The election is on November 3, and it is vitally important that you make your voice heard! If you plan to vote in Pennsylvania, you must register by Oct. 19. You can do so here. If you will vote in another state, please check the registration deadline. Voters get extra credit! Send me a picture of yourself outside your polling place or at home with your sealed mail-in ballot.
Morality and the Law- 9/22
Mill brings up an important and often overlooked dynamic when it comes to the relationship between religion and a country’s laws, “Suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were Mussulmans [Muslim], that majority should insist on not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country… Would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of the public opinion? And if not, why not?”. The problem presented here is whether or not a public should decide laws based in their religion.
While a theocracy is a country whose identity is based entirely on the law of a religion, Mills is pointing to an example of a country who has a majority of the population following one religion, but not all of it. The question here is whether or not it is fair to force the religious minority of the country to follow laws based in the majority religion because they hold a moral authority within that country. There have been many countries that followed one religion or another, particularly denominations of Christianity in Europe, that became the basis of laws and social norms.
However, in places like the US that have a separation of church and state are not immune to this question either. People, in general, will base their sense of right and wrong in the religion that they believe in. So, the policies that they vote for are influenced by one religion or another. It is dangerous to exclude the religion of people from the discussion of politics because what people think politics should be and the laws that should be enacted are based on their sense of right and wrong, which directly stems from the teachings of their religion. Should we base our laws on morality? Can morality be objective, or is it only something that a society collectively agrees is wrong? Do you agree with Mill’s question of whether or not the majority of the public should enact laws based on their religion in the name of morality, or should the minority get a greater say in those types of laws?
Importance of Women
In the “Characteristics of the women of England”, Ellis exaggerates that middle-class households could only be successful if the women focused solely on the well being of their household. She describes these women as “… guardians of comfort of their homes” (page 156). Without women the house will go into chaos. Even though, a key factor of success in these houses were to have women, they were still going without recognition. Why is it that women play such a huge role in England yet get no recognition? Was it because they would always be seen as inferior to men or because no one really saw their actions as being important?
“The Workers’ Union” – A Plea for Coordination and Leadership
In Flora Tristan’s “The Workers’ Union,” an appeal to emotion is made to frustrate the workers in recalling how little progress has been made in the quarter of a century prior to the publication of this work in taking care of the European, in particular the French, working class. As we’ve discussed in class, one of the most major issues with these types of writing, like Engels’ call for action for example, is that they seem to believe that the working class can both afford the time to improve their livelihood and have the education needed to understand how they can bring about meaningful change/reform. Tristan’s call differs in this regard because she acknowledges that just the publication of her work will not be enough. Specifically, she states on page 192 that,
“I understand that, my book published, I have another work to accomplish, which is to go myself, proposal for union in hand, from city to city, from one end of France to another, to speak to the workers who do not know how to read and to those who haven’t the time to read. I tell myself that the moment has come to act. And for those who really love the workers, who want to devote themselves, body and soul, to their cause, a wonderful mission there is to fulfil.”
We can see through this quote that her piece is intended just as much for those urging reform as the working class itself, saying that just lecturing from a distance is not enough. There needs to be a sense of responsibility, of teaching, to spread beneficial ideals that will make society a better place. If people are unwilling to do this, it isn’t doing that much to improve conditions as her critique of the last two decades shows.
This compounds upon her earlier request for coordination. She advocates for a sort of union organization with dues to be paid so that money can be used to bring about change by applying pressure to the government and if necessary help look after individuals who are older, injured, or at some sort of risk due to their economic predicament which the then-current system facilitated. She compares such a system to the the Hotel des Invalides, a sort of government-run care facility for retired French servicemen, and puts forward an idea of paying into retirement care down the road in a way that sounds very familiar to the concept of U.S. Social Security. In this way she not only says that the working class needs more direct coordination from leaders who champion reform, but the movement itself needs to get behind a concerted effort to solve problems on its own if nobody else is willing to step up to the plate.
In a way, Tristan is taking a more hands-on approach. There are many parallels to various progressive movements in American and European history, but if I had to make one, it would be that if Engels is to working class reform what Harriet Beecher-Stowe was to American abolitionism, then Flora Tristan would be the movement’s equivalent to someone along the lines of a John Brown.
Tristan died only about a year after she published this book, our reading states, and was in poor health for much of that time. So the saddest part of this movement to me is how we never got to see exactly what effect her tour and travels would have had in bringing about change. What would this have looked like? Would sweeping reform had come sooner if she had lived? What leaders might have answered her call? Would she have gotten more radical over time? Would women have gotten more political power and leverage sooner than what was the case as we know it? It is certainly intriguing to think of the possibilities. Personally, I read her piece and I see a leader who has mapped out exactly what she wants to push for and thinks she knows exactly how she wants to make it happen.
Hidden Amongst Society
“For it is in the most polished society that noisome reptiles and venomous serpents lurk under the rank herbage…” Vindication of the Rights of Women chapter 9 (page 155)
Mary Wollstonecraft, much like her daughter, was a phenomenal writer who pushed the boundaries of society during her time through writing. Wollstonecraft as a woman was able to capture the underlying problems that existed in society that many wished to hide. In chapter 9, Wollstonecraft begins the chapter explaining that while people attempt to make the world look better than it is; it grows conceit and anger amongst those who do not have the option to have a voice in society Wollstonecraft’s main focus in this passage is about the women that are oppressed within society. She continues on page 176 explaining the difference between men and women and how they are expected to survive in their society. Does Wollstonecraft argue that women and others put down by others in this society deserve the right to become venomous or is she searching for an answer on how to change this?
What is loyalty?
On thing that personally became clear to me while reading the Documents on the Status of German Jewry and the Debate over Jewish Emancipation is how little I knew about the history of Jewish people in Europe before World War II and I’m glad that I know a little more after reading this primary source. However I do feel like I was able to better understand the history of antisemitism and why it took shape and was either widely accepted or widely ignored in Germany over a hundred years later due to my knowledge of that time.
Going to Heinrich Paulus’ letter to Riesser, this idea that the responsibility is on the individual to demonstrate their loyalty to a certain nation even when other people born in the same nation do not share the same burden seems to play a recurring role throughout history (155). When large groups of Irish immigrated to the United States throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there was the idea that they couldn’t be trusted because their loyalty would always belong firstly to the Pope and the Catholic Church. Another instance is after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the treatment of Americans of Japanese descent, specifically with Executive Order 9066 and the internment of Japanese Americans in internment camps. This paired with the fact that there was no comparable effort to protect America from Americans with German or Italian descent even after we went to war with both, shows it was more at play than a wartime protection.
Although these situations are not the exact and therefore not a perfect comparison, I still do see similarities on this idea of loyalty has allowed people to restrict the rights and classify entire groups of people based on a common belief system or ancestry. I wonder how much that has been used as an excuse to make the racism or xenophobia which is really driving people. Since loyalty is such an abstract idea, to me, it seems like it is creating an impossible standard for the group in question to achieve, allowing them to be treated differently or worse. Do you see other examples of history where this rhetoric of “other-ism” has been interconnected with this idea of loyalty? Do you agree that it is just a way to mask prejudice or do you see it differently? Finally, do you think that the extensive history of antisemitism makes what these sources are discussing (Jewish Emancipation) unique when comparing them to the examples I gave above? Especially because in all of the examples I gave, the treatment of those people in America had passed relatively quickly.
German Nationalism from the Jewish Population Achieves Little
“They have fought both as conscripts and volunteers in proportionate numbers within the ranks fo the German forces” Readings in Western Civilization chapter 8 (page 156). “They” referring to the German Jewish population, who despite volunteering in the German militia and fighting alongside the rest of the country, were not considered German citizens. The Jewish population in France had a similar story fighting in the French Revolution, but they ultimately gained citizenship through extensive debate in the National Assembly. The divide between the bourgeois and working class following the French Revolution, along with the disregard of the German Jewish population after they fought in the militia, raises the question, is it in the nature of the bourgeois to cast aside the lower classes after they fight together to achieve a common objective?
The soul vs the body-9/15
Mary Wollstonecraft argues for equality between men and women in The Vindication of the Rights of Women . There are several points that she makes, but the one that stood out to me was the distinction between a person’s physical body and their soul or mind. There are two arguments that she uses this in, “I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has one eternal standard?”. As well as a possible difference in the nature of a soul, “I have been led to imagine that the few extraordinary women who have rushed in eccentrical directions out of the orbit prescribed to their sex, were male spirits, confined by mistake in female frames… the inferiority must depend on the organs; or the heavenly fire [the soul]… is not given in equal portions”.
The first quote I picked is about the standard at which we judge a person’s virtue. If men are superior, they are judged for their virtue. However, since the definition of virtue, by nature, is unchanging, then women are also judged by that same standard. There can be no inherent difference, she argues, because both men and women are judged on the same level. Here, she focuses on a person’s soul, and concludes that all souls are equally capable of being virtuous.
The second quote deals with the relationship between the soul and the body it inhabits. If a man’s soul is superior by nature, then the women who have accomplished similar feats must have a man’s soul. This undermines the ‘superiority’ that men have simply for being a man physically, one sex does not have an inherent right over the other if women can have a male soul. If that is not true, then the fault must lie with the physical construction of a man or woman. If that is the case, then there is no difference between souls in either body, and men are only physically superior due to an inequality of traits.
Wollstonecraft distinguishes between a person’s soul and their physical body. How would this idea been received at the time, or even now? Why is this distinction important to her arguments for equality?
Out of Sight, Out of Mind-9/10
In Conditions of the Working Class in England, Engels describes how and where all the poor and working people live in Manchester, “… I have never seen so systematic a shutting out of the working class from the thoroughfares, so tender a concealment of everything which might affront the eye and the nerves of the bourgeoisie, as in Manchester”. (Engels 59) Along with the graphic descriptions of their living conditions, the filth and barely there houses if they can afford it, he also emphasizes the fact that they have been systematically pushed and policed off the streets and out of sight of the upper class. It is no surprise to anyone familiar with a city layout that there are poorer neighborhoods than some, but Engels specifically mentions a few examples. He mentions the Long Millgate area, where from the street it looks normal, but on the inside of the block are horrible places where the poor live.
It was no secret that the bourgeoisie tolerated the working class, at the very least, but the systemic progress of forcing the poor to hide where they lived had no real benefit besides hiding it from whoever was walking on the street. Did the upper class do this simply because they didn’t want to see the poor and how they lived because they were paid too little? Or was there another possible motive for forcing the destitue and homeless to stay off the streets and behind well made shops?
The Regime of Capitalism (9/9)
When reading Friedrich Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England the way the people live in those horrid conditions just have rags to wear, brings up the question just why Capitalism can be so brutal to its own people? Something that really jumped out was that on page 92 stating “The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is far better off under the present arrangement than under the old slave system; it can dismiss its employees at discretion without sacrificing invested capital, and gets its work done much more cheaply” (Engels 92). in this instance it is saying that slavery is less efficient than simply forcing the working class to fight to live with an unlivable wage is beyond insane. under this society of hierarchy there is no ladder to climb only luck of being born not a working class person. i wonder how a leader could merely allow such poor condition to continue under their regine and what moral backing he must have in order to justify this actions?
