Religion and Capitalism (SumBlog5)

Santiago de Compostela Cathedral in Spain

Max Weber conducted a fascinating study on the relationship between capitalism and religion. He thought that religion lead to capitalism. This especially depended on the type of asceticism with which people were living. Innerworldly asceticism placed focus on living to succeed in one's lifetime. This would be measured by the amount of money one made and it was determined where one would spend the afterlife based off success. The second type of asceticism is outerwordly, where focus is placed on the afterlife, not on materialistic success. Weber saw the changes between innerworldly and outerworldly asceticism. He saw Protestants as more focused on innerworldly asceticism, as they tend to be more individualistic. Protestants believe in predestination, so they figured the way they could figure out if they were chosen or not to go to heaven would be if they were successful in a monetary sense on earth. Comparing Protestants and Catholics, Catholics tend to be more outerworldly. Therefore, a decrease in capitalism is found in predominantly Catholic countries, because they are more community focused and less individualistic. 

Though Weber theorized this difference years ago, it is still applicable today. We looked at a lot of different countries in class that perfectly supported his views. However, my group was focusing on Spain, and it was a split. Spain is a majority Catholic. Cathedrals are everywhere and most people will tell you they're Catholic. Half of the results supported Weber's theory, but the other half did not. Spain is still pretty individualistic. Why is this? The topic of religion as part of culture was brought up. Most of the people in Spain identify with the Catholic religion, but how many of them truly follow it? Being Catholic is just part of being a Spaniard. I think it's that way with religions in pretty much any country. Everyone identifies with a religion or belief system, but a lot of the time, you can't tell what someone believes because they don't act on it. I think it's important for people to ask themselves if their focus is innerworldly or outerworldly and base their actions accordingly. 

Ideals (SumBlog4)

Ideals. How often do we take a situation, daydream about it, make a perfect outcome in our heads and wait for that outcome that will never happen? I know I’m guilty of that. It's easy to get caught up in thinking how something should go or how it should have ended. Unfortunately, situations rarely ever turn out the way we imagine them, whether the result is better than what we expected, or worse. Most ideas in our society turn out that way or are born because of these ideals, as Max Weber claims. We idealize a concept and try to apply it, but it never quite works out the way we plan. A common example of this would be democracy. Democracy isn’t a tangible concept, but off it many countries have based their whole government. However, everything in reality doesn’t work out as smoothly as the idea of democracy does on paper. No perfect version of democracy can be found in real life, but it’s a model to which we can strive and try to implement. Each that has a democracy implements it in a different way. Democracy in America does not look the same as democracies in other parts of the world, but they are based off the same fundamental ideals. Ideals are just a concept. No two things can be exactly the same, and ideals just prove that.

We often have high expectations for ideals, what something is, and what something should be.  Is this harmful? Maybe. It is good to set goals and to strive for them, however, it can be hard to face reality if these goals are not met.

   

Most of the time, I tend to idealize situations with a more favorable outcome than should be expected. This can lead to disappointment. Most of the time, when something doesn’t live up to what we’re expecting, disappointment follows. While this isn't exactly the same as what Weber wrote about, it still applies in a sense. The subject of ideals and high expectations brought one particular picture to mind:

And if we did, we might just all be a little happier.

Durkheim and Suicide (SumBlog3)

Emilie Durkheim took steps to study something sociologically that no one ever had before: suicide. What most people saw as a sad decision that others chose to make, he saw as a social issue that needed to be uncovered. 

Through his studies, Durkheim was able to pinpoint what he thought we reasons behind suicides: the levels of integration and regulation. Integration is how connected someone feels to society. Low integration is egoistic; a person doesn't feel connected and they don't know where they belong. This leads to loneliness, a lack of drive, and in some cases, suicide. On the opposite end,   integration becomes altruistic when one feels so integrated. Some examples of this would be suicide bombers, and even member of the army, who go forward in battle even though they know death is imminent. Regulation refers to the rules in a society. In an anomic society, there are little rules, thus bringing about a high feeling of insecurity. Fatalistic societies are completely the opposite. They have too much regulation. Some examples of this would be the military, dictatorships, prisons, and slavery. If a society veers too far to either extreme in integration or regulation, people are more likely to commit suicide than in a society that is nearer to the middle. This chart shows the different lines a society can fall upon.

The one of the saddest parts of a suicide is the outpouring of love and support from others in the community. There was a girl from a high school in my hometown who committed suicide several years ago. I've seen endless posts on Facebook about how many people loved her, wished they would have known her better, and had wanted to be her friend. While I don't doubt that some of these are genuine, I can't help but feel others are just trying to appease their guilt for ignoring this girl or even making fun of her. Why is all this love for others only expressed after they die? If this girl had known the love of all these people, if she had felt integrated into the high school scene, if she had felt the support of a close-knit community, maybe she wouldn't have chosen to end her life before it really began. If our families, schools, communities, and nation had a balance between egoistic and altruistic integration, as well as a balance between anomic and fatalistic regulation, the number of tragic deaths by suicide would decrease.

Obviously creating a society in which there is a perfect balance is impossible, but striving for it is something to consider. Suicide is a serious sociological issue. Thanks to Durkheim, we can be aware of reasons why suicide happens, and what we can do to prevent it.

Brothers (SumBlog2)

"Don't turn away, don't tell me that we're not the same
We face the fire together, brothers 'til the end
Don't run away, our time will come but not today

I stand beside you, brother, with you 'til the end" 

Lord Huron, "Brother"

What unites us as humans? With what do we identify? Karl Marx believed in the unification of the working class. He thought that human potential was being restricted by capitalism. The alienation that comes with capitalism shows itself through several facets:

1.  The Alienation from "productive activity"-there is no room for creativity in capitalism.
2. Alienation from the product-you don't see the final product, just a small part.
3. Alienation from fellow workers-no work relationships formed due to the competition. 
4. Alienation from "human potential"-potential is stuffed by capitalism.

Marx thought we experience the world through ideologies, but they hurt our human potential as well. Man makes up these ideologies to keep an order, and to keep things the way that they are, creating class inequality. The bourgeoisie were the elite upper class, and everyone else was working class.  Marx was critical of these class inequalities, and thought that our human potential would be unhindered with its removal. Along those lines, Marx thought capitalism needed to be eliminated as well.

The song "Brother", by Lord Huron reminds me of the unification of the classes that was desired by Marx. The competition that comes with capitalism was not considered unifying. The freedom and equality that make up the capitalistic market are also what bind people into the classes. He wanted equality for everyone, and an elimination of the hierarchy. The only differences in between the two classes is wealth. People are all people; they experience the same emotions, have the same fears, hopes, and dreams. The line in the song, "don't turn away, don't tell me that we're not the same" I think Marx would identify with. There is a humanity that unites us all, that cannot be overlooked.

Hierarchies (SumBlog1)

Our world would be significantly changed if hundreds of workers disappeared overnight. Henri de Saint-Simon proposed such a scenario; one where important workers of France were no longer there. He predicted that the country would take decades to recover from such a loss. Seems like a correct prediction to anyone who would take the time to consider it.

Then, Saint-Simon followed this idea with something I hadn't even considered. If the same number of nobility disappeared, the people of France would mourn, yes. However, they would mourn from social obligation, not from a true loss for society. Those considered the most important in the hierarchy would not have a huge impact on the political infrastructure of the society. What does this say about our society and our priorities?

Though written in 1819, it still rings true of our society today. As a culture, we place so much value on celebrities: musicians, athletes, the rich and famous. Some have little or no concrete contribution to society besides entertainment. Yet, when they pass away, the country goes into shock and mourning. The world continues to spin on the same as it always did, though for some, the obsession remains. While there is nothing wrong with being famous and wealthy, I think that the level of adoration they receive is too much. There are many people who have died as unsung heroes, who deserve the fame and respect some people have simply because they were born wealthy. The people that truly shape our society at the foundational level, such as teachers, policemen, engineers, doctors, and construction workers go through life without much recognition. 
 



This brings me to Irena Sendler, a woman most people have never heard of. She was a Polish civilian social worker during World War II, who ended up saving 3000 Jews from the Nazis. She did not want credit for her accomplishments, but simply said, "Every child saved with my help is the justification of my existence on this Earth, and not a title to glory." Read more about her awesome story here. People like Irena deserve recognition and appreciation. Countless lives were saved and altered because of her devotion to her calling. 

Saint-Simon advocated for a restructuring of the social hierarchy, with the new thinkers on the top. Everyone else would fall into line by talent and help to mankind. He was critical of hierarchies and monarchies, due to the way they were set up. Similar to our society today, the wealthy were on the top, with everyone else falling underneath them. Though it may not be plausible due to how our culture is oriented, I do think we should focus on educating ourselves about people who have altered the world through selfless and unrecognized tasks. They should be considered at the top of the hierarchy, having influence on the world, with each passion and act of courage.