This is in a large part re: Jessica's post.
I don't think it's accurate to view Paul as one of Weber's "professional" politicians, either in the sense of a politican who lives FOR his work or as one who lives FROM his work. The reason being that Weber kind of made a dichotomy of motives for each of these types of politicians -- the former is involved in politics because he derives a particular satisfaction (joy derived from power itself) or large-scale economic gain based on his ability to manipulate resources. The latter is essentially "impoverished" and works as a politician in order to earn a wage.
Paul certainly satisfies the requirement that the politician who lives FOR his works come from the leisure class and have non-earned income which allows him to devote his energy completely to the political cause. However, I don't think Paul fits in with Weber's economic expectations for this type of politician. Paul doesn't seem to have any particular selfish desire to manipulate resources or rearrange power in his personal favor. I feel that Paul would have to fit in a third, slightly altered character type -- that of the seemingly-mythical politico-religious Christ-like figure. This is a figure that is absolutely above economic self-interest in his political actions (I do realize that, if the Fremen come out victorious, Paul does stand to be very well respected and would have all the "money" (=water) he could ever want. But not once does this idea come up in the book). Paul really seems to live for the principles of Truth, Justice, and the Fremen way. (A race, mind you, that before Paul's outcast from the dukedom seemed strange, foreign, and possibly threatening to him).
We'll talk more about it in class but I did feel when I was reading that Weber's models do not apply especially well to the Fremen/Paul case...
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Weber and Akira
I am sorry about this post being late, but I figured it was better for me not to post at midnight last night when my brain was fried. Hopefully my brain functions better on 8 hours of sleep...
I would like to respond in a different way to the quote that Jessica posted previously.
In the movie Akira, there appear to be a plethora of different leaders present within the story. There are the multitude of gangs, the high council, the scientist, and even perhaps those strange children that were changed by the scientists. However, the one true leader of the story is Kaneda. It is interesting to see that the leader, the one who takes true action to stop injustice in the face of terrible consequences is a leader of children. Kaneda is a reject, someone who has few prospects in life, but his friends trust him. They fight along side him. Granted, it is only a street gang who are not fighting for any noble cause, but he has a basic ability to gain the trust of the people around him.
Akira is also a child, but one with many prospects. He was identified by the scientists and taken to be studied along with the other strange children we encounter. What I find most interesting about the difference between Akira and Kaneda is that they while they are both misunderstood children, Akira is the only one that the scientists care about. They are so amazed and frightened by his abilities that they dissect him, looking for the source of his powers. Meanwhile, they ignore someone like Kaneda who has the ability to gather people around him, to take care of his friends and even eliminate Tetsuo Shima.
I'm not sure that I see a great difference between the mysterious powers of a god or someone like Akira are so different from the political and social power of someone like Kaneda. As we can see, once Tetsuo gains his powers he has a great influence over society. However, his power eventually consumes and destroys him and those that he loves. Akira brought destruction as well, but I am unsure that he was the cause of the annihilation of the old Tokyo. It appears to me that he simply had a power that was too strong to be controlled. Nonetheless, we see that even after the massive destruction of Tokyo, the general still thinks it would be plausible to go back and unearth the remains of Akira and to learn from his powers. However, the powers of someone like Akira or Tetsuo are not human, they are alien to us. Those types of mystical powers can be referred to from the past but in the present they will most likely lead to death and destruction. I think that is why Weber talks about leaders of the past. Even Kaneda as a gang leader means nothing in his actions and ability to rally people to him until he helps to destroy Tetsuo. But even in the end, the three strange children admit that they should spare Kaneda from being taken away with Tetsuo because he was uninvolved.
I think what I'm trying to say from this is that leaders have to be from the past. People rallied to the name Akira because he represented something powerful. Politicians are powerful because they represent something greater than themselves. So are Messiahs. In dune we had a figure whose power stemmed from both of those places. Perhaps that is why Paul was never destroyed because people saw him as human and magical. Akria and Tetsuo were too powerful and beyond human understanding to allow to live. Kaneda was simply a normal kid who had a great will to stand up against a friend. If anyone else has thoughts on this please post. The movie is very complicated and I may be going in the wrong direction because I dint think I understand it all even after having seen it several times.
For those of you who have not seen Akira, you should! Here is a trailer from 1988 when it was released. Watch for the subtitles, they are small.
I would like to respond in a different way to the quote that Jessica posted previously.
...Leadership has manifested itself in all parts of the globe and throughout history in the shape of two dominant figures of the past: the magician and prophet on the one hand, and the chosen warlord, gang leader, and condottiere on the other (35).
In the movie Akira, there appear to be a plethora of different leaders present within the story. There are the multitude of gangs, the high council, the scientist, and even perhaps those strange children that were changed by the scientists. However, the one true leader of the story is Kaneda. It is interesting to see that the leader, the one who takes true action to stop injustice in the face of terrible consequences is a leader of children. Kaneda is a reject, someone who has few prospects in life, but his friends trust him. They fight along side him. Granted, it is only a street gang who are not fighting for any noble cause, but he has a basic ability to gain the trust of the people around him.
Akira is also a child, but one with many prospects. He was identified by the scientists and taken to be studied along with the other strange children we encounter. What I find most interesting about the difference between Akira and Kaneda is that they while they are both misunderstood children, Akira is the only one that the scientists care about. They are so amazed and frightened by his abilities that they dissect him, looking for the source of his powers. Meanwhile, they ignore someone like Kaneda who has the ability to gather people around him, to take care of his friends and even eliminate Tetsuo Shima.
I'm not sure that I see a great difference between the mysterious powers of a god or someone like Akira are so different from the political and social power of someone like Kaneda. As we can see, once Tetsuo gains his powers he has a great influence over society. However, his power eventually consumes and destroys him and those that he loves. Akira brought destruction as well, but I am unsure that he was the cause of the annihilation of the old Tokyo. It appears to me that he simply had a power that was too strong to be controlled. Nonetheless, we see that even after the massive destruction of Tokyo, the general still thinks it would be plausible to go back and unearth the remains of Akira and to learn from his powers. However, the powers of someone like Akira or Tetsuo are not human, they are alien to us. Those types of mystical powers can be referred to from the past but in the present they will most likely lead to death and destruction. I think that is why Weber talks about leaders of the past. Even Kaneda as a gang leader means nothing in his actions and ability to rally people to him until he helps to destroy Tetsuo. But even in the end, the three strange children admit that they should spare Kaneda from being taken away with Tetsuo because he was uninvolved.
I think what I'm trying to say from this is that leaders have to be from the past. People rallied to the name Akira because he represented something powerful. Politicians are powerful because they represent something greater than themselves. So are Messiahs. In dune we had a figure whose power stemmed from both of those places. Perhaps that is why Paul was never destroyed because people saw him as human and magical. Akria and Tetsuo were too powerful and beyond human understanding to allow to live. Kaneda was simply a normal kid who had a great will to stand up against a friend. If anyone else has thoughts on this please post. The movie is very complicated and I may be going in the wrong direction because I dint think I understand it all even after having seen it several times.
For those of you who have not seen Akira, you should! Here is a trailer from 1988 when it was released. Watch for the subtitles, they are small.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
"Dune" and Weber: The Messianic/Charismatic leader vs. power hungry professional political
I thought that a bit was Weber was a nice change from some fiction. I'm glad the majority of the course is fiction, but it's nice to have the more theoretical philosophical works. (I guess that explains why I'm not a lit major...).
A couple of Weber's points seem especially notable with concern to Dune.
When discussing the charismatic leader, Weber states,
"People do not submit to them because of any customs or statues, but because they believe in them. Such a leader does indeed live for his cause. ...The devotion of his followers...is directed toward his person and his qualities. ...Leadership has manifested itself in all parts of the globe and throughout history in the shape of two dominant figures of the past: the magician and prophet on the one hand, and the chosen warlord, gang leader, and condottiere on the other" (35).
Paul exemplifies the charismatic leader. Through no choice of his own, he has been destined by actions and special breeding long before his time that set into action the chain of events leading to his birth and his presence on Arrakis. Thus, he becomes a political by "virtue of his 'calling'" (Weber35), a calling which envelops him until Paul is the Muad'Dib and lives the prophecy. Paul's has resources that he has at his disposal, namely the Arrakan spice, which Weber says is what determines the fate of such a charismatic leader (35). Paul also fits the "magician and prophet" category from the above quote. Paul's charisma and ties to the prophecy primarily are what give him legitimacy.
Comparing Paul as a charismatic figure of the "magician prophet" variety to the more professional politician types Weber describes highlights some interesting questions with regard to Dune. Paul ultimately triumphs over the more professional politicals in Dune. The Baron is the epitome of a ruler corrupted by his own quest for power. "For although, or rather because, power is an unavoidable tool of all politics, and the striving for power, therefore, is one of its driving forces, there is no more destructive distortion of political energy than when the parvenu swaggers around, boasting of his power, conceitedly reveling in its reflected glory--or indeed any worship of power for its own sake" (Weber 78). This certainly seems to be the case with the Baron, who plots moves based solely on how much the outcome will augment his power as a ruler and acts in all ways as someone living "from" politics. Since Paul's system ultimately triumphs over the Baron, we must ask--is this triumph a matter of resources? Is it a matter of leadership? Is it merely the fulfillment of prophecy? Or is it, as Weber suggests, that systems which idealize the "power politician" result in the end product of such political activities "[failing] to do justice to its original purpose" of serving their cause (78)?
Taken in tandem (Weber and Dune), Dune seems to be an endorsement of the charismatic leader (assuming adequate resources) over the power politician ingrained in the structure of nation states. Leadership and living for a cause supersedes all else, and in that sense Dune offers us a rather optimistic viewpoint in which the morally righteous emerges victorious.
A couple of Weber's points seem especially notable with concern to Dune.
When discussing the charismatic leader, Weber states,
"People do not submit to them because of any customs or statues, but because they believe in them. Such a leader does indeed live for his cause. ...The devotion of his followers...is directed toward his person and his qualities. ...Leadership has manifested itself in all parts of the globe and throughout history in the shape of two dominant figures of the past: the magician and prophet on the one hand, and the chosen warlord, gang leader, and condottiere on the other" (35).
Paul exemplifies the charismatic leader. Through no choice of his own, he has been destined by actions and special breeding long before his time that set into action the chain of events leading to his birth and his presence on Arrakis. Thus, he becomes a political by "virtue of his 'calling'" (Weber35), a calling which envelops him until Paul is the Muad'Dib and lives the prophecy. Paul's has resources that he has at his disposal, namely the Arrakan spice, which Weber says is what determines the fate of such a charismatic leader (35). Paul also fits the "magician and prophet" category from the above quote. Paul's charisma and ties to the prophecy primarily are what give him legitimacy.
Comparing Paul as a charismatic figure of the "magician prophet" variety to the more professional politician types Weber describes highlights some interesting questions with regard to Dune. Paul ultimately triumphs over the more professional politicals in Dune. The Baron is the epitome of a ruler corrupted by his own quest for power. "For although, or rather because, power is an unavoidable tool of all politics, and the striving for power, therefore, is one of its driving forces, there is no more destructive distortion of political energy than when the parvenu swaggers around, boasting of his power, conceitedly reveling in its reflected glory--or indeed any worship of power for its own sake" (Weber 78). This certainly seems to be the case with the Baron, who plots moves based solely on how much the outcome will augment his power as a ruler and acts in all ways as someone living "from" politics. Since Paul's system ultimately triumphs over the Baron, we must ask--is this triumph a matter of resources? Is it a matter of leadership? Is it merely the fulfillment of prophecy? Or is it, as Weber suggests, that systems which idealize the "power politician" result in the end product of such political activities "[failing] to do justice to its original purpose" of serving their cause (78)?
Taken in tandem (Weber and Dune), Dune seems to be an endorsement of the charismatic leader (assuming adequate resources) over the power politician ingrained in the structure of nation states. Leadership and living for a cause supersedes all else, and in that sense Dune offers us a rather optimistic viewpoint in which the morally righteous emerges victorious.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Weber's Politics
Well. Max Weber certainly seemed to know what he was talking about! The problem was, I don't. I had a really hard time following the thread of his argument (statement? extended blathering?) - and whenever I did manage to understand more than a page or two at once, I fell asleep. Between political jargon, extensive reference to historical events or literature I didn't recognize (which were well-footnoted, but the footnotes just distracted me more), and the fact that Weber's intended audience was Germany of nearly a century ago, I only pulled a few points out of this reading.
Those few points, however, are quite interesting. I especially like his disctinction of living "for" politics versus "from" politics and how this necessarily gives an economic/class bias to politicians.
Despite our current system of providing a salary to our public officials in order to open high-ranking positions to individuals without indedpendent income, it's still very difficult to get elected to even the lowest government office without quite a bit of campaign money.
Another point of Weber's I found interesting was his equating politics with power, and power with violence. I'm still not sure how much I agree with this point - I do believe that there is more to power than violence, but I'm not sure that there's more to politics than power. Politicians have access to and influence over all kinds of power - prestige, money, an audience, influence - but isn't there something more to a government position? I'm thinking hard, but I can't come up with any aspect of politics that doesn't deal with power in some way.
Those few points, however, are quite interesting. I especially like his disctinction of living "for" politics versus "from" politics and how this necessarily gives an economic/class bias to politicians.
Despite our current system of providing a salary to our public officials in order to open high-ranking positions to individuals without indedpendent income, it's still very difficult to get elected to even the lowest government office without quite a bit of campaign money.
Another point of Weber's I found interesting was his equating politics with power, and power with violence. I'm still not sure how much I agree with this point - I do believe that there is more to power than violence, but I'm not sure that there's more to politics than power. Politicians have access to and influence over all kinds of power - prestige, money, an audience, influence - but isn't there something more to a government position? I'm thinking hard, but I can't come up with any aspect of politics that doesn't deal with power in some way.
Monday, October 02, 2006
The religion question
I'm still perplexed about the exact message one is supposed to take out of all the religious, mystical goings-on in Fremen society. I think we tapped a really interesting well of material discussing the book from the perspective as a sacred text instead of a fictional narrative. The literary elements of the book seem to support this. But what purpose does this serve in our understanding of the book as a social/religious commentary?
Herbert was clearly interested in more than just the fantastical aspects of an alien religion -- he spends almost all of the second half of the book examining Fremen rituals, making spiritual connections to the Bene Gesserit, Paul's predestined leading of the "chosen race" to victory, etc. So, what is he saying? Where is he going with this?
I'm not posting this time because I think I have the answer to this; I'd like to open up the floor to ideas anybody else may have. What is Herbert's purpose in expounding so much upon the (seemingly atheistic) Fremen religion. As I mentioned in my previous post, I do think the economics of Fremen life -- the preciousness of resources necessitating a sanctification of them in order to keep society disciplined -- has a large role to play. But I don't feel like it ends there. There's a deeper theme, a deeper meaning.
Any ideas?
Herbert was clearly interested in more than just the fantastical aspects of an alien religion -- he spends almost all of the second half of the book examining Fremen rituals, making spiritual connections to the Bene Gesserit, Paul's predestined leading of the "chosen race" to victory, etc. So, what is he saying? Where is he going with this?
I'm not posting this time because I think I have the answer to this; I'd like to open up the floor to ideas anybody else may have. What is Herbert's purpose in expounding so much upon the (seemingly atheistic) Fremen religion. As I mentioned in my previous post, I do think the economics of Fremen life -- the preciousness of resources necessitating a sanctification of them in order to keep society disciplined -- has a large role to play. But I don't feel like it ends there. There's a deeper theme, a deeper meaning.
Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
