Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Sections, and an Interesting Piece on the History of Communism

Students:

Thank you for your feedback yesterday. Most students were fairly satisfied with how section is being run. I, however, am not satisfied with the level of participation. To be clear, most students are earning a C or less for their participation grade. I feel this is appropriate especially because many students do not appear to have read the class materials before class, and it is not a matter of folks simply not wanting to speak up. For that matter, there have been many opportunities for group work, which have at times not inspired much enthusiasm.

And keep in mind that the quarter is only half over, there is plenty of reading left but there are many opportunities for you to make a solid contribution in section.

With that said, spend some time with the Manifesto-pay attention to Marx' predictions about what capitalism does to culture, identity, and traditions. It is a theme taken up by Gellner and some of our upcoming authors.

And here is a fun, short piece about the work that even "open" capitalist societies will take to make sure their version of events win out. Of course this could never compare to Stalin's actions, but it does suggest the ideological nature of our own society's need to justify itself, I would argue, in the face of horrendous global inequalities that the theory of communism deeply rejects.

Communism may be dead, but clearly not dead enough



The battle over history reflects a determination to prove that no political alternative can challenge the new global capitalism

Seumas Milne
Thursday February 16, 2006
The Guardian


Fifteen years after communism was officially pronounced dead, its spectre seems once again to be haunting Europe. Last month, the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly voted to condemn the "crimes of totalitarian communist regimes", linking them with Nazism and complaining that communist parties are still "legal and active in some countries". Now Göran Lindblad, the conservative Swedish MP behind the resolution, wants to go further. Demands that European ministers launch a continent-wide anti-communist campaign - including school textbook revisions, official memorial days and museums - only narrowly missed the necessary two-thirds majority. Yesterday, declaring himself delighted at the first international condemnation of this "evil ideology", Lindblad pledged to bring the wider plans back to the Council of Europe in the coming months.

He has chosen a good year for his ideological offensive: this is the 50th anniversary of Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin and the subsequent Hungarian uprising, which will doubtless be the cue for further excoriation of the communist record. The ground has been well laid by a determined rewriting of history since the collapse of the Soviet Union that has sought to portray 20thcentury communist leaders as monsters equal to or surpassing Hitler in their depravity - and communism and fascism as the two greatest evils of history's bloodiest era. The latest contribution was last year's bestselling biography of Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, keenly endorsed by George Bush and dismissed by China specialists as "bad history" and "misleading".

Paradoxically, given that there is no communist government left in Europe outside Moldova, the attacks have if anything become more extreme as time has gone on. A clue as to why that might be can be found in the rambling report by Lindblad that led to the Council of Europe declaration. Blaming class struggle and public ownership, he explained that "different elements of communist ideology such as equality or social justice still seduce many" and "a sort of nostalgia for communism is still alive". Perhaps the real problem for Lindblad and his rightwing allies in eastern Europe is that communism is not dead enough - and they will only be content when they have driven a stake through its heart and buried it at the crossroads at midnight.

The fashionable attempt to equate communism and Nazism is in reality a moral and historical nonsense. Despite the cruelties of the Stalin terror, there was no Soviet Treblinka or Sobibor, no extermination camps built to murder millions. Nor did the Soviet Union launch the most devastating war in history at a cost of more than 50 million lives - in fact it played the decisive role in the defeat of the German war machine. Lindblad and the Council of Europe adopt as fact the wildest estimates of those "killed by communist regimes" (mostly in famines) from the fiercely contested Black Book of Communism, which also underplays the number of deaths attributable to Hitler. The real records of repression now available from the Soviet archives are horrific enough (799,455 people were recorded as executed between 1921 and 1953 and the labour camp population reached 2.5 million at its peak) without engaging in an ideologically-fuelled inflation game.

But in any case, none of this explains why anyone might be nostalgic in former communist states, now enjoying the delights of capitalist restoration. The dominant account gives no sense of how communist regimes renewed themselves after 1956 or why western leaders feared they might overtake the capitalist world well into the 1960s. For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment, captured even by critical films and books of the post-Stalin era such as Wajda's Man of Marble and Rybakov's Children of the Arbat. Its existence helped to drive up welfare standards in the west, boosted the anticolonial movement and provided a powerful counterweight to western global domination.

It would be easier to take the Council of Europe's condemnation of communist state crimes seriously if it had also seen fit to denounce the far bloodier record of European colonialism - which only finally came to an end in the 1970s. This was a system of racist despotism, which dominated the globe in Stalin's time. And while there is precious little connection between the ideas of fascism and communism, there is an intimate link between colonialism and Nazism. The terms lebensraum and konzentrationslager were both first used by the German colonial regime in south-west Africa (now Namibia), which committed genocide against the Herero and Nama peoples and bequeathed its ideas and personnel directly to the Nazi party.

Around 10 million Congolese died as a result of Belgian forced labour and mass murder in the early 20th century; tens of millions perished in avoidable or enforced famines in British-ruled India; up to a million Algerians died in their war for independence, while controversy now rages in France about a new law requiring teachers to put a positive spin on colonial history. Comparable atrocities were carried out by all European colonialists, but not a word of condemnation from the Council of Europe - nor over the impact of European intervention in the third world since decolonisation. Presumably, European lives count for more.

No major 20th-century political tradition is without blood on its hands, but battles over history are more about the future than the past. Part of the current enthusiasm in official western circles for dancing on the grave of communism is no doubt about relations with today's Russia and China. But it also reflects a determination to prove there is no alternative to the new global capitalist order - and that any attempt to find one is bound to lead to suffering and bloodshed. With the new imperialism now being resisted in both the Muslim world and Latin America, growing international demands for social justice and ever greater doubts about whether the environmental crisis can be solved within the existing economic system, the pressure for political and social alternatives will increase. The particular form of society created by 20th-century communist parties will never be replicated. But there are lessons to be learned from its successes as well as its failures

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Respecting the Flag

Students:

Overall the essays are good and I'm happy with people's understanding of Durkheim. I want to address an issue that has often come up. Many of you wrote something like "everyone" or "people around the world" respect the US flag "because it represents freedom/justice/liberty..." for all. This statement is oversimplified: we are taught these things are true in school, and the flag certainly represents these ideals for many Americans, probably the vast majority.

But consider the next image, one of the most iconic of all US flag photos.

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflaga2.gif

Remember, this is during WW2 on the island of Iwo Jima, representing our forces having taken that island during combat. I think for many Americans this is one of the most meaningful images we have of the flag, which is why there is a bronze memorial of this in Washington D.C. But try to think about this from another perspective: many people around the globe do not see the US flag as bringing liberty and freedom but have only experienced it through war and occupation. The Iraqi crowd in the following video clearly does not have the same intent when burning the US flag does than a patriotic protester:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-390469035965280618&q=us+flag+burn&ei=D6gQSM7QK6LQ4ALEk627BA

This does NOT mean that the flag is not the US totem, however. It just means that we have to be specific when discussion who the 'clan' is that has a special relationship with the flag. Precisely because it is such a potent symbol of desecration for those critical of the US reaffirms its status as totem. But it is impossible to defend the statement that 'everyone' loves the flag or believes it represents the ideals it is supposed to.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Response to Proposals

Students:

In general I have seen a lot of great comments and ideas flowing in your proposals and outlines. My first overall comment is that many of you need to be more systematic in your treatment of the essay, and you can do this in a number of ways. What I mean by systematic is that you need to deal with Durkheim's theory--which has multiple concepts that relate to each other--in an effective manner.
The most straightforward way to do this is to answer each question in order. This is absolutely acceptable. If you do this, remember that you still need to offer an OVERALL thesis up front. I've seen many of you put this in your outlines, which is good to see.

Alternatively, as you look over your notes and develop your answers, I encourage you to think about dealing with the totality of Durkheim's theory [as presented in readings and in lecture] and present your answers to part 1 without going through each question in order. This will be more complicated, but I think you have the tools to do so. For example, the first 5 essay questions themselves are designed to prompt you to think through all of the elements of Durkheim's ideas.

Either way, what I'm looking for is an introductory paragraph with an original, strong thesis in regards to the overall prompt. DO NOT REPEAT THE QUOTE IN YOUR ESSAYS:

“In the United States, the totem emblem is the flag.” -- Marvin and Ingle, Course Reader, p. 71.
Your job is to explain what this claim means and to select evidence that you think best illustrates how the flag functions like a totem.

Following this is where I expect you to have 2 or 3 sections. First, deal with the first 5 questions which are exclusively about Durkheim. Following this you need to deal with the final 2 questions, which you can do in 1 or 2 sections. This will probably depend on your thesis.


Now, in terms of specific issues, here are some comments that apply to many of the proposals I received.
Part 1
  • "Practical causes" are really society--don't confuse the two
  • What are the differences between the spiritual and material dimensions of a totem? Why must they have both elements?
  • Why must totems/symbols be external? How is that externality related to the totem's status as a group object?
  • Remember that Durkheim's theory is dynamic. So in addition to thinking how totems emerge in society, think about two other processes:
    • Why must totems be reinvigorated, and how is this done?
    • How do symbols continue to affect societies/clans after they are chosen?

Part 2
Keep in mind the following issues:
  • What are potential differences--or similarities--between the clan vs. nation, and totem vs. flag? Are these groups equivalent, analagous, etc--or are they significantly different? Either way you answer this affects the flag's role as a totem. Many of you offer your personal opinions without defending them with examples and evidence.
    • For example, many of you listed ways in which the flag is respected/revered in American society. You need to go further and show how these examples relate to the flag as totem, not just tell me how the flag is displayed or cared for.
  • Many of you called the U.S. a religious community or patriotism as a religion. If you make this argument, you need to offer evidence of why this is true. Just as if you disagree with this, you need to offer evidence of why its' not true.
In both sections I've seen evidence that you've started to work through Durkheim's theory, and have good ideas about the flag/nation, but now more work needs to be done to make your arguments more specific.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Essay Format

Students:

Let me explain what I expect in terms of the format of your essay as the prompt says to follow my directions.

First, and most importantly, I expect a thesis statement. This means you need to offer me an actual answer to the opening question of the essay prompt. In other words, even though you have to answer all the little questions, you also have to offer me an argument--your words laying out your thoughts. This should occur in the opening paragraph, and serve as an introduction to the subsequent points you are going to make.

Secondly, as for answering the 3 parts of the essay, I strongly suggest you have an initial section that works through the questions relating to Durkheim. You do not need to answer each question in a row, but I will be looking to see that you have indeed answered each and every question. I think a hint here is to look at Professor Biernacki's model of the cycle present in Durkheim's theory, which we recreated in part in section this week.
After that section THEN deal with the flag issues raised in the final two questions. I leave it up to you to answer these questions together or separately, but again you must deal with both.

Essentially, my main requirements are that you have a clear, strong thesis, and that you address Durkheim's theory first, and separately, from considering the flag as totem. Also keep in mind the three elements on which you will be evaluated. And remember you are not to rely on the argument made in Martin's article on the flag but use your own examples and analysis, per the prompt.

Best of luck, and we will work through any final issues on Tuesday.

Proposals

Students:

I sincerely apologize but I am not able to return your proposals today since I am not done providing feedback to all students. I will email you all individually over the weekend with my thoughts and I may post some collective pointers here as well.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Obama vs the Flag as Patriotism

Students:

If any of you watched the Democratic debate in Pennsylvania last night [I have to admit I only watched a little--I mean it is something like the 20th debate...] you might have seen this highly relevant question about Obama's relationship to the flag and patriotism more generally. And listen to how he, as Professor Biernacki suggested yesterday, offers himself as a new/reinvigorated symbol of America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PuKgW6YToU

And if nothing else, check out the wood paneling in that woman's house! Those of you who have never been to the Northern states are really missing out...

Monday, April 14, 2008

Nazis, Rituals, and the Olympics

Lest anyone think the current protests over the Olympic torch for the Beijing Olympics is desecrating the sacred nature of sport, consider the origins of the torch relay.

This article not only touches on the role of ritual and myth-making in the Nazi era [and again Riefenstahl is crucial to their production] but our own: one of the key reasons why protestors have challenged the torch across its journey is its extreme totemic significance to this day...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/arts/14conn.html

If you want to know how the Olympic torch really began its “Journey of Harmony,” as the Chinese call its current relay, if you want to see why the torch has had to pass through a human obstacle course composed of protesters, SWAT teams and police in San Francisco, Paris and London, then do not look to Tibet’s grievances against China. Look to the opening of Leni Riefenstahl’s 1938 film, “Olympia.”


Bettmann/Corbis

Arrival in Berlin: The final relay runner brings the Olympic flame to the 1936 games.

In that homage to Berlin’s 1936 Olympic Games the origins of this ritual are revealed. Never before had a lighted torch been relayed from a Greek temple in Olympia to an athletic competition, let alone by thousands of runners trying to keep it from being extinguished.

So Riefenstahl creates the myth the Greeks never got around to telling, creating a filmic counterpart to the opening of Wagner’s “Ring,” in which an entire world gradually emerges from elemental fragments. The camera begins by surveying a misty landscape of ruins, of shattered pillars and overgrown grasses. Restless and circling, the camera reveals a Greek temple standing amid the stones. Heads and the bodies of Greek statues appear in an eerie erotic landscape. Under the sensuous caresses of Riefenstahl’s lens, a naked discus thrower comes to life, polished stone becoming muscular flesh. Another athlete prepares to throw a javelin, its trajectory leading toward a bowl of fire. Lighting the Olympic torch, another nude acolyte triumphantly raises it aloft like Wagner’s Siegfried displaying his sword...

Tomorrow's Section

Students:

I hope the extra readings have helped clarify Durkheim's ideas. I think Professor Biernacki has done us all a favor by making explicit Durkheim's theories over the past few lectures.

Some things to consider from the packet:
  • Why are animals chosen as totemic emblems?
  • What is the purpose of tattoos, and what is not?
  • What is an example of these "mysterious forces"?
    • How are they both external and within us?
    • How is their externality related to the choice of material objects as symbols?
  • Are there differences between how 'primitives' and contemporary members of societies experience rituals and collective representations? Why or why not?
    • Is our relationship to the flag different than a clan's relationship to an animal or flower? Either way, why or why not?
Tomorrow please remember to bring your 1 page, double-spaced proposal for your essay. We will use these to discuss Durkheim as well as this week's reading on the flag as totem.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Essay Prompt

Students:

For those of you who still do not have the prompt or prefer electronic format, here it is. Again remember that it is due at the beginning of class two Wednesdays from now, April 23rd.

Sociology 20 -- Prof. R. Biernacki
First Essay, Spring 2008

“In the United States, the totem emblem is the flag.” -- Marvin and Ingle, Course Reader, p. 71.

Your job is to explain what this claim means and to select evidence that you think best illustrates how the flag functions like a totem. Follow these steps:

1. How did Durkheim define a totem and why did he think totems emerged in societies? What are the objective forces that lend a totem its sacredness? What shows a totem is sacred? How does a totem help a society function?

2. What evidence is there that the U.S. flag is our totem? You may cite your own first-hand experiences, news reports on how Americans use the flag, and the Course Reader.

3. Do you think there are important differences between a totem and the U.S. flag? Why or why not?

Wherever possible, try to back up assertions in your essay with page references to the readings (or historical facts from lectures). You are not expected to do research, but if you happen to know of evidence apart from course assignments, you are free to cite it in your essay. You may cite lecture ONLY for historical evidence not found in the readings.

There is no single correct answer, as long as you show you can illustrate Durkheim’s theory of the totem in reasonable ways. In evaluating your essays, we will be looking at three dimensions: [1] the quality and consistency of the analysis, [2] the range and aptness of evidence that you use to back up your analysis, and [3] grammar and clarity of expression.

Your essay is due at the start of lecture, Wednesday, April 23rd. Please, do not write more than five double-spaced pages. Be sure to follow the format and style suggested by your T.A.