“The production of life, both of one’s own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship.” (157)
As civilization progresses from small family groups spread out in the wilderness to large and tightly packed cities, the more one needs to be mindful of those around. While living isolated from the rest of society, natural needs for food and shelter are shared by all individuals in the community, but as more people are added to the society, more social relationships need to be established as labor is divided further.
Marx observes that society requires significant cooperation in order to continue functioning, but greed is not only present, it seems to thrive even at the cost of others. The system seems to be corrupt and biased in favor of the rich, but like the lines from Mandeville’s The Grumbling Hive, “Thus every Part was full of Vice, Yet the whole Mass a Paradise” (155-6). In theory a world where everyone collaborated for the good of the whole would be ideal, but without the desire to one-up your peers or neighbors, the economy and production stagnates.
In the modern world, as the population continues to grow and lifespans continue to be extended, people have become more and more dependent on each other to ensure their own welfare. Greed is still the driving force behind the world’s economy, and in recent years we have seen the fallout of excessive speculation, ranging from the dot com bubble in the late 1990’s to the lending industry’s recent crash. Greed can be good for prodding a stagnant economy back into life, but when it exceeds reason, the results can be devastating in today’s tightly connected society.
Defoe’s allegory of credit in his work “On Credit” addresses the idea of merit in relation to credit, where those who have the least need for credit tend to be deemed the most deserving while the needy are looked over as undeserving. Credit constantly chases money, and as the borrowers become attached to her services, they risk losing and not being able to reclaim everything they enjoyed while in her company.
Even though the poor would need credit and money more than the rich, the rich tend to spend more which makes them a more favorable “client” of credit. While the rich didn’t need credit for the essentials like the peasants, they instead invest and spend on unnecessary luxury items, both the 18th century as well as the modern era. As a result the spenders were beginning to be viewed as the most valuable contributors to society since their spending produced sent ripples through the economy, extending the effect of the credit far beyond the initial loan.
Defoe’s personification of credit as an attention-seeking whore reflects the fickle nature of loans and credit, since those who have built up a history with Credit receiving preferential treatment. At the start Credit just patiently waits, offering her “services” to all, especially those who look like they can pay well, and as long as the payments keep coming Credit sticks around. However as soon as a payment is late, Credit’s trust in her customer fades, their worth evaporating in her flighty eyes. A rich man who wrongs Credit must start with the common poor folk and work diligently to earn his lady’s favor again, though it takes years of perfect behavior before she will forgive his missteps.
Paper part deux
Here’s my rough draft, I haven’t added in citations yet though.
For my paper I’m planning on analyzing James Bond, since he is something of a paradox, living in luxury without desiring money.
Throughout the novel Bond remains only slightly interested in his own finances, such as when he notices he would spend his year’s salary in three weeks at Du Pont’s fancy resort, and instead uses significant wagers to irritate Goldfinger. Bond’s apathy towards money offsets both Goldfinger’s lust for gold and Mr. Du Pont’s ostentatious exhibition of wealth, emphasizing both the corrupting and destructive powers of greed. However, despite his distaste for their excessive wealth, Bond has no qualms with taking advantage of their generosity.
The economic system Bond is involved in is a sort of meritocracy, in that he has earned a high enough rank that he has essentially unlimited credit, and as such has no need for his own money. As long as he remains useful and doesn’t inflict too much harm to either the agency’s credibility or civilians, the agency overlooks most of his missteps and chiding him for his greater mistakes.
Bond’s motivation is fairly straightforward since he is presented as a sort of champion of the English way of life, working to foil traitors to the crown who are working with other foreign enemies to undermine society. Despite his guilt after the murders of several individuals, both innocent civilians and a thug who was just following orders, Bond carries out his orders despite his misgivings, an example of a model British agent.
“The production of life, both of one’s own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship.” (157)
Marx’s claim in this sentence is that life in the modern age is not just a purely natural pursuit of the resources, but instead requires cooperation with others in order to satisfy every party involved. As a result people can specialize their labor and use their given specialties to provide for both their own natural needs, and sell or trade their excess for the benefit of other, differently specialized people. As more “parts” are added to the productive machinery of a country, production becomes more efficient, but at the same time more cooperation is needed to keep things running.
Despite Marx’s observation that society requires significant cooperation in order to continue functioning, greed remains a prevalent problem that doesn’t seem to be hindered by this system. In the short term, selfishness and greed can be very beneficial for the few who are in control, but society as a whole suffers even though the strain may not be immediately apparent. It would seem that the lower classes should quickly grow to resent their rulers taking an unfair share of goods, and should rise up against them, but instead the lower classes just seem to calmly accept their lot in life.
In the modern era greed is increasingly apparent as the wealth of the middle classes increases steadily, but the gap between the upper and lower classes is still widening, with most of America’s wealth being controlled by the elite 10%. While things are not ideal for the lower classes, life is comfortable enough for most to discourage an uprising.
For my paper I’m planning to investigate whether men or women are produce more value through their labors. I’ll be working with three works, The Thresher’s Labour and The Woman’s Labour as well as Meritocracy since the first two give arguments for men’s and women’s value respectively, as well as why the other gender is worth less than commonly believed. The arguments in Meritocracy provide some standard of comparison since many of the arguments for the superiority and inferiority of the upper and lower classes closely mirror the arguments for the values of men and women.
Men were seen as more valuable than women in that day and age simply because they would work more physically demanding jobs which in turn had higher monetary rewards, and provided food and shelter for his family. In many cultures, especially western and mid eastern, men were also seen as favored by God, divinely placed in a position of leadership over their family, mirroring the divine authority given to kings.
Women were conversely seen as inferior since even though they were expected to keep house, bear and raise children, as well as work the less physically demanding jobs. While their work was less obviously profitable, their labors as housekeeper were important in that they allowed the men in their household some time to rest from the field.
Both men and women had their individual essential roles in society, and while one could potentially function without the other, their complementary roles helped enhance the other’s effectiveness through dividing up the labor.
Genius is uncommon, both in Addison’s time and the modern era. The two types of genius are inextricably combined, with minds of the second category borrowing from and refining the ideas of the first. Even the first category of innate genius seems to be the best, especially in the fields of philosophy and writing, often they are marginalized for their radical ideas but as they gain supporters their brilliance is recognized. However the second and more dominant version of genius in academia is arguably the most useful since, through their education and study of what is known helps to refine and create an applicable product from the initial rough idea.
On paper Addison’s depiction of genius seems to be perfect, and at least to me it seems like society, or at least development, would be entirely led by such geniuses. However in the modern era safety is preferred to development, especially in the realm of technology. Every once in a while an innovative new product comes out, or a brand reaches the coveted throne of recognition, but the vast majority of other similar devices end up blindly following after the leader instead of taking a risk. Before the iPhone, touch screen phones existed, but were not quite as cleanly polished or as popular, but Steve Jobs used the iPod’s popularity and Apple’s growing brand recognition to “reinvent” the touch screen by making it appealing to the masses. As the phone’s popularity soared, so did the number of copies, with nearly every phone currently on the market featuring a touch screen and iPhone-like curves, with only incremental changes on the original.
Defoe’s allegory of credit in his work “On Credit” addresses the idea of merit in relation to credit, where those who have the least need for credit are the most “deserving.” De Botton’s work parallels Defoe’s depiction of credit through the two sides of his “First Story”. While in the first section the poor are seen as the creators of wealth while the rich leech off their underling’s labor, the second version claims the rich have greater value by creating wealth through their frivolous spending. Both sections address the question of which class is more important to society, and thus is more deserving of merit.
Defoe’s allegory presents a similar scene, though in his depiction Credit doesn’t exclusively favor rich or poor, but often spends time waiting expectantly for those who don’t want her. In fact he focuses nearly exclusively on how the rich seek Credit’s favor, but lose it in the blink of an eye.
Credit’s determination of whether or not someone deserves her attention is based on their wealth and their past relationship, with her jilted “lovers” left pining for her attention. While Credit seeks any and all lovers, she gives particular favor to those who need her help the least, attempting to seduce and get them addicted to her charms. In Defoe’s era it seems that Credit shunned the poor who needed her help, but couldn’t pay her fees and courted the rich who didn’t need her services but could easily pay.
Timorous and Moderation, as used in Joseph Addison’s Allegory of Public Credit.
Timorousness is constant fear, or something that is always timid. As in the allegory, economy tends to be incredibly sensitive to any sort of unrest, shrinking at the fear of war or even just the hint of foul weather. Even though the economy is abnormally timid towards any perceived threats, sometimes the caution towards a dwindling commodity, such as oil, can pay off though it often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy with demand and prices shooting through the roof simply because they were predicted to.
Moderation in regards to the economy however is keeping a steady course with careful and minor adjustments to avoid disaster. Ideally an economy will remain moderate, spending carefully within its bounds and leaving fickle credit sitting on the doorstep. But since the economy is run by human beings, moderation is often just a pipe dream, driven by the ever changing and often unpredictable market.
While at first blush moderation and timorousness seem to be diametrically opposed, but caution often can be an asset. Excessive fear and excessive confidence are both deadly, though in recent years reckless spending has disrupted countries such as the United States and Greece and have begun to suffer during this economic downturn, as well as inflicting collateral damage to their neighbors. Other countries such as Germany however have tried to remain within their means and as a result have remained afloat even as the United States’ economy flounders.
Recent Comments