maddysacademics

[maddysacademics]

Maddy's Blog turned 3 today!

it’s crazy how different my life is since i was up keeping this blog, and a complete U turn from where i thought i was heading at the time too. i’m forever grateful and this blog stands as a testament to my dedication to anything i do in life :) proud maddy moment xxx

[maddysacademics]

Max Weber notes

Bureaucratic Management Theory

AKA Legal-rational model, or Weberian bureaucracy 

He wanted organisations to be led as if they were extensions of the government or judicial system

He thought running organisations with a charismatic leader was ineffective, and so he suggested we ensure the most effective leader is installed

2 key elements: a clear hierarchy within an organisation, and clearly defined rules to help govern said hierarchy; there’s 6 principles:

Proper division of labour: division should be fixed, it should be equally divided, and there’s a correlation between power and labour responsibility

Chain of command: within hierarchy, the workflow and commands should flow smoothly from top to bottom

Separation of personal and official property: owners and organisation are separate things (e.g. thing 1: CEO, founder, director, etc; thing 2: the workers in organisation)

Application of consistent and complete rules: equally applicable to entire hierarchy

Selection and promotion based on qualification: ensures fair playing field as well as adequacy within each tier of hierarchy

Training in job requirement and skills: to ensure everyone is specialised for their specific role

My issues/questions/critiques: perhaps it’s because my research is lacking, but there’s such a heavy focus on rules and regulations, so I have no idea how this system would cope under inability to follow these rules, i.e. due to disabilities, something such as a pandemic, worker fatigue, etc. I’m struggling to put into words what I mean, but it seems like there is only a structure for formalities under this bureaucratic system; I cannot seem to pinpoint if this issues lies within the heavy emphasis of rules in Weber’s theory, or if the issue lies within the harsh productivity expectations that often arise in bureaucracies/autocracies. I’ve also discovered a new word, ‘red-tapism’, which just implies there’s such a focus on paperwork that there’s a delay in decision making.  I suppose this theory is supposed to apply to very formal organisations, such as the government or judicial system, but not smaller organisations, and not society as a whole. I think many of my issues do lie within the ideology of bureaucracy, however, thus this theory is perhaps a best case scenario in my opinion due to its emphasis on fairness and equality, even if there’s tedious formalities included. I also understand that this theory was created just after the industrial revolution, and therefore society’s focus was largely on how to increase productivity. 

Other people who contributed to the theoretical approach to management were Frederick Taylor and Henry Fayol. Instead of looking at the bigger picture like Weber, other theorists observed work under bureaucratic organisations from different distances. Taylor said personalised approaches to one’s labour was ineffective, and we need to do things in the same manner. It was a scientific approach, studying time and motion in each step of a process, then scientifically analysing the best way to do something to achieve fast and efficient results. Henry Fayol looked into management, calling it administrative science, after not seeing any education of managers and leaders be the most effective. He wrote a book on management, discussing topics such as planning, organising, and coordinating. 

[maddysacademics]

Emile Durkheim notes

Was France’s first professor of sociology and set up Europe’s first department of sociology. Sociology is the study not of the individual, but of the society. So looking at sexism from a sociological perspective requires looking at things such as patriarchy, and economic income, rather than one man who hates his wife. We analyse things that exist outside of the individual, but apply to them, such as politics, law, currency, economy, culture, language etc

Solidarity: what holds society together. The individual’s feeling that they are a part of something larger. Durkheim provided an explanation for solidarity in pre-modern and modern societies.

Mechanical solidarity: for pre-modern societies, everyone was very similar. For example, on a farm in pre-modern UK, everyone around you would be another white guy who believed in the will of God and obeyed the Bible. There might be a few differences, i.e. someone might be a woman, but this didn’t impact much. Your feeling of societal solidarity comes from the fact that you have the same experiences and ideas as those around you, Durkheim called this collective consciousness.

Organic solidarity: in modern societies, everyone is very different.  There’s not collective consciousness because you won’t have the same beliefs and experiences as those around you. Durkheim said that what holds this society together is interdependence; while you might be different from your baker, who is Muslim and pro-guns, or your teacher, who is non-binary and communist, you rely on them for something, which creates solidarity with the system. It’s like a human body with organs doing different things making the body work

The differences between people are largely as a result of individualism, which Durkheim observed in consumerism, gratifying yourself through the things you consume creates many differences between people. 

In pre-modern society, everyone had very similar jobs, with entire classes of people taking up one role, i.e. peasants were farmers. In modern society, there’s highly specialised roles for everyone to do. Specialisation creates solidarity as you feel that your work adds to a whole process, but this means we can’t create anything alone

In pre-modern societies, because there’s collective consciousness, punishments are very serious since everyone believes the same thing, so laws often reflect a very unanimous decision not to do something. In modern societies, responses to rule-breaking is not as severe, since everyone has different opinions. We still react, however, because we rely on each other to do the right thing so that we can exist, so we have to focus of reform of behaviour

Durkheim saw crime as a healthy part of society, essentially saying rules were made to be broken so that a society can reflect on their laws

As dynamic density (population density and social interaction) is increasing, there’s a slow movement from mechanical solidarity into organic solidarity, and so competition increases because we desire to discover the most efficient ways of running our society. This leads to specialisation and individualism, which transforms the mechanical society into the organic one

[maddysacademics]

Marxism v Anarchism

2 ideologies in the labour movement that have often come together to back the leftist fight, but disagree on many planes

Materialism v Idealism; dialectical materialism is the philosophical basis of Marxism. The progression in this basis is either natural progression, i.e. beliefs changing and laws being made under the current system, or forceful progression, i.e. revolutions, where a new order is established. The conflict which creates this progression/resolution is material need. 

Dialectical materialism contrasts idealism. Idealism is the philosophical root of anarchism, celebrating the unlimited freedom of an individual, calling upon metaphysics and idealism for its justification. They suggest the liberation of the individual will lead to the liberation of the masses. 

In contrast, Marxism suggests the liberation of the individual will come as a result of the liberation of the masses. They say this is as a product of the class system, in which individuals have certain privileges or disadvantages which create different psychology within oneself, meaning individual liberation would lead to chaos and not total liberation.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s anarchist theory was the motivation for Karl Marx’s book on political economy, Das Kapital. He tore apart the anarchist theory by reducing it down to its idealistic and metaphysical nature, later calling him the petty-bourgeoisie (the most unstable layer of capitalism as a result of their differing psychological structures depending on where they perceive themselves to be- proletariat or bourgeoisie)

Marx says that anarchism appeals to the petty bourgeoisie because it is a product of hope (idealism) but also despair, as it’s the ideology of an unstable member of society, not the successful bourgeoisie or the mistreated proletariat 

The method in which each political ideology is achieved also differs: under Marxism, a revolution is required to establish the worker’s ownership of the means of production, which is organised by the dictatorship of the proletariat (key word: organised). Under anarchism, a revolution of chaos is required to establish a system of...well, chaos.

Sometimes under capitalism, those in power highlight the anarchist’s unorganised spontaneity in response to the system, trying to divert people’s attention from the organised struggle from Marxists in order to diminish the left’s movement. However, they’ll equally highlight the organisation of the Marxists and demonise it, so they have grounds to punish the left.

I think that the source I used may have been biased towards Marxists, however it really helped me pinpoint the key differences between the ideologies and I feel more confident explaining them.

[maddysacademics]

Karl Marx notes

These notes are more historical than political as I was interested in Marx’s life, however my next blog post should be on the differences between Marxism and Anarchism as I’ve found a very interesting video I’m going to make some notes on!

Hegel was of particular interest to Marx at university, where his love for politics blossomed. He also met Jenny von Westphalen, a daughter of Russian aristocracy and his future wife, and Fredrich Engels, his future partner in work. 

He and Engels published The Communist Manifesto, which was the solidification of their transformation from students of politics and philosophy to full revolutionaries; it’s arguably still their most famous work

In TCM, they outline their definitions and expectations for socialism and communism, while championing the worker and dissolving the power imbalance between proletariat and bourgeoisie 

He was later exiled and lived in London, where he became a significant figure to workers while working for an American newspaper. While writing, America was facing issues such as slavery, abolitionist movements, and a civil war

He went on to write other books, such as Das Kapital, and was elected as the General Council of the International Workingmen’s Association. He fought against capitalism, but also the anarchism wing of this association. 

After the Russian Revolution, the first communist government was enforced- it slowly spread across Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America. Marx impacted these revolutionary movements 

[maddysacademics]

Thomas Hobbes notes

First mention of ‘the state’ ever was made by him in the 1600s, as were phasing from churches, empires and cities, into states

He’d witnessed the English Civil War, in which parliament had taken up arms against the king to dispute who’d hold the power in the country. Hobbes thought this war was ridiculous, saying that it’d been caused by ‘false notions regarding the nature of the state’: people thought that sovereignty (rulership) could be divided up and given to multiple people/parties

He said sharing power only worked if people were willing to share, which was not the case in the UK, since there was a whole war taking place as a result of not wanting to share

He admitted there could be one sovereign only since there’d be no disputes as a result, but what was the sovereign? Hobbes said that as individuals, we all have wills and passions, and if we put them all together, we’d all have one will and passion. This conjoined unit of individuals was called The Leviathan. But, as an artificial creation, the Leviathan couldn’t rule- the people would need to pick the sovereign to rule. So, this sovereign should be easy to pick considering the Leviathan was composed of the same wills and passions.

Hobbes argued the sovereign could be a monarchy (one person ruling), a democracy (a party ruling together), an aristocracy (a few powerful individuals ruling), etc, but there can only be one of whatever is chosen to rule

The role of the sovereign was to protect the state from outsiders while keeping them strong, in good form. And once this strong formation was achieved, their duty of protection from outsiders would be easy, so the people can be left to do as they please once they’re in good form. 

In the modern day, we go against Hobbes’ theory using divided sovereignty because it means everyone is represented. While Hobbes would argue this causes chaos, it works well under capitalism because there are different passions and wills today. There would’ve been different wills in Hobbes’ time too, but perhaps society was too rigid to admit people those wills yet. 

The idea is that now, states comply with a constitution. This constitution is kind of like the Leviathan’s united wills and passions, without the Leviathan constantly existing 

Liberal democracies rely on no one part of the state trying to seize all power, i.e. the judges, the monarch, the parliament, policing systems, etc. What’s interesting to observe is that, while this balance has been disrupted a few times in a lot of places, it’s balanced more often than it’s imbalanced.

I think Hobbes is such an interesting thinker. It’s interesting to imagine a society in which one (Hobbes) can confidently say that everyone has the same wills and passions. I’d assume this was based on a lot of conformity to expectations of society at the time, i.e. a man’s will is to provide for and protect his family, a woman’s role is to care for and nurture her family, a child’s role is to be educated in the correct gender roles to be an ideal member of society and a family later in life, etc. I wonder how life was for those who actively chose to disobey these pre-determined ‘wills’, or were simply unable to sustain the duties expected of them, i.e. a man with a disability who couldn’t work in the way expected of him, or a woman unable to have children. Society was definitely not as gentle as it is today, so I’d love to know the reaction or even punishments to refusing to have the same ‘wills and passions’. The Leviathan itself seems simple enough put into words, but in modern day practice I don’t imagine it working, because there is such a divide in opinions that I don’t think we’d be able to have one united ‘will’ among us. For example, some people believe women need to be liberated from the patriarchy, and some are strong supporters of the patriarchy- how do we handle that direct juxtaposition of opinions? In my other section of notes on Hobbes (someone right at the bottom of my blog, enjoy scrolling :P), he mentions that we should never go against the sovereign, simply because they are the sovereign. I think this idea is fascinating for his time, and may even perhaps work for the 17th century: no one (of importance or power, at least) was focussed on the progression of human rights, and one’s main concern was a war with a nearby country. Yet, in the 21st century, I think there’s far more concerns which, as I mentioned earlier, cause direct juxtapositions in opinions. The last part about liberal democracies is potentially the most interesting part of my research today. We are in a constant gamble that no one with the adequate power will rise up against the other sovereigns they share power with. For example, the military has all the necessary equipment and training to totally take of the UK, but we continue to give them this equipment and training and simply hope they don’t do that? I’m not suggesting we defund the whole military tomorrow, but it’s totally interesting we’re just hoping they don’t. I suppose it could be considered proof that anarchism may work? I’m not sure. It’s definitely food for thought. 

[maddysacademics]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau notes

Wrote The Social Contract in France just before the revolution; political power and monarchy rule was being challenged

A shift was occurring, from feudalism to capitalism

“Man is born free, and is everywhere in chains.” Implication of birth being the most free state, with no societal pressures enforced unto you, as you grow the ‘chains’ are applied. I wonder how the ‘chains’ have changed between Rousseau’s time and ours

In the State of Nature, Rousseau argued that man has 2 forces: self-preservation (‘amour de soi’) and pity, the hatred towards seeing others struggle

He implied civilisation takes course through comparing yourself to others- maybe that’s how we evolve personally? I.e., I compare myself to a smarter student and evolve as a result, or a child compares themselves to an older adult and evolves as a result, but how can this lead to civilisation? In the State of Nature, what is there to be jealous of- what about yourself are you comparing to others?

In civilisation, Rousseau says that your amour de soi turns into amour proppe, which is you comparing yourself to others to construct an image of yourself, but it actively diminishes amour proppe to the detriment of man

At the start of the book, he considers 3 society structures: Slavery, Natural Authority, and Right of the Strongest. He said none of these structures support man’s self preservation or pity for others

He said that in a political community or state you are following laws, which is giving away your freedom; anarchists argue that this is never justified. He says laws make everything the same for all, and because it’s supposedly the same for all, no one has interest in looking out for others (pity)- no one gives up their freedom for another person, but for the idea of an equal community

However, this equal community is a construct inside one’s head, created rationally as a result of laws that supposedly create total equality when everyone follows them

The General Will: in a small society, everyone will be motivated by their amour de soi, and their pity for others, creating a totally balanced and equal community. In the face of a dispute in this small society, every single person should be included in the process of debating and voting, which forces them to be free

He supports small states and direct democracy, banning factionalism. He said society should be homogenous (comes from Greek for ‘same kind’, so same opinions), and so he’s accused of being the roots for totalitarianism. He’s considered a communitarian thinker rather than a liberal

Rousseau suggested that in the current society, people simply pretend to work so that their bosses can become richer, hoping they’ll one day be above them. He said real friendship and solid confidence are banished in this society.

[maddysacademics]

Two Cheers For Anarchism - James Scott

I finished another book! I read this book mainly because it’s on the HSPS reading list, however it’s also on a topic that I’ve only really considered lightly, so it was sure to provide me with some new knowledge.

I assumed it’d be a political focus on anarchism, looking into the economic and political ways that anarchism could be used in a country. However, I was wrong- it was much more of a sociological analysis of anarchy, which has left me a lot more interested in the political/economic side of it.

I thought, going in, that I didn’t like the idea of anarchy. With anarchy, I associated chaos and craziness, but this book showed me the beauty of that. I reflect specifically on a part that highlighted the benefits of children’s playgrounds when they’re rooted in the kids developing their own games from building blocks. Playground developers provide things like tools, gravel, sand, empty buildings, etc, and the children give these items their own meaning. They go out of control until an adult steps in. When the adult steps in, they understand how much fun it was before they stepped in, and before it got out of control, so they simply resort back to the unionised play style of taking others into consideration.

While this is incredibly interesting, my issue with this metaphor (and the rest of the metaphors in the book) is that it’s hard to apply it directly to reality. For example, if the building blocks are simply the establishment of an anarchist state, and we have fun until chaos emerges, what forces represents the parents stepping in? In our metaphor, the adult/parent has the child’s interest at heart, and wouldn’t gain anything by getting rid of all of the fun. However, in reality, anarchy would have no leader to step in, and if one arose, they could benefit enormously from simply usurping the power. Of course, the citizens of anarchy/kids of the playground will simply revolt in a case of power-hungry leaders/parents, but is this guaranteed to stop the chaos of anarchy in reality?

I suppose this leads me to the conclusion that anarchy without a clear political base (i.e. fascism, capitalism, socialism, communism) doesn’t really work as a system, because there’s no instructions of what to do when it spirals out of control. For example, in an anarcho-communist society, the leader is the vanguard party, who has a mutually beneficial relationship with the citizens, and so establishes peace and order for their own sake and the citizen’s sake. In an anarcho-capitalist society, the adult may represent a rich man who fixes the economic disorder for all the other rich men, including himself.

Right-wing anarchism is particularly scary, and it’s covered in this book. The idea of freedom in an anarcho-capitalist/fascist sense is ‘freedom to...’ whereas perhaps an anarcho-socialist/communist scheme is ‘freedom from...’. Fill in the blanks with ideas of child labour, slavery, exploitation. 

However, I enjoyed the book’s metaphors in general because it made me think for myself in a lot of senses as I applied the book to my own reality. I rate it a strong 8/10. I’m now reading Chomsky’s How The World Works, because I think knowing that information might help me in my studies :P

[maddysacademics]

Rwandan Genocide pt2

I’ve got mocks at the moment so I totally forgot to post this 2nd part!

Rwanda’s economy is in ruin, the RPF was dominating the FAR using abuse and rape through the country, targeting and massacaring educated Hutu, and thus over 1 million Hutus fled

UNAMIR was started by the UN in order to secure Rwanda’s future, and guns, explosives and machetes were finding their way to those sent in to fight 

Suddenly, Habyarimana’s plane is shot down and he is killed- the people that did it were a mystery. It could’ve been the Akazu, the RPF or the UN

The Crisis Committee was formed by some powerful people; on the outside they wanted peace but they really wanted to seize power. The expected successor, Uwilingiyimana, was thus a target when she took power because the CC wanted power and not only that but she was a huge moderate, so she was a target for the Akazu also

The RPF sent out a code on radio: ‘cut the tall trees’. They rushed and killed all immoderate tutsis and the FAR did nothing, even assisting them in places. There was a huge political fallout.

The PM’s escort (who was courtesy of the UN) was rushed by rogue FAR soldiers as they attempted to remove the UN from their country, they killed the PM and killed 10 UN soldiers 

The US, France and Belgium landed in Rwanda to help export all people living in Rwanda who weren’t Rwandan. France took some members of the Akazu and left supplies for the FAR before everyone left. The UN gave up

The Rwandan Genocide happened over around 100 days, completed by large groups of men armed with machetes, fulfilling murders, rapes and looting Tutsi locations, as instructed by the radio. They were told the ends justify the means. 

UNAMIR kept demanding ceasefires. They kept being ignored.

The RPF pushed forwards and, through traditional and psychological tactics, pushed the FAR out of the capital. 800,000 had already been killed

Kagame, who had been leading the RPF, positioned himself as vice president in the years after, but was really in control himself. The RPF have been remembered as heroes despite their own crimes

[maddysacademics]

Rwandan Genocide

There’s nothing I love more than when I click into YouTube and the algorithm has picked out a cool topic to put right at the top of my explore page. Here are some notes on a genocide I didn’t know happened until today (which is quite scary to think about when you consider how many genocides have to happen for one of them to be decided to be not taught in schools because it’s a ‘less significant genocide’)

Rwanda was a kingdom located in a country of greenery and hills, and we don’t know when the country was established

We do know that there are two ethnicities, Hutu and Tutsi, that both reside in Rwanda, yet we are even unsure of their origins

The 2 ethnicities are very similar linguistically, genetically and culturally but Tutsi meant ‘noble’ and Hutu ‘peasant’, so there was an economic divide

Germany claimed Rwanda as part of their German Empire just before the fin de siecle, and their opinion was that the Tutsi and Hutu were racs, with Tutsi being superior. So they enforced laws through the Tutsi starting with the king, Mwami, who ended up being a puppet of the German govt

After WW1, Rwanda was signed to Belgium in the Treaty of Versailles, and became Rwanda-Urundi, and they reinforced the idea of Tutsi and Hutu as separate races very strongly, analysing physical evidence of someone’s race and put into identity cards

Segregation ensued, with Tutsi thriving in education and housing, and Hutu working the fields for coffee for the Belgians

After WW2, the UN took control of Rwanda and told Belgium they had to prepare it for a new independence and majority rule (Hutu), and so ���racial’ tensions began due to the sudden switch of Belgium priority

In the middle of the 1900s, Rwandan Independence was gained and political parties formed, one opting for the current Tutsi monarchy, and the other a Hutu Republic. Eventually rumours spread that Tutsi were killing Hutu, and revolution broke out

November 1959 saw looting, arson, and riot from the Hutus, who were sick of the superiority felt by Tutsis, and Belgium intervened when the Tutsis victimised themselves

In 1961 there was a referendum for Rwanda’s independence (again), and many Tutsis went into exile after a major demand for Hutu republic. In 1962, Rwanda-Urundi became Rwanda and Burundi, so exiles either went south to Burundi or north to Uganda

Conflict continued, especially in Burundi, which still had a Tutsi rule over Hutus, and it escalated into a genocide of 200,000 politically-active and educated Hutus

In 1973, Habyarimana seized power and created a one party system, banning political activity. Burundi remembered the conflict so Rwanda was no place for the Tutsi but the Tutsis felt too entitled to be happy with a refugee lifestyle

The RPF (Tutsi forces from Uganda) invaded Rwanda in 1990 and caught the FAR (Rwandan forces) off guard, pushing forwards well for a few days until their commander was killed

France arrived to ‘protect the Rwandans’, but this was really a cover up for their real reason. Rwanda was an old Belgian colony, and so they wanted to protect the French-speaking world from foreign threats, keeping the legacy of their colony strong

In 1991, more conflict resumed, but the French were doing well in backing up the FAR, and therefore Habyarimana’s position as president seemed secure, until France pressured him to ensure equality and freedom in his country or they’d withdraw French forces. His own wife had created a society (the Akazu) of anti-Tutsi radicals by this point, which was what the country needed at this point

By 1992 there was a need for reform and the capital broke out in protest, so Habyarimana’s allowed a multiparty cabinet, which also aligned with what the French wanted too. We saw a ceasefire and some peace in July

The Akazu were now posing a threat for Habyarimana, as they were rejecting peace and being very radical, and his opposition to the Akazu only led to the moderates of the country supporting their radical cause

The Akazu had very similar ideas to the Black Panther Party, suggesting self-defense, and providing free educational resources for citizens, including a radio station of empowerment for Hutus and anti-Tutsi rhetoric

I’ll be exploring this more on my next post on Wednesday :P

[maddysacademics]

Think Like An Anthropologist - Matthew Engelke

WOW

I have only ever been emotional finishing one other book- Eger’s The Choice; that felt very justified because it was an emotional autobiography about hardship, war, and self-fulfilment. I have just finished TLAA (rather unexpectedly, since my kindle only suggested I was 3/4s in, but the last pages were all notes and references) and strangely I am feeling rather emotional! I didn’t cry like I did with Eger’s autobiography, but I feel...nostalgic? Definitely not the word I’m looking for, but I just wish I could go and reread the entire book for the first time again because it opened my eyes to A LOT.

I thought I knew social anthropology- not very deeply, but I thought “hey, I get the basics, and I know I’ll enjoy the expert sections at uni, so I will adore HSPS.” I was certainly right about the second part, but I did NOT know anything. I knew just the tip of the ice berg in comparison to what I was shown by that book. I felt like Rapunzel in Tangled where she leaves her castle and is a little scared, but insanely excited by the new things around her! Reading the book, I was getting so in my head about how much information I was retaining, because I wanted to remember every single line. It just felt so educational, like I would be missing out if I forgot a single element of the book, but I just had to tell myself to enjoy it because I started overthinking about how I’d remember everything. 

I’d like to add also that the book title totally summarises the book in the most perfect sense. Why? Because every time I read a new theory, idea, word, etc, it would pop up around me for the next week! I cannot get these ideas out of my head; I thought it was bad enough analysing everything with a sociological and political lens, but now that I really understand how to Think Like An Anthropologist, the way I analyse the world has, again, been totally shaped.

“You know when you’re a little bit tired while reading so you’re not as invested in the words?” No. Not with this book. I was clinging on to every piece of information on the page, trying to remember all the names of the communities and cultures and practices. Now that I finished, I feel like I remember nothing, yet I remember so much- I feel it’s because I understand that out of what I read, I could probably only remember around 20% of the content, yet that 20% is so educational and informative that all I can do is hope to take more in next time.

I only remembered the highlight feature on a kindle existed half way through reading, which is such a shame because I totally exploited it while reading Handmaid’s Tale, and it really helped me pinpoint all the sections I loved. However, out of the bits I did highlight, I can see that most of my ‘notes’ are coming from the Nature chapter. I think the way in which Engelke explored nature was so interesting, especially because in Western culture, nature is something so important to us. I consider myself an open-minded, culturally sensitive person, but I got thrown off when things I considered to be fact were subjective to other cultures, making me realise, either a) it was not fact, or b) even accepting/rejecting fact is up to a culture. 

The book as a whole just felt like the perfect introduction to social anthropology. I thought I had already been introduced, but now I know that I have the right outlook on the subject to further explore it, as well as apply it to my daily life.

I’ve never understood why people reread books. Until now. 10000/10. Not exaggerating. 

[maddysacademics]

Rituals pt 2

And as promised...

Just a side note tho- since reading the rituals section of Engelke’s book, I’ve noticed that I have so many rituals in my life that I’ve never classified as such until reading up about them. I think the fact I never considered them rituals yet I consider other culture’s practices to be rituals is probably from a neo-colonial perspective of anthropology that I’m trying to unlearn. So that’s one lesson unlearnt and a million more to go :)

Bar/Bat Mitzvah - Israel

While celebrated by Jewish people around the whole world, these events are most notable in Israel

It’s a coming of age celebration for men and women which is celebrated at age 13

Bar Mitzvah translates as ‘son of the commandment’, and bat means daughters

Rituals include reading a passage of the Torah and a celebration at a synagogue- but rituals have been updated over time to include gift giving, having large parties and lots of dancing

Girls did not have Bat Mitzvahs until 1922, when the first ever ‘daughter of the commandment’ was celebrated in America

Holi - India

It’s typically a Hindu festival but it’s celebrated all over India to welcome the beginning of spring, it dates back to 300 AD and the first mention of the celebration appears in a poem

It’s based on mythology, specifically the legend of Holika, the demon sister of the demon king, who believed he was superior to every God, but his son followed God Vishnu. The demon king and his sister plotted to kill the son, as Holika is supposed to take him into a bonfire to burn him while she’s protected by a magic shaul. In the myth the son is saved by Vishnu, and Holika dies in the flames with her brother being killed later by the son

The moral of the story is that good always triumphs over evil, and therefore those celebrating symbolically cremate Holika, similarly to how we do with Guy Fawkes

Sometimes the ashes are used from the fire as purification when put on a body, which is interesting because ashes have been a symbol of protection and purity for many communities who believe in forms of magic

This burning is followed by a ritual of throwing coloured powder at one another in the streets, which is more well known and known as Rangwali Holi

This ritual is based on Radha and Krishna’s love story, in which Krishna has blue skin and doesn’t like Radha’s fair skin, so his mother suggests he smear Radha with coloured powder 

Prinsjesdag (Prince’s Day) - The Netherlands

Dating back to the 18th century, when the prince's birthday was called Prince’s Day, and celebrated on March 8th

Now, the celebration occurs on the third Tuesday of September each year, and some call it Budget Day

The day marks the opening of parliament each year, when the king does a big speech including the government’s annual plan

Rituals include watching the royal family walk down streets in glass carriages, watching the speech, wearing your military attire (if associated with the military), watching the King and Queen wave at a crowd

In the week surrounding Prince’s Day is Prince’s Festival, which includes rituals like the hat walk, special boating activities, and cooking/eating special meals

Witches’ Night - Czech Republic 

Rooted in Pagan tradition it is celebrated on April 30th but similar to our version of Halloween and Bonfire Night

People created witches from straw and old fabric, and then they are burnt as a warning to evil spirits, wardening them away

It also rids the spirits of winter as the summer approaches

Rituals include parades, dressing up as creatures, dancing to music, singing, eating and drinking, as well as the symbolic burning of the witches

Carnival - Brazil

While celebrated in other Latin American countries, Brazil’s Carnival is by far the largest

It’s a two day festival celebrated on the Friday before Ash Wednesday

People head for the Sambadrome, a place specifically made for carnival celebrations where you can watch the annual parade filled with samba dances in gorgeous costumes; they also eat, dance and sing

Celebrations can last for weeks as a result of blocos (street parties) continue in small, local communities

[maddysacademics]

Rituals 1

I am currently reading Think Like An Anthropologist and I could honestly talk all day about how cool and interesting the content is. I wanted to do some extra reading about rituals around the world because the book is doing exactly what it’s supposed to be doing- making me question everything. And I’m just so intrigued by what other countries may celebrate as we celebrate Christmas, for example. So! Here!

Oban Bon festival - Japan

Honours spirits of dead, originated from buddhists

Celebrated for over 500 years and is popular and well known in Japan

Said to have started when a specific buddhist saw his dead mother and made her an offering, and danced with joy as she was released from her suffering

It’s celebrated over 3 days in the 7th month in the year, and honours and commemorates the dead

Rituals of this day include: visiting the grave, dancing a special traditional dance, hanging lanterns to guide the dead, and making food offerings

Some people dress up too, as they believe they are welcoming home the dead ancestors and want to make it a joyful occasion, not a sorrowful one

Songkran - Thailand

The buddhist new year, which starts in what would be April for us

It’s celebrated in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia

The ritual consists of a huge water fight. It’s such a big event that tourists travel from around the world to join in or observe 

April is Thailand’s hottest month so the water fight is also very refreshing

Further in the past, people used to run water over buddhist statues and then run the same water over village elders as a sign of respect and blessings

The water represents cleansing and purity, ridding them of mistakes or bad luck from the past year

People also spend time with family, and donate to buddhist monks for Songkran

Haka - New Zealand (Maori)

This is a ritual dance which imitates a dance of Tane-Rore, who is the son of the Sun God (Tama-Nui-Te-Ra) and the personification of summer (Hine-Raumati)

The dance persists of flickering hand movements, body slaps, and foot stamping

Traditionally it was men who did this dance, but women also do it too now, and it was originally used before battle to demonstrate the men’s unity and scare off the enemy

Haka is the general term for all Maori dances, so there are many different types that are used for different occasions

The pilgrimage for Rocio - Spain

This ritual happens 50 days after Easter on the pentecost weekend and has been celebrated since the 1600s

It’s a religious festival which pays homage to the virgin of El Rocio

It’s celebrated in the location of Rocio, and people participating (hundreds of thousands) use horse drawn carriages or ride horse backs to arrive

Rituals include playing music, dancing, camping while travelling, eating, singing, making bonfires and it ends with a procession arriving at the shrine of the virgin, and she is marched through town

People also participate in ‘the jumping of the fence’ and climb over the altar railings to be able to carry the statue of the virgin

Dragobete - Romania

Dragobete is almost like Romania’s Valentine’s Day, symbolising youth, love and hope 

There are rituals performed by young people, like finding flowers in the woods and dancing in front of the public, in order for them to find love and happiness in the future

Being alone on Dragobete is said to be bad luck in love for the rest of the year

Dragobete is a Roman God of love who reminded people to never stop celebrating love

It happens a month or less before the spring equinox, which is when nature starts to reproduce

And there’s more coming soon!

[maddysacademics]

Thatcher

I’m studying a film in media called I, Daniel Blake which is largely influenced by the neo-Thatcherite govt we have today, so I really wanted to learn some more info about her to aid in my media work but also my supercurricular studies! I plan on looking into clause 28 in more depth because quite frankly I have not heard anything good about it

‘There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves, and then look after our neighbour.’

Thatcher famously suggested that there was no such thing as society, but also used terms that alluded to its existence, such as ‘a living tapestry of men and women’. This highlights her individualistic take, suggesting that people look out for themselves primarily and worry about others later. In her case, people often never got around to worrying for others

She brought about a neo-conservatism in which the government did not believe they could make progress or change, which shifted the duty, therefore, unto the people, and the individual

Therefore she focussed primarily on economic policy, aiming to create economic stability (low inflation, low taxes, low interest, etc), but also economic efficiency (e.g. low welfare payments to encourage those on welfare to earn for themselves- this was not very efficient). 

She aimed to remove the equity given to those on or close to the poverty line in order to create a level playing field, which, under late stage capitalism, rather does the opposite

If the country was stable and efficient economically, she thought that the country would have its goals united on making money and working hard, an idealistic perception of capitalism

However, she not only wanted social conformity (same goals between everyone), but she wanted moral conformity. Morals bring religion and ethics into question, which brings up the issue of the combination of state and Church (she was Christian). This was noted in the infamous Clause 28

So, instead of the government creating growth, the government would make the social conditions for growth to happen, so that individuals could succeed

She discounted ‘relative poverty’ and called it the poverty of envy. For example, Thatcher didn’t care if a small percentage of people had the best servants cooking the best food every hour of the day as long as everyone at least had food. However, when some people are hoarding food like this, unfortunately not everyone can have food

The result of her economic policy was an increasingly large middle class who were opposed to socialism and embodied her perception of perfect little capitalist workers; the working class also shrunk as jobs in manual labour diminished. This impacted the voting trends, since the working class and ‘idle rich’ always vote for their own party, but the newly huge middle class was now tory, because Thatcher created them, and this didn’t change until Blair came in with the New Labour party.

[maddysacademics]

(More) Presidents

35 - John F Kennedy

Years: 1961-1963, half a term

Party: Democratic

First president to be Roman Catholic and use TV to his benefit

Bay of Pigs mission was a disaster, also suffered Cuban Missile Crisis and stress of Mutually Assured Destruction

Space and arms race continued, but limited nuclear weapons testing

A womaniser ;)

He was assassinated in ‘63, and his assassinator was assassinated 2 days later

36 - Lyndon B Johnson

Years: 1963-1969, finished JFK’s term then another

Party: democratic

Was Kennedy’s VP, took over after his assassination

Wanted to get rid of poverty and social inequality through Medicaid, public service broadcasting and education

Known to be very coercive and compelling when he wanted to be 

Helped to legally end segregation in the workplace, public and housing, and also improved voting rights

These moves made the democrats lose a lot of popularity, and the republican party took hold of the south

Civil unrest started, and Johnson wasn’t doing enough about it, and so he lost popularity within his own party too

37 - Richard Nixon

Years: 1969-1974, a term and a bit

Party: Republican

Went to visit communist China and opened up trade with them

Helped settle the Cold War a little with various treaties with the USSR in detempte

Removed troops from Vietnam but invaded other countries like Cambodia

Began the war on drugs, which I’ve made a post on before I believe

US was helping Israel in their conflict with various Arabic countries, and so these countries held an oil embargo against the US, leading to the Oil Crisis of ‘73

He and his staff tried to cover up a break-in to the democratic HQ in Washington DC, creating the start of the Watergate Scandal

Because he was potentially facing impeachment, he resigned

38 - Gerald Ford

Years: 1974-1977, most of a term

Party: Republican

One of the first things Ford did was pardon Nixon for his scandal

By this point, a lot of the powers the president had were stripped away since the US realised potential dangers

He’s the only person who has served as president/VP and not been elected- he was a key member of Nixon’s team, but his VP resigned due to the Watergate Scandal, so when Nixon also resigned, Ford was next in line to take over

39 - Jimmy Carter

Years: 1977-1981, 1 term

Party: Democratic

Detempte ended, and Carter boycotted the USSR’s olympics as a result of their invasion of Afghanistan, which a lot of other countries followed 

He campaigned for environmental and human rights, winning a Nobel Peace Prize

40 - Ronald Reagan

Years: 1981-1989, 2 terms

Party: Republican

Was a Hollywood actor before he was a politician

Reduced regulation so big businesses could make more money, known as ‘trickle down economics’, which doesn’t really aid the people at the bottom of the economic scale

He trained the Mujahadeen to fight the USSR in Afghanistan, some members of the Mujahadeen who were trained by the CIA with tax payers money went on to form the Taliban and Al-Quaeda

Continued the war on drugs, spoilers: drugs won

Caught in a scandal of providing guns and arms to Iran through Israel to free hostages from Lebanon and fund anti-communist forces in Nicaragua

Ignored the AIDs crisis, resulting in 70k people dying and no research

Escalated the cold war, then ended it

41 - George H Bush

Years: 1989-1993, 1 term

Party: Republican

Promised not to raise taxes.....he lied

Saw REAL end of cold war and promised to reduce 

Engaged in Gulf War against Iraq/Suddan Hussein

42 - Bill Clinton

Years: 1993-2001, 2 term

Party: Democratic

Saw the longest time of peace and economic growth in his time as serving

Allowed free trade between the US, Mexico and Canada

Got into a relationship with 22 year old Monica Lewinsky, which he was impeached for after he lied about it, and acquitted 

While he was a democrat, he was a neoliberal working towards corporate gain

He also played the sax

43 - George W Bush

Years: 2001-2009, 2 terms

Party: Republican

Son of George H Bush

Elections were so balanced that the supreme court decided on a president

Saw Hurricane Katrina happen, famously shunned by Kanye West for not helping the black community in New Orleans

9/11 happened, Bush created the war on terror, searching Iraq and Afghanistan for Weapons of Mass Destruction, which never existed and making the entire area unbalanced

Lost popularity in second term

Taxed the rich, reformed education

2008 global recession caused a lot of issues, and Bush handled it poorly too

44 - Barack Obama

Years: 2009-2017, 2 terms

Party: Democratic

First African American president 

Used internet and social media in his campaign

Fought the recession with regulation and affordable healthcare

Same-sex marriage legalised

Sought to reduce nuclear arms with Russia

Bombed Libya and helped kill Osama Bin Laden

Spoke out against gun violence due to increasing statistics in US

Drone strikes against Taliban in North Pakistan, killing many civilians, then expanded countries and killed more

Helped improve climate change’s future by signing Paris Agreement

Increase in private prisons, neoliberal stance

45 - Donald Trump

Years: 2017-2020

Party: Republican

Business man and celebrity, a hugely controversial option

‘America first’ rhetoric

Countless scandals, yet his supporters were strong

A vote for Trump seemed like a vote against establishment because Clinton was offering the same things that are offered everytime

Tax breaks for wealthy

Undid a lot of Obama’s progress, including pulling out of the Paris Agreement

Travel ban to Muslim majority countries

White supremacist by not speaking against Proud Boys

A huge point of his was building a wall, and ICE separated kids from parents at border

Pro-Israel

Banned trans people from serving in military

Impeached, then impeached again later...

46 - Joe Biden

Years: 2020-

Party: Democratic

Trump claimed voter fraud, then he egged on Capitol storming, resulting in 5 deaths, so Trump got impeached again and banned from Twitter

Obama’s VP

Harris is the first South-Asian, African-American, and woman VP

Rejoined WHO, scientific approach to COVID

Pushing for climate crisis awareness

The US currently supplies military assistance to 73% of the world’s dictatorships, while Biden has complained about a lack of democracies 

[maddysacademics]

History of the UN

While reading up on presidents I read about the United Nations and I totally forgot about its role in international relations! I’m doing some research on its history and current role in politics, but I’m also well aware my sources will be biased from a liberal or centrist standpoint, so I’d love to have a leftist take on the UN by the end of my research.

There are a lot of opinions of the UN, spanning from praise of its ability to peace-keep, to a critique of the money it ‘wastes’

The UN originated after WW1 as the League of Nations, which was suggested by Wilson, to prevent/ quickly stop international conflict, but it didn’t go as Wilson had planned, because he didn’t consult the diplomats of Europe or the US senate very well. The diplomats of Europe were underestimated, and the US senate were going to be the people voting on the idea

The outcome ended up with the LoN being developed, but the USA not being a part due to senate voting

It was seen as a failure after WW2 because it didn’t aid in prevention, but it was still a desirable idea to many countries, just perhaps not in the form of the LoN

The UN was developed out of a declaration given by president Roosevelt and PM Churchill. Members had to ‘pledge itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherence with which such government is at war’ (The Tripartite Pact was a variety of agreements between Germany, Japan and Italy)

Originally 26 members joined, and after WW2, many countries wanted to join, and the UN we know today was officially established in San Francisco in 1945 October 25th (two days before my birthday :P)

As decolonisation took place, more members were admitted, and there’s now 193 countries in the UN

There are different sections in the UN: one is the General Assembly, it is in charge of money, electing the head/secretariat and accepting new members 

The secretariat in (from my understanding) similar to a school’s headteachers and deputies. They’re elected in 5 year terms and serve as the public face

The Security Council is like the governors of the school, those who hold the most power. It’s a group of 15 nations who are responsible for keeping peace.

The SC has 5 permanent members: the UK, US, France, USSR and Republic of China (now replaced by Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China). The other 10 places are elected every 2 years; countries who are de-elected cannot immediately be part of the SC again. This panel of 15 is divided into 5 sub-sections: Africa, Asia, Eastern European, Latin American/Caribbean, and Western European & Others. The US, UK and France are included in the last sub-section. Russia is one of the E. European, and China one of the Asia.

The SC had a president which rotates between leaders on a monthly basis; it is one of the most highly criticised areas of the UN as it gets to vote on military actions and resolution

There is also the International Court of Justice (ICOJ), which is like debate club for countries. Debates happen, as well as trials for dictators and those who abuse human rights by 15 judges

I think it’s interesting that there are permanent members, and the rest have to fight to be part of the SC, it almost depicts a nation-level bourgeoisie, who go untouched and are always included in key decisions, compared to the proletariat countries, who can either try to work to the top, exist on a lower level, or leave the UN’s unfairness and risk their country’s stability. It’s also very understandable why the group making military decisions is one of the most criticised, and it’s crazy to think that such a small group of individuals hold that much power. I’m curious as to why Palestine isn’t part of the UN, but I’d be interested to see how the UN dealt with the Israel-Palestine crisis. I don’t know if the UN is working efficiently, and it’s impossible to tell because it’s a case of ‘what if it didn’t exist? Then what wars would have happened?’, however we do know there's still wars/conflicts happening. However, I’m not sure what a better solution would be

[maddysacademics]

Presidents

I thought I’d better do a little bit of research into all of the presidents, that way I can really research into the ones that interest me most at a later date- I wanted to started from 1900 and I went up to 1950, I hope to cover before and after this time period at a later day too :) I also hope to cover the PMs and other world leaders who were very influential. What I love about my research is that I’m always finding new things to research off of the back of research. 

PS- sorry about the odd formatting, I had to copy and paste it from my Google Docs to upload at home since the school computers have tumblr blocked haha

26- Theodore Roosevelt

Party: Republican

Years: 1901-1909, 2 terms

Youngest ever president

Set up national monuments and parks, lover of natural beauty

Won a nobel peace prize by helping Russia and Japan make peace

Strengthened navy

Started constructing Panama canal

Square Deal brought about progressive era, idea of equal rights

Obsession with his own masculinity

Named The White House, started west wing construction

27- William Howard Taft

Party: Republican

Years: 1909-1913, 1 term

Interested in foreign affairs 

In disagreement with Roosevelt over a lot of things, eg being more sympathetic to big businesses, which made Roosevelt run for reelection under the progressive party

Saw construction of West Wing finished and Oval Office

Landslide voted him out, more conflict between Roosevelt and Taft meant loads of people voted for Wilson, leaving Taft and Roosevelt powerless (not coalition)

28- Woodrow Wilson

Party: Democratic

Years: 1013-1921, 2 terms

Had lots of power as congress was formed of his own party

Federal Reserve Act and Federal Farm Loan Act introduced, very progressive]

Reintroduced income tax

WW1 broke out in 1914 and stayed out of it for a while until Germany were rumoured to ally with Mexico

Passed 19th amendment: votes for women!

South weren’t very big fans of him, but some of his cabinet were pro-segregation so it kept them happy to an extent

The US profited from WW1

Helped make League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles, got a nobel peace prize

Prohibition happened, but Wilson had little to do with it

29- Warren G. Harding

Party: Republican

Years: 1921-1923, half a term (heart attack)

Popular during his life, turned out he was super corrupt after his death

First president to speak in protest of lynching

30- Calvin Coolidge

Party: Republican

Years: 1923-1929, 1 and half (finished WGH’s term)

VP of Harding, took over after death

Quiet, worked with middle-class on new ideas

Broadcasted on the radio for first time

Granted native Americans citizenship if they were living on reservations

Saw roaring 20s

31- Herbert Hoover

Party: Republican

Years: 1929-1933, 1 term

Wallstreet Crash ‘29 as soon as he came to office, Great Depression, awful economy

25% unemployment, many people declaring bankruptcy

Tried to balance economy by raising taxes, made things worse

Hoover supported prohibition, but it was causing more issues than it was solving

Built the Hoover Dam, mainly to tackle Depression

Protests happened, people were fed up

32- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Party: Democratic

Years: 1933-1945, 3 terms, died in 4th

Landslide victory in his votes, ‘new deal’ offered to country

Regulated business, Wall Street, and banks

Offered state employment to the unemployed

Involvement in economy by individual states

Saw progressive and liberal turn for party, yet still supporting segregation 

Cut ties between gold and money to print more money to pump economy

He suffered paralysis in his lower body during his rule, but his this from the public

WW2 broke out, originally stayed out, but helped allies eventually in fight for democracy

Atomic bomb progress made, just in case

After Pearl Harbour, US entered war fully, helping evacuate people from Nazi camps

Whole country was helping fight the war, on land, at seas, at home, across country

Laid grounds for UN

Died before Germany’s surrender

33- Harry S. Truman

Party: Democratic

Years: 1945-1953

Dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan

Fought the spread of communism, eventually involved in Cold War

Did the Berlin Airlift in response to blockade

Established NATO, helped fend off Soviets

Civil rights pushed, racial integration began

Created CIA, NSA, Department of Defense, and National Security Council

 Presidency became limited to 2 terms

Made first president oval office broadcast

34- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Party: Republican

Years: 1953-1961, 2 terms

Was a WW2 commander

Inherited Korean war from Truman and threatened Nukes to end it

Nuclear Deterrence was a key idea in Cold War once Soviets made Nukes

Increased social security, created interstate highways, pushed for science education

Lots of God references in propaganda and mottos, possibly to oppose secular USSR

Civil rights began in South

Warned people of military industrial complex in farewell speech