Resource Utilization and Misuse

Earlier this week, I stumbled upon a collection of declassified telegrams listed on an archive. A large sum of the articles I found dealt with the economic statuses of the DPRK. These documents frequently contained scripts and legers detailing the transactions of goods such as precious metals and ores. One such document covers the trade of gold, silver and monazite (composite of radioactive metals) in exchange for military technical equipment. There were an abundant number of transactions similar to this that occurred over a short span of time. Most often, these trades involved exchanging a valuable resource for some military unit; these could range from something as tactile as a tank, to something more obscure like pilot training. Despite the type of unit being traded though, it was apparent that much emphasis was placed on the acquisition of military goods.

Being a country of limited resources, and especially one short of arable land, the importance placed on obtaining military goods seemed incredibly unfounded (Stalin himself even suggests that Il-Sung should devote more resources to cultivating farm land within the state); not to mention the heavy reliance on the Soviet Union overall. These factors most likely played a key role in the basis of economic collapse for the DPRK.

As part of my paper, I think it will be interesting to see the effects of this resource squandering. Additionally, I’m also beginning to investigate how these messages were conveyed to the public during economic hardship.

Discipline: The Structuring of Time and Space

In my previous posts I have focused on the composition of power in terms of punishment and torture. This was to show that these expressions of power could be understood historically, in that the when the locus of power was singular, these overtly brutal shows of power were necessary. For discussion on this, please read my post “The Function of Power: The Sovereign in the 'Classical Age'”. As alluded to in my last post, in the 18^th century an emphasis on efficiency was beginning to appear. Where executions were once extremely messy and public affairs, they were beginning to be more private and less tortuous.

This change symbolized a different way in which power would manifest itself. Instead of exerting itself as overt spectacles as punishment in the classical age did, discipline would exert power in enumerable small pushes. While public punishments would exert all of the sovereign’s power at once, streamlined and organized institutions would structure time and space in order to control and reform individuals. But how can an institution do this? The answer to this is found in an institution that is quite old, the monastery. In this setting individuals where separated and partitioned for much of their time into cells, not only this but the time of these individuals were regulated. Beginning in the 18^th century, Foucault finds that these two ways in which the monastic setting has been structured for a long time is applied, with greater severity and sophistication, in other institutions like colleges and hospitals.

However, the poster child for the application of disciplinary measures and the results of these measures can be found in the military. The construction of the soldier from the peasant is done through many acts of discipline; broadly speaking, this is done in terms of changing how an individual thinks (and behaves) in terms of time and space. I do not mean the highly abstract notions of time and space, but the spacial relationship between one person and another (e.g. living in the barracks and sleeping in evenly spaced single beds every night) and how one thinks about how they spend their ‘time’. By regulating the activities of a person down to the quarter of the hour or the minute, you will change how that person think about time, what I mean by this can be found in any schedule for persons going through basic training. The many pressures that go into changing how a person is and behaves are disciplines.

This is relevant to my study because these disciplines exist in every institution, including the University. Understanding how the student is disciplined and formed will help me understand how power is manifested in this institution today. 

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Random House, 1997.

Dynamics of Faith

Dynamics of Faith is one of Paul Tillich’s most important works. It’s a great starting point to understanding Tillich’s philosophy and theology. Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the book is how Tillich redefines faith. It is similar to how many philosophers like to start with an Archimedean Point. With a reinterpretation of the definition of faith as an ultimate concern, Tillich begins systematically lay out a foundation for what he thinks faith actually entails.

Following the existential tradition, Tillich believes living beings are naturally concerned about things, with existence being above all others. Humans, different from other beings, also have spiritual concerns that can be categorized into “cognitive”, “aesthetic”, “social”, and “political” (Tillich 1). Some of these concerns are more important than others, and above them all exists the ultimate concern. With the ultimate concern comes the ultimate demands; necessary steps and sacrifices must be made if “the national group makes the life and growth of the nation its ultimate concern (think WWII Germany)” (Tillich 2). However, it is also the promise of an ultimate fulfillment that ties it all together into an “act of faith” (Tillich 2).

To break it down plainly using an example, success is the ultimate concern and god of many people around the world. Tillich says that as an ultimate concern, its ultimate demand is the “unconditional surrender to its laws even if the price is the sacrifice of genuine human relations, personal conviction, and creative eros” (4). Its ultimate promise is the fulfillment of one’s being.

“Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned. The content matters infinitely for the life of the believer” (Tillich 4). This is different than the popular definition of believing in something unbelievable. It is with this understanding of faith that Tillich starts to systematically build what he calls the dynamics of faith.

Tillich, Paul. Dynamics of Faith. New York: HarperOne, 2009. Print.

Absolutism and the Consolidation of Government

Louis XIV of France, the Sun King, was the longest reigning monarch in French history and arguably the most powerful. During this reign he sought to consolidate the French government into a centralized state, with all power in Paris and very little autonomy in the various provinces, regions, and/or duchies/counties. This did not begin with Louis XIV of course, but he made a considerable impact on the consolidation of political power in France. 

Today all French political power is in Paris. According to Dr. Elizabeth Paddock, French political culture is one of immense power in the executive. Today this is embodied in the power the French people give their president, which is considerably greater than the power given to presidents and prime ministers from other Western liberal democracies. There aren't autonomous regions in France today in the way that American states have a limited degree of autonomy. This, according to Dr. Paddock, is the result of very strong absolute monarchs in the renaissance and a continuation of a strong executive after the French Revolution. 

According to Dr. Wolbrink, In the early Middle Ages Charlemagne established the county system. The king ruled from the capitol and there were vassal-liege relationships between counts, dukes, and the king. Counts and dukes manage parts of the kingdom, but must be loyal to the king. Obviously this means that there is the potential for a power struggle between the king and the lesser nobility (ex. the Magna Carta in England was the result of a power struggle between the king and the lesser nobility). Now this is the opposite of a centralized state with massive power in the capitol vested in one single executive. 

 Louis XIV impact on the centralization of power in France is simple: he placated the aristocracy. Louis XIV renovated his father's old hunting lodge into the Palace of Versailles and made this palace his home, and the home of the entire French aristocracy, in 1682. From here he was able to keep close eye on anyone who might be plotting against him. Also, the government had developed enough that the king was able to govern all of France from his palace without needing to rely on vassals who had their own power but merely swore oaths of allegiance. 

The Machiavellian significance of this is as follows: Machiavelli answers the question as to whether or not it is better to be feared or loved by saying it is better to be feared. If someone loves you they are likely to betray you because they do not fear retaliation. If they fear you they will surely not do anything against you because they fear retaliation. If they hate you they will make moves against you despite fear of retaliation. Louis XIV, in my opinion, was trying to make the aristocracy fear him with an illusion of loving him.  By that I mean that he was infinitely generous in their living quarters, they lived great lives in this palace, but they all knew that their lives would be forfeit if they offended him.

By forcing the aristocracy to live with him under the same roof they were not able to plot against him as easily as they might otherwise as powerful vassals. Surely Louis XIV had spies that watched the lesser nobility to prevent this even if they weren't directly in the same room as the king. 

Obviously Louis XIV did more than simply forcing the nobility to live with him. This was just one piece of his plan to centralize political power in himself and become an absolute monarch, rather than share power with anyone. I will further explore the other ways that he consolidated power in my research. 


Sources:

http://en.chateauversailles.fr/?option=com_cdvfiche&idf=D49E0D38-2622-D151-2217-6E71CAB84BE0

http://www.history.com/topics/louis-xiv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/990191

Comparative Politics at Drury University taught by Dr. Paddock
History of Medieval Europe at Drury University taught by Dr. Wolbrink

Twofold View of the Elderly

While it seems as though the elderly were viewed comically in the acting sphere of Classical Athens (as seen with the statuette in my last post), Plato has reverence for the elderly. According to Patrick McKee and Clifton E. Barber, Plato’s observations from over 2,000 years ago of the elderly surmount to the same assumptions made in the contemporary field of gerontology (93). Specifically, activity and disengagement theories (why the elderly either continue or discontinue their routines from their middle-aged selves), gerotranscendence (when there is a shift from materialistic to metaphysical thinking), “the life review” theory (reflection and nostalgia in old age), and elderly wisdom are all discussed in Plato’s work (McKee & Barber).

In the beginning of Republic, Plato describes Socrates’ conversation with Cephalus, an older man. Though Cephalus’ body is deteriorating, he has found peace in conversation, and this has proven to be more than ample compensation. Plato writes, “For certainly old age has a great sense of calm and freedom; when the passions relax their hold, then, as Sophocles says, we are freed from the grasp not of one mad master only, but of many.” (Plato, Republic, Book 1). It seems here that Plato doesn’t just revere old age -- he envies it. Overall, this is characteristic among his dialogues as well; Crito and Apology discuss the advantages of old age (McKee & Barber).

It’s becoming clear to me that there isn’t a singular view on the elderly, which makes sense; there shouldn’t be a singular opinion. But it seems there may be a difference between the common view of the elderly and the philosophical view of the elderly in the time period based on what I’ve read from Garland and Falkner in my previous posts.

McKee, Patrick and CliftonE. Barber. “Plato’s Theory of Aging.” Journalof Aging and Identity 6.2 (2001): 93-104. Web.

Plato. The Republic. Trans. Desmond Lee. London: Penguin, 2003. Print.

Domestic Opinions Forcing Olympic Boycotts

          It almost seems as if the domestic side of affairs drove the Carter decision to boycott the 1980 Olympics. It may not have been a very popular decision amongst athletes, and it definitely wasn’t among the officials of the United States Olympic Committee like Robert Kane, but amongst the general public it appears to have been massively popular. An ABC-Harris Survey showed in March that 61 percent of Americans polled preferred a boycott. That is down from the same poll in February, which showed that 75 percent favored a boycott, however, these numbers are massive amounts of approval for a boycott (ABC-Harris). In Washington, those numbers where even higher. Compare that to a Chicago Tribune Poll of local readers showing 63 percent in favor of a boycott in January (Chicago Tribune). It is also possible that this resounding support is the reason that congress looked upon a boycott so favorably as well, it’s hard to go against the majority in Washington and get re-elected.

            Compare this to Carters responses abroad. He had mixed results in Africa, where the very leaders Muhammad Ali was sent to convince talked the American representative out of his belief of the boycott. Margaret Thatcher firmly supported the boycott, however the British Olympic Committee did not stand with her (BBC). The Germans were also very skeptical that a boycott would send the right message.        

            Carter must have known that no response to Soviet expansionism would make him appear impotent to the American public. While I haven’t looked into this question enough as of yet, it appears as of now that Carter chose the boycott in part because of the immense domestic support. The administration seemed to know that the boycott would have little to no effect on the number of Soviet boots in Afghanistan, despite what the American people thought. Its possible then, maybe even highly probable, that Carter choose the boycott because of the American opinion and not because of the a goal to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

British Olympic Committee Decision to Defy the Government: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/25/newsid_2531000/2531175.stm

Chicago Tribune Poll:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1980/01/27/page/16/article/what-polls-say

ABC-Harris National Opinion Poll:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-SUPPORT-FOR-US-BOYCOTT-OF-SUMMER-OLYMPICS-SLIPPING-1980-03.pdf

Inquisition & Faith: Two Quaker Women in Malta

A well-known, early account of Quakerism, “This is a short relation of some of the cruel sufferings (for truths sake) of Katharine Evans and Sarah Chevers,” relates the firsthand experiences of the two Quaker women noted in the title, specifically in regards to their three-year imprisonment on the island of Malta from 1659 to 1662. Evans and Chevers had travelled together to preach and spread their faith, swept up in the Italian Inquisition at Malta before ever reaching Egypt, their intended destination of ministry (Booy 26). The account was published in 1662 before they were even released, taken back to England by a fellow Friend, David Baker, who had pleaded for their release (Booy 27). As for my research, the circumstantial context of this text is significant in a number of ways. The account demonstrates that ministry opened up unique opportunities for Quaker women, especially in the seventeenth century. One, Evans and Chevers were married women, yet travelled without husband, children or other male Quakers. Two, the imprisonment or targeting of Quakers, male or female, was actually a means through which Quaker ideas were further disseminated. Finally, Quaker women’s writings assumed major roles as propaganda methods for Quakerism in its early days of formation and expansion.

Therefore, I will delve into the document and illuminate some of the ideas of Evans and Chevers through their own words. As a note, Evans describes much of the inquisitorial process, speaking of Chevers when referring to she. When asked why the pair had travelled abroad, “she [Chevers] said, the Lord told her, she must go over the seas to do his will.” Following this, the inquisitors were interested in how the Lord appeared to the two, asking “And they asked, whether I did see the Lord with my eyes? I said, God was a Spirit, and he was spiritually discerned” (Quaker 56). As seen in the replies of Evans and Chevers, the two often repeat their obedience to God and only God in response to many of the inquisitors’ questions about disregarding aspects of the Catholic faith. They also convey a personal connection to God, whom often is mentioned in conversational dialogue. For example, Evans expresses, “The last day of my fast I began to be a hungry, but was afraid to eat...but the Lord said unto me, ‘If thine enemy hunger, feed him...in doing so thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head; be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good’” (Quaker 61). These words exemplify the religious link that Evans and Chevers described in relation to God; he was their accessible, wise, and direct authority. Evans even further illuminates that God sent angels to comfort the two after the conversation (Quaker 61). Their distinct “spiritual discernment,” of God as they refer to it reminds me of the Christian mysticism of the medieval period, in which women mystics also held a personal, passionate, and direct relationship with God. Although out of the scope of my paper, it proves an interesting connection to how church authorities react at different times to religious practice beyond protocols, theology, and tradition. Within this Quaker account, the inquisitors even ask how Quakerism could stand against hundreds of years of Catholic practice and miracles; of course, the two do not break, maintaining “the Lord is sufficient for us” (Quaker 59).  Overall, the document, as it is uncommon yet also reflective of the time period, is essential to an understanding of faith, power, and change through the eyes of seventeenth-century Quaker women.

Sources:

Quaker Writings: an Anthology, 1650-1920. Edited by Thomas D. Hamm. New York: Penguin Books, 2010.

Booy, David. "Introduction to 'This is a short relation of some of the cruel sufferings (for truths sake) of Katharine Evans and Sarah Chevers.'" Autobiographical Writings by Early Quaker Women. Edited by David Booy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004.

 

 

 

The Beginnings of a Working Argument

When doing a research paper like this one, regardless of how much information you've found on the subject, you haven't actually done the entire project unless you put forth your own argument which somehow advances an understanding towards the subject. So far, that's been my difficulty-I now know plenty about St. Augustine and the Medieval view of war, but where to go from there? Well, I believe I've now found an answer in an article I found by Christopher Toner, The Logcial Structure of Just War Theory.

In this paper, Toner argues that the concepts of jus ad bellum (before the fight "why" considerations) and jus in bello (during the fight "how" considerations) have not been properly described in the literature previously. See, the traditional view of the two considerations have been that they are very separate categories, that even if you have one, you could still have the other. For example, the Nuremburg trials after WWII operated with the assumption that you could still fight war morally even if you were fighting for an evil cause-that is why we only prosecuted the officials who were responsible for waging the war, not those who were merely engaged in it.

According to Toner, this view is all wrong, because (without getting into the real details of the argument) the two concepts follow a parallel structure of "primary" and "secondary" concerns, such that the two look more like two facets of the same consideration. He finds further support in this claim by citing what he believes to be the views of Augustine and Aquinas, the "Substantive Dependence Claim," which basically says that even if one fights a war following all of the traditional rules, it is still not the case that you are acting morally if your cause is not at the same time just. This would mean that for Toner-and as Toner claims, also Augustine and Aquinas-we were mistaken for being merciful to Nazi soldiers during the Nuremburg trials, that both soldiers and officials should have been brought before trial. This claim (also found in other sources not mentioned here) seems like a very strong and rather unintuitive claim, and from what I've read of Augustine, it doesn't seem to follow his beliefs at all, so thus far it seems like I'm going to be essentially attacking this paper with my own.

Toner, Christopher. "The Logical Structure of Just War Theory." J Ethics 14 (2010): 81-102.

Defining Importance

When I begin my paper on child soldiers of the Civil War, it will be critical to the success of the paper.  Children played roles in wars for a long time prior to the Civil War.  Often times they were "powder monkeys" on ships.  They were chosen for this job because they were small and quick.  Arguably these "powder monkeys" were vital to naval warfare.  Boys as young as 12 were drummer boys, beating out patterns that meant different things to the soldiers.  Drumming a cadence to march to, the order to advance, and retreat as well as other orders.  These are all no doubt crucial to a military's success in battle.
But I believe, for my papers sake, I will stick more to the children who took up arms.  Who actually fired the rifles on the field of battle.  Marching shoulder to shoulder with men twice their age.  Because these  young boys were spread out, except in the case of the Virginia Military Institute boys and even some of them were in their 20's, I believe this will force me to examine more closely the role of the Virginia Military Institute's role in the Civil War.  Also, because this was in an academic setting, I will have access to letters, diaries, and rosters from VMI.  Thus making the hunt for primaries easier.  I have contacted VMI to see if they have access to Union primary sources from the battle but have not yet heard back from them. 
Obviously because VMI is a military institute, these boy soldiers were being prepared for war.  But as some of my sources have hinted to, they were scared, they were still teenage boys.  In a letter home from cadet Samuel F. Atwill, "Two of the fellow picked him up and instead of bringing him to barracks which is just as close as Major Williamson's, they were very cunning and took him to the latter place as "Old Tom" (Maj. W.) has two very prettie daughters."  If this does not say teenage shenanigans, I do not know what does.  This shows that despite being prepped for war, they were still worried about such teenage ideals as trying to woo two "prettie" girls.


Source:
Samuel F. Atwill Papers, 1862, 1864

Quantifying Joan

I have begun to analyze the historical trial records of Joan’s Inquisition trial, and am beginning to think of the different categories I will then quantify her accuser’s questions into. Thus far into my research, I have decided upon four (4) main categories of questions. They are: Background/childhood, religious imagery/visions, French allegiance, and exemplifying male characteristics (including clothing, hair, and military leadership).

The first trial of Joan, and indeed the only one she lived to experience (the later Rehabilitation Trial would occur in attempt to exonerate her after her death) was held in 1431 in Rouen France between February and May. The Trial of Condemnation or Inquisition, as it is commonly referred to, was held in stages, complete with six public examinations and nine private examinations occurring outside of the courtroom, most notably in Joan’s prison cell. All examinations, perhaps better labeled as interrogations, were recorded in transcript form, and reveal the questions posed, and Joan’s responses as well as body language at times. I will combine the questions and answers from both Joan’s public and private examinations to accurately quantify the entirety of the trial.

The first public examination in Joan’s Condemnation Trial began on February 21, 1431, in Rouen, France. Throughout the Trial, Joan was asked a total of nine (9) questions, eight (8) of which will be quantified under the “Background/childhood” category, with one (1) falling under the Religious imagery/visions category. Although the questions were seemingly mundane, the scribes noted instances of Joan pushing back with her accusers, “complaining about being held in chains” or refusing to reveal the truth concerning matters of “faith and about what you know,” (Taylor 137). Over the next few weeks on the blog, I will be analyzing Joan’s various examinations and quantifying the questions posed to her into one of the current four (4) categories. Over the course of my research, however, these categories may change or be altered to better support the trial records.  

Taylor, Craig, ed. “First Public Examination,” in Joan of Arc: La Pucelle (New York: Manchester University Press, 2007), 137-139.