Reflection on Class 6

Hello everyone:

After discussing the book in class and hearing Phil's take on what Weber was shooting for, I decided to go back and read the introduction portion, followed by Science as a Vocation, and then look at the end of Politics to see if my take on the lecture changed. Needless to say, it did - finding the same thematic undertones in the Science lecture shed some light on the Politics lecture. Weber discusses that in terms of how far science has "advanced" us, the savage still knows more about how to build a cart than an enlightened person knows about how his car works (pg. 12-13). This is an interesting comparison to make, and he carries on to mention that all the political economists in the world put into one room would each give you a different answer as to why your money buys X goods today and Y goods tomorrow - the savage, meanwhile, knows how to procure his own food and other goods through practical applications. This is Weber's pushing for specialization in science, which is similar to pushing for "specialization" in any career; by having it be one's vocation. One who is called to be a scholar will be far better disposed to make good his career than one who enters it in order to make money. The same holds true for a politician.

Similarly, Weber then goes through and tears science apart as a vocation, citing the example of doctors: they mindlessly preserve the lives of their patients even if those patients would prefer release from their suffering. The doctors base their work on the presupposition that all life is worth saving all the time (pg. 18). He does this in order to attack people who believe in science without any presuppositions, which he finds hypocritical that many of these people attack religious presuppositions in the same manner - that taking something on faith is ludicrous (pg. 17-18). Weber later goes on to explain the actual benefits of scholarship as a vocation (in his opinion), but only after bringing his audience back down to Earth. In the same manner, addressing the blindly hopeful in the aftermath of Germany’s defeat in WWI, Weber is attempting to ground his listeners. In this atmosphere, Weber explains that no one leader or politician will be able to magically pull Germany out of its financial and other economic situation – long term investment and commitment is needed. Allowing the ethics of conviction to guide one of his audience would (and in many cases, probably did) lead them to make leadership decisions that ended quite poorly, yet they took no responsibility in the matter. He instead pushes for the ethics of responsibility.

The similarity between the two that I find the most compelling is on the last page (pg. 32) of the Science Lecture, and near the end (page 92) of the Politics Lecture. Weber takes all of what he has said in each, where he splits science from morality/religion, and ethics of responsibility from ethics of conviction, and explains that a vocation in either field is only present in the person who manages a synthesis of the two attributes. For the scholar, there is the preferred mixture of taking the presuppositions of science in stride but also pursuing change in the world as a moral agent (pg. 32). This dichotomy is not made as clear as that of the politician, however: Weber is taken aback whenever he meets a mature person who manages to not only pursue political ends because he believes they are the right path to take, but is completely aware that he must take responsibility if his endeavor fails or causes evil in some manner.

I really got more out of reading this in order, with the introductions as part of my reading. I suggest the same to anyone else who has the time.

-Mike

Reflection, Class 6

I too liked our discussion on messiahs and vocations. I think it's okay that we couldn't come up with one definition of a messiah because in this case, a bit of relativity is okay I think. Messiahs can be different things, just as revolutionaries can. Maybe messiahs are just revolutionaries with a religious aura around them. I do think that though messiahs who die can be called martyrs not every martyr is a possible messiah. The number of saints alone in the Roman Catholic canon who are martyrs would mean that the second coming was a lot sooner than it apparently will be, or something like that. Maybe Count Fenring could be called a martyr (sorta), in that he was a possibility but couldn't quite get there, whereas Paul did. For my part, I think that Paul was the Fremen's messiah and that mystic feeling about him obviously spread, given Irulan's commentaries. Though she could have tempered her writing based on those around her and the fear of retribution...hmm...I don't think we've considered that yet.
As for Weber, I think he was looking to impress upon the students the importance of history and keeping one's eyes open-to be pragmatic and reasonable. Learn from the past, be slightly optimistic but very practical about the future, and try not to screw up the present. Oh, and guess what? Weber's thing about politics being "a slow, powerful drilling through hard boards" (93) was totally quoted and explained in an episode of West Wing, "Privateers" as a matter of fact. So he gets around.

Politics as a Vocation: Post-class Reaction

It was indeed and interesting discussion. I find that questions like the ones we attempted to answer impossible to answer for a variety of reasons. One being that it all depends on how one defies the word or the term. For example in our discussion we didn’t have a concrete idea of what a messiah is, like who gives the messiah authority: is it the people who decide, something that is self-proclaimed, or is I granted by a great force that is at work in the universe? Since we do not know the answer or the answer can only be based on personal belief, it is impossible to come up with a unified answer. Another issue is from whose perspective? We ran into the issue well how does a concept travel across culture or religion. And can’t someone be a savior for one group but a pain in the butt to those who the people are being saved from? So can there be a THE Messiah that is the savior of all people, what would he/she be saving the people from? So since everything is subjective and each culture has its own sets of symbols and norm, I think it impossible to come to an all encompassing truth.

Class 2/19

So I think its safe to say that today was one of the more unusual discussions we have had. I believe we talked more about messiahs than it was mentioned in all of my other classes ever combined.
I love how we spent an entire class talking about whether or not Paul could be called the messiah which then led to the question of what it takes to be the messiah leading to the differences between messiahs and martyrs and the difference between a messiah and the messiah. Granted it seems like the only thing we were actually able to come with was that if you die, you are a martyr unless you rise from the dead, ie Jesus, then you might be able to be called a messiah.
Granted, then we came to the question of politics as a vocation. On this one I am still a little up in the air as to what to think about it. I am hoping that over the next week or so in reading the next book I will get a little clearer impression.
So what did everybody else think about the change-up of turning the chairs into a circle. It felt a lot more like my other seminar classes, I liked it. On the other hand, I am a little concerned with this new notion of note summarizers. I mean I guess I can see the benefit of it, but I just do not see it working out very well.

Politics as a Vocation: Pre-class Reaction

The concept that struck me the most from this essay is first mentioned on the 2nd page. And that is where Weber states that every state is based on force, and it has always been that way, the only way that would not be the case is when states did not exist and there was anarchy. I found it interesting that when “anarchy” is said many people assume total chaos , people going crazy, violence, and insanity. However, if one looks at the definition, anarchy is just when everyone is able to govern themselves, there is no higher authority that has a “legitimate” right to force. And anarchy doesn’t mean total absence of rules, people can agree on rules the difference is no higher authority is imposing them on the population. Which is why anarchy can’t exist in this world, in theory it sounds nice, but humanity is nowhere near that responsible. Which goes back to Weber and the constant theme of power in his essay, as I was reading it that fact sank into my mind more and more. Humanity is in large pushed by a desire for power; most humans want that prestigious status and that ability to control others. It is hard to imagine a world where someone wouldn’t try to gain power and control, whether that’s just for personal satisfaction or to further a cause. And many people do need to be lead or guided; they would be lost on their own, and nothing would get done, there would be little progress.

I would also love to hear what Weber would have to say about current status of politics with the pressing forces of globalization. In IR many scholars talk about how the state is dying and how globalization and international actors undermine the state. And that is true, but the state is still the only one that has a legitimate right to violence. So then in a world where “international” is becoming more and more important how will power and politics have to shift to accommodate for this international situation.

Politics as a Vocation

That in itself says a great deal about where this lecture would take us. Politics is supposed to be the action of running a government, not a job. But that is what Weber is advocating. He talks about politicians who become so entrenched in the battlefield of politics that they often forget that they are supposed to be working for the good of the whole and tend to work for the good of themselves and their friends.
This sort of observation is expressed on page 90, "Anyone who wishes to engage in politics at all, and particularly anyone who wishes to practice it as a profession, must become conscious of these ethical paradoxes and of his own responsibility for what may become of him under the pressure they exert." Now this particular quote is actually talking more about the adverse effects politics as a vocation can have on them but this is often used to justify their corruption. They side with particular factions in order to try to protect themselves from these paradoxes. They believe that these factions can in some way save them. In their minds it is normally justified, to those they hurt in the process, not so much.

Weber - taking a vocation from life

Hello everyone:

Still thinking about Dune, the second page of this essay paints Dune as politics through and through, as it is an exercise in the exchange of power from some parties to other parties within a given territory. Religious tone aside, it actually should be read more as THE case study in effective politics - can Muad'Dib's army be any closer to the definition of legitimized violence?

Continuing this look at Dune based on Weber's essay, I feel that Paul Atriedes does in fact have his calling, or vocation, in politics, but "in politics" rather than "from politics." By this I mean that Paul's entire meaning in life is derived from his various actions towards changing the galactic balance of power (and more specifically, on Arrakis) towards his favor. He is not seeking to gain power in order to become rich (although his new position as Emperor ought to be extremely lucrative); instead he seeks to right the wrongs done to his father as well as improving the lot of the Fremen. Speaking of the Fremen, they are not quite bureaucrats in the normal sense of the word, but they fulfill Weber's discussion of them - the lieutenants and other commanders are highly trained individuals who have parallel authority to Paul, but their authority is not religiously derived; Paul himself handed it out to these independent agents of his will.

I think this example of Paul Atreides follows Weber's essay fairly neatly, although not perfectly.


-Mike

Visions of the Past, Courtesy of Weber

This should probably be "Contemplating the Past, Courtesy of Weber" but again, I'm working off a theme and might as well go with it. I liked this lecture, I'm not sure I'd want to sit through it, but it's not a bad read. There's a lot in here to talk about but I'll limit to three interesting bits.
I liked how Weber used examples from other countries. He was very much aware of history, citing examples from the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, among others. It was as if he was looking at history up to when he was speaking and advocating a certain forward path based on the lessons he learned from the histories of other countries. As if, hey that worked there, but this didn't do so well over here so let's avoid that and stick to the good stuff. He got to the boss politics of the US but didn't live to see the Depression era movements and the effects of World War 2, much less all the effects of World War 1 on his own country. I wonder what he would have made of the rest of the 20th century.
I also found the distinction between living "for" politics or "from" politics (40-41) very interesting. There is a real danger in each, of course, but we have successfully cultivated a portion of the professional world that does both, and are often the source of the negative stereotypes about politics and politicians. It is interesting that those who live "for" politics have to be economically independent, for Weber, because this certainly applied to the Founding Fathers. Most had farms or businesses that could be left to their own devices or the care of a wife or steward. These days most politicians live "from" and "for" politics, their position's income perhaps supplemented by book sales or lecturing, more likely the latter. I wonder which makes for a better politician, those who live "from", as they have an invested personal interest, or those who live "for", as they would be less swayed by bribes or power dealing.
Lastly, I found his focus on the journalist as an important figure (begins on 55) very interesting. "He belongs to a kind of pariah caste that in the eyes of 'society' is always judged socially by its lowest representatives from the point of view of morality. Hence, the strangest ideas are prevalent about journalists and their work. Not everyone realizes that to write a really good piece of journalism is at least as demanding intellectually as the achievement of any scholar." (55) He really defends journalists and stresses the importance and power they can have. I also found it interesting that he called journalists paid professional politicians and the newspapers "a continuous form of political organization" (60) in British history when "politics came to life only at election time" (60). I hadn't really thought of journalists that way, but it does make sense. They are both seen as pariahs, and certainly some of them are-particularly the recent rise of the paparazzi, and yet do weld certain political power by how and what they report.

Class 2/12

Hello again.
So I thought that our discussion of Dune was one of our more interesting ones thus far. Generally anytime we can get PTJ to talk about something that gets him angry, ie the sequels, is a good day.
I thought that our focus on the question of who the main character really was, Paul Atreides or Muad'Dib, was particularly interesting. If you think about it you can see that this can easily be two books. If you read it with the interpretation that he is acting as Paul Atreides, you would see his actions as that of a royal heir working to ensure that he would be able to claim his planet and rule in a way that would make his father proud. On the other hand, if you read it as the main character accepting himself as Muad'Dib, his actions are truly meant for the betterment of the Fremen and wishes to rule Arrakis so that he can protect them from the evil forces of the universe.
I'll leave you with this, if Irulan is really nothing more than a symbol of Paul's royal claim, then why does she write such an idealized history of Him?
...And yes I did mean to capitalize that.