Week 9 - Science and Technology/Logical Positivism

Wittgenstein was a key figure in the ideas of Logical Positivism and heavily believed that everything was logical and factual. He believed that language was everything and that it infected people – nothing else mattered. Language described everything therefore without it there was nothing. His thought was that language was broader than just speech – there were such things as “speech acts”, that take place within “language games”. He saw language as a game, i.e. a situation bound by certain rules. An example of this discussed in the lecture was the Clangers, whereby you can understand what they mean purely without talking – therefore according to Wittgenstein they would have been performing a speech act. Another example would be monkeys and apes; you can understand what they are doing by analysing their stances and actions as opposed to speech.

The idea of logic was modernised by Freud and psychoanalysis, and in politics the use of logic was applied to attempt to solve social problems with examples such as state planning and the bureaucracy. However following World War II, many reacted against this ‘solution’. Unlike the romanticism movement, and aesthetics, logic was powerfully anti-metaphysical. Science was seen as the only valid way to analyse and solve any problem, social or otherwise.

Logical Positivists generally admired Hume, who was also a Logical Positivist, i.e. very sceptical about any truths that are not scientific truths. For example referring to Inference, and the idea that smoking causes cancer, when in fact it cannot be 100% proven, but is just inferred through the statistic.

The lecture also included the Verification Principle (Freddy Ayer – Language, Truth and Logic), which basically said that what has been decided as true or false up to now can all be ignored and is a waste of time, as there are statements that can be verified as provisionally true, definitely false, or cannot be verified at all. He paraphrased the Principle saying, “The method of verification is the truth of a statement.” However a state can be deemed “unfalsifiable”, such as “All men are mortal”, because the number of men being born is questionable, therefore there is always a chance the next to be born could be immortal.

1968 New Left, New Journalism

'New Journalism', by Tom Wolfe was a sort of manifesto explaining the ongoing change in journalism as writing. Wolfe basically wanted to mix literary techniques with journalism to document in a more effective manner, wanting to emphasize the idea of realism and instinct in journalists.

He had four suggestions for doing so -

1) Scene by Scene Construction 

Journalists should witness the events first hand then relay/recreate them for the reader.

2) Dialogue

The use of dialogue defines and establishes character at the same time as involving the reader.

3) The Third Person

Journalists should treat protagonists in their story like characters in a novel, for example thoroughly investigate the motives and thoughts behind the people.

4) Status Details

Surroundings were increasingly important for stories - what people surround themselves with - so as the reader we can look at people the way they look at themselves.

The climax of all of this was the introduction of "Gonzo" journalism, the idea that the journalist should fully submerge themselves into the story in order to really understand and report it to their full potential and advantage. Hunter S. Thomspon was the pioneer of this movement in journalism, wanting to really reflect the atmosphere and the energy of the time, particularly shown in 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', really capturing the essence of the never-ending journey to the American Dream and indeed the drug culture at the time.

The idea of New Journalism was to blur the lines between fiction and non-fiction in the trade, and to evoke thought and reaction from both consumers and other journalists.

Week 3 - Existentialism/Wretched of the Earth/Battle of Algiers

"The rebel's weapon is the proof of his humanity. This irrepressible violence is man re-creating himself." -- The Wretched of the Earth

Existentialism was seen as an agent for political change. One of it's key figures was Nietzsche and his belief that 'God is Dead', not necessarily meaning God as an individual, more the end of the idea of certainty, for so long people had looked to religion for that certainty they lacked. People didn't see the point if there was no God or religion, however Nietzsche saw it as an opportunity for freedom. He believed that only after God was dead could you decide your own fate, what values you thought crucial and different moralities, after all not everybody was the same, inside and out. He opposed Locke's idea of national rights, and instead paved the way and the much needed space for Fanon's sporadic violence, where he wanted to destroy all oppression and power.

Nietzsche also had the idea of the "Ubermench" or the "super man" as it can be translated - he believed everybody had the potential to be a super man. He thought humanity should be overcome, and only with this will to power could man be defined by the choices he made. What was being opposed was the idea of the inauthentic self - the idea that society tells you who or how to be and behave. Nietzsche and the idea of existentialism in this case was that you define yourself by your own choices in life.

What was interesting was the point of disregarding certain 'choices' in life because they were not explicitly your choice, for example, the area in which you were born. Yes, it was someone's choice in your life to be born there, however you cannot change this fact, nor should you have to be defined by it, specifically because you didn't choose it as a life. The idea of 'moral luck' comes into play - if we don't choose it, it is not important. This was crucial to Fanon, a path to escape the role of the victim.

Jean Paul Sartre was on the same page as Fanon - he believed the life of a person is not defined in advance, and the past should not be used as an excuse for the future, as you should not let your past define you. Your past is not you. Existentialism was the idea that you should make your own choices and values, and the individual must decide what is right and what is wrong. 

On to Fanon, whose 'Wretched of the Earth' was practically a guide to revolution, literally by any means possible. He believed that "national liberation is always violent", not necessarily because he was angry, he just believed in violence having a meaning and that he was justified in his thoughts, as was violence. For him violence was the only resort and the thing to do - the only choice to make - in order to enforce change.

The Wisdom of Crowds

The title The Wisdom of Crowds kind of speaks for itself when the main thought behind the text and author James Surowiecki is that collective thinking is more effective than individual thought. The main focus of the book is that you shouldn’t have to search the crowd for that individual to answer your question or solve a problem, but instead ask the entire crowd, as in Surowiecki’s opinion, you’ll get the answer much quicker and more often that not the crowd will be more intelligent than the individuals in them.

There is an effective diagram in a separate publication, a summary of the same book, where many arrows pointing inwards to the words surround the words ‘Collective Intelligence’, and the word ‘Expert’ has a lot of arrows pointing away from the word. In the case of the collective intelligence, it is the idea that lots of ideas go into this thinking, in order to make it better rounded and informative, whereas with one expert, it is just one person giving out their one opinion to others. Even something so simple as a diagram with words and arrows shows how effective the idea of collective intelligence can be.[1]

The idea that this type of brainpower could solve different types of problems also surprised me, as it seemed so obvious. There are the ‘Cognition’ problems, where a certain solution may not exist, but collectively a group can find and think up new alternatives. Also ‘Co-ordination’ problems are self-explanatory; the group must work together and this depends on not just what the individual thinks but the group around them also. All three link with the final type of problem, ‘Co-operation’, where the group must come up with solutions that are good for everybody. Although the three are very similar and preach the same ideas overall, their subtle differences make up the different types of collective intelligence.

What I didn’t like so much about the book was that it dismissed the fact that people could just be thrown together by chance into a group to solve the problem at hand and that it would work, but it gave a sort of checklist of conditions each individual must acquire. These included diversity of opinion, independence – to decrease the ‘herding’ mentality[2], decentralization and aggregation. I understand why these qualities are important but it somewhat dismisses the idea that certain minds can and can’t work together. The book is riddled with examples of how collective intelligence works, one of which was it’s relation to traffic jams. What many people fail to notice is how things around them have come to be. The idea that the actual road is smart because of the team that designed it, as opposed to it being down to the individual driver, really made me understand the concept a lot more.[3] The idea of a group decision rather than an individual is also reflective of the democratic system I thought, as it can be seen that a democratic society is happier and more prosperous than a society run by, say, one dictator making all the decisions. This is talked about more in the ‘Collective Intelligence and Democracy’ part, and what I found interesting was when Surowiecki talked about the actual democracy itself not representing the wisdom of the crowd, but the decision to have a democracy in the first place does.

---

[1] Most Read Summaries. Summary: The Wisdom of Crowds – James Surowiecki. pp. 5-6.

[2] Surowiecki, J., 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few. (Abacus.) pp. 49.

[3] Surowiecki, J., 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few. (Abacus.) pp. 145.

Packaging Politics

Packaging Politics is a chapter in Political Communications in Britain’s Media Democracy by Bob Franklin, which talks about how politics have used and continue to use the media to help move forward in their careers, specifically in Britain. He talks about the use of the ‘spin doctor’[1], specifically referring to the relationship between Tony Blair as Labour leader and Alistair Campbell, and the idea of using the media to shape politics, believing, along with Young who he cites, that ‘in the struggle to capture the public mind, spinning is the most elementary weapon.’[2] It is an interesting thought to visualise where the political world would be now without media, as it has become such a vital device in which to put information across to the voting public, whether it has a spin on it or not.

 Arguably naïve former Prime Minister Bevan believed that the publicity one received was deemed unimportant so long as the policy they backed was a good one. This may have been partly true back when he was heavily involved in the government in 1959, however Wilson, first active in the 1960’s believed that most of politics is presentation and what isn’t is timing[3], which I think is a more accurate view of modern politics. Another idea brought up in the chapter is that politics is becoming more of a consumer business than it ever has been – the idea that governments are getting better at ‘packaging politics’ in a more user friendly way to appeal to more voters. They are employing communications officers and directors to ensure that the information being given out is on point and will help their respective parties. The politicians themselves are also making themselves more widely received, for example political shows are being broadcast on television, and also politicians are not limiting themselves to purely topical shows, for example Tony Blair’s appearance on Richard and Judy[4] or more recently David Cameron’s appearance on Daybreak.

The downside to this media ‘spin’ is when critics say that the media corrupts and manipulates the information, making it more about the form of content than the content itself[5], however I think there is a strong possibility that politics were corrupted even before the media were involved. The idea of ‘packaging politics’ has stemmed from the exchange relationship between politicians and the media, where the insider information is traded for coverage in the Press, and the interesting thing is that neither are particularly dominant in the relationship, and that the two are slowly merging and we are seeing careers in both politics and communications. The two also work on a hierarchy, in that the Prime Minister or say a Cabinet member will be in the position to be interviewed by a prestige newspaper or television programme, however the lower down Party members would deal with the less known media – known as ‘press party parallelism’[6] and the two ends of the spectrum rarely collide.

The sad fact is also that politicians often use their opponents’ weaknesses to get ahead, rather than focus on their own campaigns, which begs the question; is this what politics has come to?

---

[1] Franklin, B., 2004. Packaging Politics. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. np.

[2] Franklin, B., 2004. Packaging Politics. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. np.

[3] Franklin, B., 2004. Packaging Politics. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. np.

[4] Franklin, B., 2004. Packaging Politics. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. np.

[5] Franklin, B., 2004. Packaging Politics. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. np.

[6] Franklin, B., 2004. Packaging Politics. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. np.

The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx - Seminar Paper

Karl Marx studied law initially as a career, but changed to philosophy and then to journalism. Law was seen as a respectable profession, whereas revolutionary journalism was not

The communist Manifesto was a description of the practices of communism and how Marx thought society should be, a way for the Proletariat, the working class to overcome the exploitation of the Bourgeoisie, the ruling class and in a sense replace them. He believed communism would be the final stage in society and would only be fully achieved through a revolution.

It was written by Marx and Engels in 1847 and is now seen as one of the most influencial political doctrines. He and Engels believed that the destruction of classes could never occur through a natural change in government or society but that a revolution was the only way.

In the decade after the Communist Manifesto was published, Marx looked at the way people were carrying out his work and claimed he was not a Marxist because that was not how he intended his work to be interpreted.

Part 1 – Bourgeois and Proletarians

Marx claims that societies all over the world have always been faced with class struggle. The first section of this talks about class struggle between the ruling class, those who own the means of production like factories (the Bourgeoisie) and the working class, those who work for a wage (the Proletariat), where he states “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.” He believes that the Bourgeois continually exploits the Proletarians in terms of manual labour, working conditions and cheap wages to make a profit for themselves and talks about the constant battle between the oppressor (Bourgeoisie) and the oppressed (Proletariat).

Through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Marx believes they will rise to power through revolution, such as riots and creations of unions. He talks about how whenever the opposition ends it is either through revolution or ‘common ruin’, where the oppressed continue to be oppressed and lose. He says about how there has always been an “arrangement of society in various orders” throughout history and the continuous ‘ranking’ of people. He believed that ultimate communism was the key to class equality among citizens.

Instead of society learning from it’s mistakes he talking about the continuation of the class struggle problem, and how the classes are just being replaced by new classes that are also taking the role of the oppressor and the oppressed.

He goes on to talk about the Industrial Revolution, and how manual labour is being replaced by machinery – “steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production”, and the general growing market.

He puts the Bourgeoisie down constantly in the bit where he talks about how passion and sentimentalism have all been replaced with moneymaking ideals by the Bourgeoisie and says “has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family into a mere money relation”. ‘personal  worth’ was not important to the Bourgeoise, instead they have “given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country”. This just eccentuates the difference between things like trade and cosmopolitan lifestyle, like city-type industries.

He then talks about the Proletariat, and their focus on work, along with the effects of the Industrial Revolution, which had turned them into resembling soldiers and slaves in a way. “Crowded into the factory, organised like soldiers” and “they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine”.

From the lecture and from the reading the most prominent thing is that the P had nothing to lose, or so Marx believes. They have no ownership of anything, so are ideal to start a revolution. He believes in this uprising because the Bourgeoise has “stripped him of every trace of national character”, and so they should end their exploitation once and for all.

Part 2 – Proletariats and Communists

10 point program - “nevertheless, in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:

1)   Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

2)   A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

3)   Abolition of all rights of inheritance

4)   Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

5)   Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6)   Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7)   Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan

8)   Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9)   Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country

10)                   Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Could this have influenced Hitler’s 25-point plan for Nazism?

This section also defends communism from various criticisms such as the idea people would not work because they would have no incentive. He stresses the need to abolish bourgeois property, not just property in general.

An interesting point he made was when he talks about political power not being anything more than “the organized power of one class for oppressing another”. In a way, I think this is quite true, because in a society, you cannot have a ruler without people being below that ruler for them to rule. Even though in the most extreme cases it is obviously wrong for one person to have so much power, for example Stalin, Hitler etc, political power is needed to an extent for a society to work.

Part 3 – Socialist and Communist Literature

This section kind of sets communism apart from any other political standpoint of that time, dismissed for not appreciating the oppressed role of the Proletariat. Because of the success of Marx’s work, these other doctrines became insignificant by the end of the nineteenth century.

He also describes three types of socialist and communist literature –

1)   Reactionary Socialism – all of these fought against the rise of the Bourgeoise and the rise of modern industry during the industrial revolution.

2)   Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism and Communism – He stated the people who belonged in this group were people like economists and organizers of charities and societies, who wanted to look at the advantages of the modern industry but did not want the danger that came with the revolution.

3)   Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism – these looked for new social conditions and laws to free the Proletariat. However because they were looking for a Utopian society (much like Thomas More), it was idealistic and not necessary a reality for society.

Marx thought all the groups’ underlying aims was to quieten the Proletariat and they were all working in the interest of the Bourgeoisie.

Part 4 – Position of the Communists in relation to the various existing opposition parties

This is the conclusion of the Manifesto and it talks about the communist opinion on class struggles in the nineteenth century over Europe. It ends with powerful support for the Communist revolutionaries – “let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win”. “Workers of all nations, unite!” This is kind of propaganda-type writing, inspiring the people unhappy with their lives – the Proletariat to change their situation and come together to oppose the Bourgeoisie. The mention of chains reminded me of Rousseau when he said “man is born free but everywhere he is in chains” – this applies especially to the Proletariat and it is interesting that Rousseau was an inspiration behind the French Revolution – so there is a common theme of revolution.

Week 2 – Seminar – Mary Wollstonecraft – ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ Chapter IV. ‘Observations on the State of Degradation to which Woman is Reduced by Various Causes’

Mary Wollstonecraft was the first prominent feminist, and the whole book is in response to Rousseau. She was key in the feminist movement and influenced suffragettes, especially Virginia Wolf. ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ was not really an attack on men, but more on the superficial ideas of women and their need to become free.

She believed understanding had been denied to women and instinct, sublimated into wit and cunning, for the purposes of life has been substituted in its stead. This struck me as an interesting thought, because women were always seen as adopting the caring, nurturing and understanding role, however wit and cunning would be seen as stereotypically male traits. Perhaps her point is to reverse the roles as a form of empowerment.  She had some empiricist views, and agreed with Locke in that she believed knowledge came from a person’s own observations and experiences.

She did not think that a woman only existed for a man, and saw beauty as a weakness. The idea was that women lacked reason, and she compares women to the rich throughout the chapter. This quote was originally about the rich but can be applied to women too – “to be observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency, and approbation, are all the advantages which they seek”.

“Civilized women are, therefore, so weakened by false refinement, that, respecting morals, their condition is much below what it would be were they left in a state nearer to nature.” This is a direct link to Rousseau and his ideas to transform mankind back to its natural primitive state.

She saw the French Revolution as an opportunity for a change in feminism.

She states how women are enslaved to their emotions as they are seen as the weaker sex – “to their senses, are women made slaves, because it is by their sensibility that they obtain present power”

“Fine by defect, and amiably weak” – She talks about how women are created to feel rather to understand and that the power they obtain is from their charms and weaknesses rather than their reason. It was thought that men were made to reason, and women were made to feel. This can be taken to mean that men have power in public but at home women have more power because they are serving their purpose, therefore being strong by being weak.

The point she disagreed with Rousseau on was “the more they resemble our sex the less power they will have over us”, and her response was, “I do not wish them to have power over men, but over themselves”. She believed women wanted it for themselves, not to be better than men. What Wollstonecraft and Rousseau agreed on though, was to “educate women like men”.

One of her main issues was with polygamy. Her idea was that because women are the stronger sex, there are more women in the world, and the stronger sex would dominate and produce a stronger sex baby, therefore there would be a sort of female cycle. Men would then become weaker, and women would be stronger. However, she did believe the best way to be was married – one man and one woman.

She believed women matured much quicker than men, a fact which is still debated over today, and that female beauty is the perfection of a woman visually, whereas male beauty was judged by the mind and the strength of the body. I found this interesting because I think it’s still very evident today; I feel like women are more judged on their appearances, especially in the celebrity culture and column or tabloid journalism especially.

Another key point of hers was when a men seduces a woman, the man should then legally be obliged to maintain the woman and her children, regardless of the situation. I couldn’t help but apply this to modern relationships; perhaps it would be a good way of reducing teen pregnancy?!

Her big point was about education. She was incredibly angry at how women were degraded, especially in terms of education and compared to a well-educated man. Women were generally given a low standard of education for domestic jobs like sewing. They were not allowed any goals of aims; the main aim of the woman was to get married, only then had they achieved their life goal.

This raised the point of women looking after the children. Even though it is less odd to have a househusband these days, why should men automatically assume the role of the breadwinner? She believed women should be a real companion to their husbands and not just a slave, feeling power had been denied to women.

A couple of questions were raised with regard to gender expectations and generalizations;

-       Why does a man have to hold a door for a woman?

-       Why does a man have to pull out the chair for a woman?

For the first question we thought society had moved on and anybody holds a door open for anybody these days, not just men for women, but the latter question still applied. Why is it assumed the woman cannot do this for herself, or is it just a question of whether or not chivalry is dead? From childhood men were educated to earn money and provide for their families; was this unfair to women?

We discussed the fact that men and women are not born equally physically, but now is it seen that principally we are born equal? We may never know our purpose in life as a man or a woman, but it shouldn’t matter what gender we are either way.