academia in general have done wonders to continuously update and disseminate his works, which combined with the easy familiarity researchers have with his work in their publications, makes getting some basic scaffolding much easier for me than it would be for perhaps some others. In this case, what I've found is Contra Faustum Manichaeum (Answer to Faustus a Manichean), which is essentially Augustine at his most Augustinian-the book is a long polemic against the leader of the religion he spent the most time with before his conversion, going point-by-point in each doctrine of the Manichean faith to show how "faithless" they can be.

What's of interest here, though, is where Augustine critiques the Manichean critique of Moses's killing of an Egyptian who was beating a Jewish slave. Through the course of the critique, Augustine tries to show that, for instance, while Moses did indeed kill a man, he was nontheless chosen by God for being of exceptional religious potential, and that the problem with Moses (and other religious figures, such as St. Paul, or as he was known in his wilder years, Saul of Tarsus) was not his violence, but rather the hatred that accompanied it. It is not war in and of itself that is to be feared and loathed, but instead all of the accompanying vice that war tends to bring out in us. Furthermore, Moses was not a bad man for going to war-after all, he was following God's commands, and you wouldn't dare criticize God simply because His wrath makes you tremble, would you Faustus?

This is where you really get the sense that Augustine's Just War is primarily a divinely-ordained one, because later on Augustine goes on for a few pages to say that-had Moses not been commanded by God-then the nature of the wars he waged would have certainly warranted him going to Hell. However, given that he was commanded by God to wage war, it seems that all other concerns ad bellum seem to be secondary: God's will is Supreme, and it shall not be resisted.

This vaguely theocratic view, when combined with the view from last week in The City of God, seems to hint at a view of a Just War as thus: a war in defense of the common Order and Peace such that the pilgrims of the City of God may continue on their journey, justified by the awesome commands of God Himself. Now, of course, as we will learn, that is not the entirety of Augustine's views on the Just War, but that will have to come from another source than just these two, and as such we will return to the topic next week.

St. Augustine of Hippo. Answer to Faustus the Manichean, translated by Jacob Glutten. New York: New City Press, 2007, 631-648.

Popular Sovereignty

These past few weeks I have been thinking about the concept of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is the idea that all political power comes from the people directly by way of their consent. The consent of the governed and popular sovereignty go hand in hand. Today we think that this is self-evident, the Founders of the United States also thought this was self-evident. There was however a debate between this idea and the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, or the idea that political power belongs to whoever God bestows it to.  

What I would like to do with this Senior Seminar project is to look at the rise of popular sovereignty in the thirteen colonies which would later become the United States of America. The primary sources I have chosen to focus on are Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, and John Locke's second Treatise on Government.

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political thinker who traveled to the United States to observe democracy in action. During this time France was in a period of transition from absolute monarchy to democratic rule, but the transition was not easy and France even reverted to monarchy for a time after the revolution. John Locke was an English philosopher who argued for popular sovereignty, but his identity was not revealed until after his death to avoid retaliation by the crown. Thomas Paine was an American revolutionary. His work Common Sense was actually propaganda to encourage revolution.

The reason I am so interested in this is because today there seems to me to be a disconnect between the people and the government. If there is a disconnect then popular sovereignty cannot exist by definition. The #blacklivesmatter movement is the best example I can find of this disconnect. Some people feel that they are simply not represented nor cared for by our leaders. They feel that they never agreed to any social contract. If the #blacklivesmatter movement can affect policy in any way then popular sovereignty still exists in this country. I certainly think that they have started to affect policy, our leaders are talking about these issues, specifically Senator Bernie Sanders and President Barack Obama.