… though it seems that there are some limitations to this in reality …
It is especially worrying as I am just reading
Castel, Robert, 1995: Les Métamorphoses de la Question Sociale. Une Chronique du Salariat ; Paris: Libraire Arthème Fayard,
about the social question …
Are these three ways of making life miserable – or are these just three sides of one way?
Anyway, there is also another way.
I.
“Naturally! Please don’t snub me now! Let the old man rave. How old are you, Carol?”
“Twenty-six, Guy.”
“Twenty-six! I was just leaving New York, at twenty-six. I heard Patti sing, at twenty-six. And now I’m forty-seven. I feel like a child, yet I’m old enough to be your father. So it’s decently paternal to imagine you curled at my feet. . . . Of course I hope it isn’t, but we’ll reflect the morals of Gopher Prairie by officially announcing that it is! . . . These standards that you and I live up to! There’s one thing that’s the matter with Gopher Prairie, at least with the ruling-class (there is a ruling-class, despite all our professions of democracy). And the penalty we tribal rulers pay is that our subjects watch us every minute. We can’t get wholesomely drunk and relax. We have to be so correct about sex morals, and inconspicuous clothes, and doing our commercial trickery only in the traditional ways, that none of us can live up to it, and we become horribly hypocritical. Unavoidably. The widow-robbing deacon of fiction can’t help being hypocritical. The widows themselves demand it! They admire his unctuousness. And look at me. Suppose I did dare to make love to—some exquisite married woman. I wouldn’t admit it to myself. I giggle with the most revolting salaciousness over La Vie Parisienne, when I get hold of one in Chicago, yet I shouldn’t even try to hold your hand. I’m broken. It’s the historical Anglo-Saxon way of making life miserable. . . . Oh, my dear, I haven’t talked to anybody about myself and all our selves for years.”
“Guy! Can’t we do something with the town? Really?”
“No, we can’t!” He disposed of it like a judge ruling out an improper objection; returned to matters less uncomfortably energetic: “Curious. Most troubles are unnecessary. We have Nature beaten; we can make her grow wheat; we can keep warm when she sends blizzards. So we raise the devil just for pleasure—wars, politics, race-hatreds, labor-disputes. Here in Gopher Prairie we’ve cleared the fields, and become soft, so we make ourselves unhappy artificially, at great expense and exertion: Methodists disliking Episcopalians, the man with the Hudson laughing at the man with the flivver. The worst is the commercial hatred—the grocer feeling that any man who doesn’t deal with him is robbing him. What hurts me is that it applies to lawyers and doctors (and decidedly to their wives!) as much as to grocers. The doctors—you know about that—how your husband and Westlake and Gould dislike one another.”
“No! I won’t admit it!”
He grinned.
*************
II.
“Are you by any chance implying that I am not economical?”
“Well, I hadn’t intended to, but since you bring it up yourself, I don’t mind saying the grocery bills are about twice what they ought to be.”
“Yes, they probably are. I’m not economical. I can’t be. Thanks to you!”
“Where d’ you get that ‘thanks to you’?”
“Please don’t be quite so colloquial—or shall I say VULGAR?”
“I’ll be as damn colloquial as I want to. How do you get that ‘thanks to you’? Here about a year ago you jump me for not remembering to give you money. Well, I’m reasonable. I didn’t blame you, and I SAID I was to blame. But have I ever forgotten it since—practically?”
“No. You haven’t—practically! But that isn’t it. I ought to have an allowance. I will, too! I must have an agreement for a regular stated amount, every month.”
“Fine idea! Of course a doctor gets a regular stated amount! Sure! A thousand one month—and lucky if he makes a hundred the next.”
“Very well then, a percentage. Or something else. No matter how much you vary, you can make a rough average for——”
“But what’s the idea? What are you trying to get at? Mean to say I’m unreasonable? Think I’m so unreliable and tightwad that you’ve got to tie me down with a contract? By God, that hurts! I thought I’d been pretty generous and decent, and I took a lot of pleasure—thinks I, ‘she’ll be tickled when I hand her over this twenty’—or fifty, or whatever it was; and now seems you been wanting to make it a kind of alimony. Me, like a poor fool, thinking I was liberal all the while, and you——”
“Please stop pitying yourself! You’re having a beautiful time feeling injured. I admit all you say. Certainly. You’ve given me money both freely and amiably. Quite as if I were your mistress!”
“Carrie!”
“I mean it! What was a magnificent spectacle of generosity to you was humiliation to me. You GAVE me money—gave it to your mistress, if she was complaisant, and then you——”
“Carrie!”
“(Don’t interrupt me!)—then you felt you’d discharged all obligation. Well, hereafter I’ll refuse your money, as a gift. Either I’m your partner, in charge of the household department of our business, with a regular budget for it, or else I’m nothing. If I’m to be a mistress, I shall choose my lovers. Oh, I hate it—I hate it—this smirking and hoping for money—and then not even spending it on jewels as a mistress has a right to, but spending it on double-boilers and socks for you! Yes indeed! You’re generous! You give me a dollar, right out—the only proviso is that I must spend it on a tie for you! And you give it when and as you wish. How can I be anything but uneconomical?”
“Oh well, of course, looking at it that way——”
“I can’t shop around, can’t buy in large quantities, have to stick to stores where I have a charge account, good deal of the time, can’t plan because I don’t know how much money I can depend on. That’s what I pay for your charming sentimentalities about giving so generously. You make me——”
“Wait! Wait! You know you’re exaggerating. You never thought about that mistress stuff till just this minute! Matter of fact, you never have ‘smirked and hoped for money.’ But all the same, you may be right. You ought to run the household as a business. I’ll figure out a definite plan tomorrow, and hereafter you’ll be on a regular amount or percentage, with your own checking account.”
*************
III.
They had gone to the “movies.” The movies were almost as vital to Kennicott and the other solid citizens of Gopher Prairie as land-speculation and guns and automobiles.
The feature film portrayed a brave young Yankee who conquered a South American republic. He turned the natives from their barbarous habits of singing and laughing to the vigorous sanity, the Pep and Punch and Go, of the North; he taught them to work in factories, to wear Klassy Kollege Klothes, and to shout, “Oh, you baby doll, watch me gather in the mazuma.” He changed nature itself. A mountain which had borne nothing but lilies and cedars and loafing clouds was by his Hustle so inspirited that it broke out in long wooden sheds, and piles of iron ore to be converted into steamers to carry iron ore to be converted into steamers to carry iron ore.
*************
One and only one
“Essentially, I think, you are like myself, Carol; you want to go back to an age of tranquillity and charming manners. You want to enthrone good taste again.”
“Just good taste? Fastidious people? Oh—no! I believe all of us want the same things—we’re all together, the industrial workers and the women and the farmers and the negro race and the Asiatic colonies, and even a few of the Respectables. It’s all the same revolt, in all the classes that have waited and taken advice. I think perhaps we want a more conscious life. We’re tired of drudging and sleeping and dying. We’re tired of seeing just a few people able to be individualists. We’re tired of always deferring hope till the next generation. We’re tired of hearing the politicians and priests and cautious reformers (and the husbands!) coax us, ‘Be calm! Be patient! Wait! We have the plans for a Utopia already made; just give us a bit more time and we’ll produce it; trust us; we’re wiser than you.’ For ten thousand years they’ve said that. We want our Utopia NOW—and we’re going to try our hands at it. All we want is—everything for all of us!
All from:
Main Street by Sinclair Lewis, published 1920
So, counting the years – but mind where all this counting can end.
My feeling is that the green movement has torpedoed itself with numbers. Its single-minded obsession with climate change, and its insistence on seeing this as an engineering challenge which must be overcome with technological solutions guided by the neutral gaze of Science, has forced it into a ghetto from which it may never escape. Most greens in the mainstream now spend their time arguing about whether they prefer windfarms to wave machines or nuclear power to carbon sequestration. They offer up remarkably confident predictions of what will happen if we do or don’t do this or that, all based on mind-numbing numbers cherry-picked from this or that ‘study’ as if the world were a giant spreadsheet which only needs to be balanced correctly.
Paul Kingsnorth [without date; 2011]: The Quants and the Poets
In other words:
It would be nice if all of the data which sociologists require could be enumerated because then we could run them through IBM machines and draw charts as the economists do. However, not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
(William Bruce Cameron, 1963: Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking – http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/26/everything-counts-einstein/)
In any case, consider it when taking stock of 2014, and making plans for the future.
All the best for 20…, which one? Any and everyone …
Probably only few people perceive reading arithmetical formulas exciting, but writing them is somewhat exciting, in particular if one thinks about the small print, i.e. the thorough definition of the underlying and inherent items. Sure, the exiting part is then reading the work by others, using those formulas in a more or less novelist manner.
Is it the same in looking at real history? What is the small print, what is the big formula? The textbook-like and short official presentations, the various official documents on IMF policies etc. or the handwritten notes, that had been buried in the achieves? Showing what irresponsible people knew, how they managed – or failed to manage – to influence private capitalist interests (another expression for: left control over national politics to global capitalists) and what they had been eating before, while and after decisions had been taken.
There is surely a good reason for burying “personal documents” in the vatican archives for 70 years …
Based a little bit on both is the draft on “Economy of Difference and Differentiation. Precarity – searching for a new interpretative paradigm” which is the preparation for moving collaboration with Vyacheslav Bobkov from the All Russia Centre of Living Standard on our next book forward.
The work is especially building on:
Also the working Papers
Austerity policies (for some more general considerations on austerity see here) in Belgium are not new – and a 2013 study by Oxfam about
THE TRUE COST OF AUSTERITY AND INEQUALITY
may provide a glimpse at the problem. And it clearly shows the tensions that are not least caused by the European Union policies. So, it is no wonder that we find no measures against countries as Hungary where we find an ongoing battle about the attempts of the Orban-Government to criminalise homelessness and the homeless – relative success stories, informing us that the
Hungary Supreme Court Allows Homeless Back on Streets
are surely overshadowed by the fact that the same policy is now pursued by different means, as according to the same source now
The bill allows district local councils to rule certain areas as prohibited for the homeless. [1]
Of course, it still is a success, not least as we have to recognise in this context that
Civil Rights Groups Rally against Ban of Homeless from Public Areas
But, coming back to Belgium, there is more to it:
In short we may speak of a “convergence” of policies in Europe against homelessness as policies against the homeless.
Noteworthy is that austerity policies in Belgium are increasingly virulent.
In consequence not least of this Belgio-European political course we find that the scale of poverty increased tremendously recently, doubling in just four years.
But that is not all – these dramatic cuts in personal lives are going hand in hand with the redefinition of public spaces and the responsibility of private.
If EUrope really wants to claim its roots in ancient traditions (which is surely dangerous in some respect, e.g. if we think about the abduction of Europe by Zeus)[2]/[3] there would be good reason to revisit for instance Cicero’s work stating in paragraph 22 of the first book of De Officciis
Sed quoniam, ut praeclare scriptum est a Platone, non nobis solum nati sumus ortusque nostri partem patria vindicat, partem amici, atque, ut placet Stoicis, quae in terris gignantur, ad usum hominum omnia creari, homines autem hominum causa esse generatos, ut ipsi inter se aliis alii prodesse possent, in hoc naturam debemus ducem sequi, communes utilitates in medium adferre, mutatione officiorum, dando accipiendo, tum artibus, tum opera, tum facultatibus devincire hominum inter homines societatem.
Steven Hill argues that
Europe … was founded on a feudal and Catholic value system which believed that the exercise of privilege by the wealthy came with wider social obligations beyond mere charity. Typical of this view, St. Augustine in the 5th century AD declared, “He who uses his wealth badly possesses it wrongfully.”
But even in Northern American law we find, according to Gregory S. Alexander the notion
that American property law, both on the private and public sides, includes a social-obligation norm, but that this norm has never been explicitly recognized as such nor systemically developed
Sure, engaging in this debate would open a wide field – Aquinas, for instance can be interpreted in both ways, as supporter of equality and inequality alike, as advocate of accumulation and modesty. And there would also be the need to discuss the “translation” of ancient traditions (not only of Christianity but also of Islam and all the others) into “modernity”.
In any case, the reality is rather simple: the public, the common, the general interest had been redefined by these European institutions – and they are further redefined – giving the power away to private bodies that are now building their fortresses within the fortress.
Looking at this fortress then, here the recent excessively violent form, it remains to be discussed if it is in line with Article 1 – Protection of property of the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [4]
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
Sure, looking at the formulation of this passage from the protocol shows the entire dilemma: lawful is what is said by the law and the law says what the lawmakers say.
There can only be one conclusion then: we need a law made by the people and not for the people …. – and of course, for this we need the public spaces.
Otherwise, there are too many ways of people being killed – and some are slower than this, but not less brute.
===================
[1] Hmmmm …: I opened the Wall Street Journal website for several times now and there is always the same ad coming up: “Discover your Perfect Home”
[2] see Maria Mies: Europe in the Global Economy or the Need to De-Colonize Europe; in: Peter Herrmann (Ed.): Challenges for a Global Welfare System: Commack, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 1999: 153-171; here: 160 f.
[3] see in this context also the reflections SURELY PROVOCATIVE – THE STAGING OF ‘RUSALKA’ and EUROPE ANCIENT AND PRESENT
[4] as amended by Protocol No. 11 (Paris, 20.III.1952 – according to the provisions of Protocol No. 11 (ETS No. 155), as of its entry into force, on 1 November 1998)
– A proposito, – soggiunse il burattino, – per andare alla scuola mi manca sempre qualcosa: anzi mi manca il più e il meglio.
– Cioè?
– Mi manca l’Abbecedario.
– Hai ragione: ma come si fa per averlo?
– È facilissimo: si va da un libraio e si compra.
– E i quattrini?
– Io non ce l’ho.
– Nemmeno io, – soggiunse il buon vecchio, facendosi tristo.E Pinocchio, sebbene fosse un ragazzo allegrissimo, si fece tristo anche lui: perché la miseria, quando è miseria davvero, la intendono tutti: anche i ragazzi.
“I am very sorry, sir,” said Bob. “I am behind my time.”
“You are?” repeated Scrooge. “Yes. I think you are. Step this way, sir, if you please.”
“It’s only once a year, sir,” pleaded Bob, appearing from the Tank. “It shall not be repeated. I was making rather merry yesterday, sir.”
“Now, I’ll tell you what, my friend,” said Scrooge, “I am not going to stand this sort of thing any longer. And therefore,” he continued, leaping from his stool, and giving Bob such a dig in the waistcoat that he staggered back into the Tank again; “and therefore I am about to raise your salary!”
Bob trembled, and got a little nearer to the ruler. He had a momentary idea of knocking Scrooge down with it, holding him, and calling to the people in the court for help and a strait-waistcoat.
“A merry Christmas, Bob!” said Scrooge, with an earnestness that could not be mistaken, as he clapped him on the back. “A merrier Christmas, Bob, my good fellow, than I have given you, for many a year! I’ll raise your salary, and endeavour to assist your struggling family, and we will discuss your affairs this very afternoon, over a Christmas bowl of smoking bishop, Bob! Make up the fires, and buy another coal-scuttle before you dot another i, Bob Cratchit!”
Charles Dickens, 1843: A Christmas Carol, A Ghost Story of Christmas
C’est de l’opium que tu fais prendre à ton peuple, afin qu’engourdi par ce somnifère, il ne sente pas les plaies dont tu le déchires.
Unser Alltagsleben besteht aus lauter erhaltenden, immer wiederkehrenden Verrichtungen. Dieser Zirkel von Gewohnheiten ist nur Mittel zu einem Hauptmittel, unserm irdischen Daseyn überhaupt, das aus mannichfaltigen Arten zu existiren gemischt ist. Philister leben nur ein Alltagsleben. Das Hauptmittel scheint ihr einziger Zweck zu seyn. Sie thun das alles, um des irdischen Lebens willen; wie es scheint und nach ihren eignen Äußerungen scheinen muß. Poesie mischen sie nur zur Nothdurft unter, weil sie nun einmal an eine gewisse Unterbrechung ihres täglichen Laufs gewöhnt sind. In der Regel erfolgt diese Unterbrechung alle sieben Tage, und könnte ein poetisches Septanfieber heißen. Sonntags ruht die Arbeit, sie leben ein bißchen besser als gewöhnlich und dieser Sonntagsrausch endigt sich mit einem etwas tiefern Schlafe als sonst; daher auch Montags alles noch einen raschern Gang hat. Ihre parties de plaisir müssen konvenzionell, gewöhnlich, modisch seyn, aber auch ihr Vergnügen verarbeiten sie, wie alles, mühsam und förmlich.
Den höchsten Grad seines poetischen Daseyns erreicht der Philister bey einer Reise, Hochzeit, Kindtaufe, und in der Kirche. Hier werden seine kühnsten Wünsche befriedigt, und oft übertroffen.
Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt blos, wie ein Opiat: reizend, betäubend, Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend. Ihre Früh- und Abendgebete sind ihnen, wie Frühstück und Abendbrot, nothwendig. Sie können’s nicht mehr lassen. Der derbe Philister stellt sich die Freuden des Himmels unter dem Bilde einer Kirmeß, einer Hochzeit, einer Reise oder eines Balls vor: der sublimirte macht aus dem Himmel eine prächtige Kirche mit schöner Musik, vielem Gepränge, mit Stühlen für das gemeine Volk parterre, und Kapellen und Emporkirchen für die Vornehmern.
Die schlechtesten unter ihnen sind die revoluzionairen Philister, wozu auch der Hefen der fortgehenden Köpfe, die habsüchtige Race gehört.
Grober Eigennutz ist das nothwendige Resultat armseliger Beschränktheit. Die gegenwärtige Sensazion ist die lebhafteste, die höchste eines Jämmerlings. Über diese kennt er nichts höheres. Kein Wunder, daß der durch die äußern Verhältnisse par force dressirte Verstand nur der listige Sklav eines solchen stumpfen Herrn ist, und nur für dessen Lüste sinnt und sorgt.
Novalis, 1798: Blüthenstaub
Yes, the development of Cuban-USNA-relationships is great. Still, there are some things a bit worrying, for instance if we read in a
FACT SHEET: Charting a New Course on Cuba
we read
… it does not serve America’s interests, or the Cuban people …
There are many more interesting aspects in the formulation that provokes some thoughts … – about who states and people are, about what is good and what is bad …
One source we should not forget when following the debate is surely the one from Cuba itself.
COMMEDIA DELLA VITA OR PÁNTA RÊI'S FIRM GROUND 