Sunday, May 31, 2009

Reproduction of Race and Racial Ideologies

Wheeler, Roxann.
The Complexion of Desire: Racial Ideology and Mid-Eighteenth-Century British Novels
Eighteenth-Century Studies - Volume 32, Number 3, Spring 1999, pp. 309-332

The Johns Hopkins University Press

Roxann Wheeler - The Complexion of Desire: Racial Ideology and Mid-Eighteenth-Century British Novels - Eighteenth-Century Studies 32:3 Eighteenth-Century Studies 32.3 (1999) 309-332 The Complexion of Desire: Racial Ideology and Mid-Eighteenth-Century British Novels Roxann Wheeler [A] man ennobles the woman he takes, be she who she will; and adopts her into his own rank, be it what it will: but a woman, though ever so nobly born, debases herself by a mean marriage, and descends from her own rank, to that of him she stoops to marry. --Samuel Richardson, Pamela (1740) The lower class of women in England, are remarkably fond of the blacks...in the course of a few generations more, the English blood will become so contaminated with this mixture,...this alloy may spread so extensively, as even to reach the middle, and then the higher orders of the people, till the whole nation resembles the Portuguese and Moriscos in complexion of skin and baseness of mind. --Edward Long, Candid Reflections (1772) The eminent Jamaican historian and English patriot Edward Long is possibly the most often-cited racist of the eighteenth century, but his assumptions about the link between complexion and moral probity and the undesirable effects of racial mixture represented an emerging minority position in Britain rather than an established concern. This essay situates Long's diatribe in its historical context by examining a significant way that Britons construed human...

Project MUSE® - Download/Export Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago
Endnote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wheeler, Roxann. "The Complexion of Desire: Racial Ideology and Mid-Eighteenth-Century British Novels." Eighteenth-Century Studies 32.3 (1999): 309-332. Project MUSE. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 31 May. 2009 .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wheeler, Roxann. (1999). The complexion of desire: Racial ideology and mid-eighteenth-century british novels. Eighteenth-Century Studies 32(3), 309-332. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from Project MUSE database.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wheeler, Roxann. "The Complexion of Desire: Racial Ideology and Mid-Eighteenth-Century British Novels." Eighteenth-Century Studies 32, no. 3 (1999): 309-332. http://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed May 31, 2009).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TY - JOUR
T1 - The Complexion of Desire: Racial Ideology and Mid-Eighteenth-Century British Novels
A1 - Wheeler, Roxann.
JF - Eighteenth-Century Studies
VL - 32
IS - 3
SP - 309
EP - 332
Y1 - 1999
PB - The Johns Hopkins University Press
SN - 1086-315X
UR - http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/eighteenth-century_studies/v032/32.3wheeler.html
N1 - Volume 32, Number 3, Spring 1999
ER -



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

Poetry and Poetics

Kevin KALISH The Invention of a Poetic Tradition:
Greek Christian Poetry and its Modern Reception
At the beginning of the sixteenth century, Aldus Manutius published an important collection of
classical poetry entitled Poetae Christiani Veteres. Such a collection may strike the modern classical
scholar as odd—ancient poets are fine, but ancient Christian poets? His collection is remarkable because
it presents, for the first time in Western Europe, an anthology of Greek Christian poets—Gregory of
Nazianzus, John of Damascus, Nonnos’ paraphrase of the Gospel of John—alongside more familiar Latin
poets of late antiquity (Prudentius, Juvencus, etc). Aldus’ compilation raises many questions: Was there
the notion of a school of Greek Christian poets before Aldus published this anthology? Likewise, why
has this tradition faded from memory? In this paper, I will explore how this tradition emerged in late
antiquity and how it was transmitted, both to the Renaissance and beyond.
The phenomenon of a school of Greek Christian poets allows us to examine the tradition of Greek
poetry across many centuries and across many cultural divides. This school emerged in the fourth and
fifth centuries at a time of great cultural transition. At a time when poetic activity was flourishing, these
Greek Christian poets—among the most prominent was Gregory of Nazianzus, author of some 17,000
lines of verse—sought to write themselves into the history of ancient Greek poetry. These Christian poets
became, at least to Byzantine readers, part of an unbroken tradition with the poets of antiquity. For
example, most classicists are familiar with Eustathius, the Byzantine commentator on Homer—but few
know that he also wrote learned commentaries on the great hymn writer John of Damascus.
This paper, in addition to exploring how Christian poets created a tradition of continuity with the
past, will also look at how this poetry was subsequently received. It would be wrong to speak of a single
tradition, since the fate of these poets varied across cultures. This school of Greek poets did not fare so
well in Western Europe after the Renaissance. They only come onto the horizon again during the
nineteenth century in conjunction with the Oxford movement: Cardinal Newman translated some of
Gregory of Nazianzus’ poems and Elizabeth Barrett Browning even wrote an essay on “The Greek
Christian Poets.” Yet in Greece and Russia—cultures historically linked to Byzantium—the situation has
been different. A number of handbooks on Byzantine hymnography exist in Modern Greek and each has
a section on the poets of the classical tradition. But one of the most interesting and unique books on this
subject is one that is not well known in classical or even Byzantine scholarship: the Russian scholar
Sergei Averintsev’s Poetika Rannevizantiiskoi Literatury. Thus what we must explain is not only the
creation of tradition in late antiquity, but also the various transmissions and receptions of this tradition—
and these paths take us from Byzantium to the Italian Renaissance to the wide-ranging world of modern
scholarship.

Semiology

Body language A term used in social psychology to refer to the gestures, facial expressions, and bodily postures adopted by people in social interaction. Just as oral and written language expresses our ideas, thoughts, and emotions, so our bodies are said to express a series of unspoken (some say unconsciously articulated) messages, by means of posture and such like. The alternative term ‘kinesics’ is sometimes used in psychology, to refer both to the body movements which convey information in the absence of speech, and the study of such movements.

Non-verbal communication Forms of communication which do not rely on the spoken or written word. Facial gestures and hand signals can often give messages to another person without a word being said. In some cultures, for example, the reverse ‘V’ sign often speaks louder than words. Most such forms of communication, including rude gestures, are culturally specific in their meanings.

Rhetoric and Poetics

Aristotle

Poetics and Rhetoric

Like the Politics, Aristotle's Poetics continues to remain a staple of academic study. At the same time, it also requires context, since the genres of literature have expanded and evolved in so many ways. Aristotle treats the principles of creative writing in general, but his primary focus is on tragedy (it is likely that a parallel treatment of comedy has been lost). While he does consider the epic in some depth, he gives little attention to lyric poetry. Most likely, he believed that this study belonged to the theory of music, though for us the term poetics, as we should expect from the similar cases of physics and psychology, is misleading.

Aristotle establishes early on that with creative writing and perhaps art in general, our concern should be with form rather than purpose. He is not interested in didacticism, but rather poetry as mimesis (a representation). He then goes on to enumerate the characteristics of tragedy, usually referring to Oedipus as his favorite example. Aristotle's approach was decidedly scientific, and to modern readers this might seem incongruous for such a subjective field. He used some form of the scientific method, examining a good number of plays and drawing generalizations from his evidence. His definition of tragedy is perhaps of primary importance: "Tragedy is the representation of an action which is serious, complete in itself, and of a certain limited length; it is expressed in speech beautified in different ways in different parts of the play; it is acted not merely recited; and by exciting pity and fear it produced relief from such emotions." In some senses this definition is very comprehensive, for it explains some of the greatest plays of Aristotle's era. On the other hand, any definition that attempts to be so specific necessarily excludes cases that are traditionally thought to fit the term being defined. Many plays of the period would offer us grounds for protest, not to mention the works of Shakespeare, which often depart from these strict guidelines.

Aristotle continues with his scientific analysis of tragedy, dividing it into the following elements: plot, character, diction, thought, song, and spectacle. Of these six, plot is undoubtedly the most important, as it drives the play–Aristotle believed strongly that character alone was not enough to make a tragedy. He then goes on to separate out the elements of a plot and to demonstrate what constitutes a strong tragedy. Two of the most important are reversals and recognition. A reversal takes place when a key action designed to produce one result actually leads to its opposite. Aristotle's example is when the messenger comes to Oedipus to alleviate his worries, but in the act of revelation actually discloses the information that will lead to Oedipus's downfall. Recognition involves the change from ignorance to understanding, and the ultimate climax of a tragedy comes when recognition and reversal coincide.

As with poetics, Aristotle treats rhetoric as a science, though it is not strictly one. He believes that its study is important for a number of reasons: it can assist in the defense of truth and justice; it can persuade a less intellectual audience that fails to comprehend intellectual demonstration; and it ensures that both sides are considered. Three factors contribute to rhetoric: the personal character of the speaker, the mood that he induces in the audience, and the arguments themselves. His main tools of argumentation are the example and the enthymeme (an argument that could be reduced logically to a syllogism).

Aristotle continues to add divisions, with the application of rhetoric falling into three branches: that of the political assembly, the law courts, and the ceremonial occasion. The remainder of the work consists of further divisions and categories, together with methods of maximizing the effect of one's rhetoric. He also includes a list of nine types of fallacious reasoning, such as generalizing from a single instance, or reversing a premise to reach a false conclusion (e.g., "All young persons are immature. X is a young person. Therefore X is a immature.").

Both Rhetoric and Poetics have had lasting influences. Many still consider his Rhetoric to be helpful as a guideline for speakers, while his Poetics is in many ways a groundwork of literary criticism. While many specific areas have inevitably and long since become dated, many of Aristotle's general principles continue to underlie even modern works.

Reproduction of Race and Racial Ideologies

Africanus
Journal of Development Studies
Vol 37 No 2 2007
ISSN 0304-615x

Download the full 296-page 4.5MB PDF file of this theoretical magazine free at:
http://www.nu.ac.za/ccs/files/africanus_1.pdf



Capitalism and racist forms of political domination


David Masondo

Department of Politics, University of the Witwatersrand



Abstract

South African political economy has long been pre-occupied with the relationships between class, racist and patriarchal forms of political domination. These relationships are not only contentious between Marxists and non-Marxists but also within these schools. At the heart of the older scholarly debate, dating to the 1960s, is the extent to which racial domination, in particular Apartheid was functional for capital accumulation. Subsequent Marxist political economists failed to apply dialectical method thoroughly, and thus did not theorise the relationship between race and capitalism as contradictory. Worse, unreconstructed vulgar Marxism and modernisation theory have together supported the conceptual underpinnings of neoliberalism, which attempts to draw the ‘second economy’ into the ‘first’ so as to expand the market.


1 INTRODUCTION

South Africa has been varyingly characterised as suffering from Colonialism of a Special Type or ‘CST’ (by the SA Communist Party), ‘racial capitalism’ (John Saul and Stephen Gelb), ‘the articulation of modes of production’ (Harold Wolpe), ‘racial Fordism’ (Gelb), ‘uneven and combined development’ (Patrick Bond and Ashwin Desai), the ‘Minerals-Energy-Complex’ (Ben Fine and Zav Rustomjee) and control by ‘fractions of capital’ (Rob Davies and David Kaplan).

The theoretical debate needs revisiting at a time when liberalism is returning to its dualist perspective on the South African social formation. Liberals have tradition- ally argued that the economy was divided into two. The first economy (capitalist) was a desirable model for development, while the pre-capitalist was traditional and backward, and had to be obliterated. It was argued then – and now – that the two modes were structurally disconnected, and that capitalism would modernise and swallow the pre-capitalist forms. The demise of apartheid is indeed celebrated in these terms by liberals – namely that capitalist growth undermined racist irrationality (Michael O’Dowd). (In reality, it was capitalist crisis that finally broke the relationship between white English-speaking capitalists and the racist rulers in Pretoria during the mid- and late1980s.)

In contrast, this article reclaims from Marxist political economy an organic conception of the connection between capitalism and pre-capitalist modes of production. The functional relationship between the two was systematically theorised in Wolpe’s work (1975). The liberals maintained that racism was dysfunctional for capital accumulation. But as we will see, Marxist political economists did not stretch the dialectical method far enough, for they should have theorised the relationship between race and capitalism as more contradictory – a realisation that Wolpe came to in his arguments from the early 1970s to late 1980s.

Wolpe (1988) ultimately analysed what he termed the ‘conjunctural’ relationship between capitalism and racist forms of political domination: there is no necessary functional relationship between racist forms of political domination and capitalism, and therefore the destruction of the former does not necessarily mean the end of the latter. In other words, the end of national oppression does not mean the end of capitalism. Nevertheless, South African capitalism had an opportunistic relationship with racist political domination, which became dysfunctional due to the working class struggle and the rise in the organic composition of capital (a point we return to later).

Unfortunately, I will conclude, a combination of unreconstructed vulgar Marxism1 and modernisation theory have provided the conceptual basis for contemporary neoliberalism, which is dressed up as the ‘first economy’ drawing in the ‘second economy’ to a successful market process. The racial Fordism thesis (Gelb) provided a foundation for export-led growth strategies. The CST and its National Democratic Revolution (NDR) strategy is also used by some in the African National Congress to justify the current neoliberal incorporation of the emerging black bourgeoisie into the structure of capital accumulation. However, the neoliberal approach, and creation of black capital, is not necessarily inscribed in the NDR itself.


2 LIBERAL DUALISM

The dualist conceptual separation of politics from economics made it possible for liberals to artificially separate racial political domination and capital accumulation. They saw racism as an inherent obstacle to the industrialisation and modernisation project. The early liberalism was predicated on the Victorian liberal dualism of civilisation and barbarism (Macmillan 1930). The former was associated with whiteness and the latter with blackness.

Liberals argued that racism was incompatible with capitalism, and they believed that the development of capitalism would eventually get rid of racism. The liberal paradigm borrowed from modernisation theory which argues that pre-capitalist institutions, ideology (racism) and culture are not compatible with the capitalist growth. Liberal dualism counterpoised capitalist rationality against pre-capitalist irrationality. W.W. Rostow’s stage theory provided a theoretical arsenal for liberals to argue for the teleological obliteration of both the pre-capitalist modes of production and of state racism (O’Dowd 1996 and Houghton 1964).

Hutt (1964), one of early liberal political economist theorists, argued that if the English in South Africa had continued with the development of a liberal economy it would have prevented or ameliorated the racist forms of political domination which were part of the pre-industrial attitudes which impeded the development of capitalism in South Africa. From his perspective, racial prejudice was a manifestation of irrational customs which will dissolve under the pressure of economic rationality. Restriction on the investment to the reserves by the apartheid state has prevented the industrialisation, which would have led to the eradication of the tribal customs and traditions, liberal political economists argued.

According to Hutt (1964), African wages were low not because of the rate of exploitation, but because black workers’ needs were less, and because they did not like accumulation of private property (except in the form of cattle). Hutt’s theorisation is misleading because it assumes that there is only one form of capitalism which is static, and that racial capitalism was not capitalism. Furthermore, it is also historically inaccurate that capitalism did not provide support to racist forms of political domination. For instance, mine owners drafted the Law No. 23 of 1895, which imposed passes on Africans working on the mines in order to curb their movement in search for better wages in other sectors of the economy.


3 MARXIST FUNCTIONALISM

Marxian political economists challenged the idea that racial domination has always distorted and impeded capitalist accumulation. In rebutting the modernisation and liberal theory advocated by Houghton and others – with its implication that South African capitalism could not develop because of ‘irrational’ African traditions and customs which impeded the capitalist development of agriculture – Colin Bundy (1979) showed that in fact, African peasantry responded competitively to new market conditions during the late 19th century and early 20th century.

But owing to the mining industry’s demand for cheap labour, Bundy argues that the South African peasantry became proletarian through a process of primitive accumulation. The familiar methods included land dispossession and the imposition of hut and dog taxes, in order to force wage-labour to come to market. As a prominent Anglican cleric once remarked, Africans ‘are peasant farmers, why should they send their sons and daughters to work for wages? They prefer supplying their ones from the soil, as they can easily do so they stay at home’ (Bundy 1988:92). The hut tax was introduced on Zulu land as a specific mechanism to proleteriase the peasantry, as documented by Jeff Guy (1982:175). The peasantry had to work for a wage in order to earn money to pay the tax. Some sold cattle to raise cash and some paid in cattle, pushing prices ever lower (Guy 1982:176). In sum, for capital, the problem was that self-sufficient African small farmers withheld labour from the mine owners. Hence the dispossession of Africans and the destruction of the African peasantry were linked to the needs of capitalist development in South Africa.

Contrary to the view of liberal political economy that capitalism in the periphery has a tendency to do way with pre-capitalist features, Wolpe (1975) argued that capitalism can co-exist with – and prosper from – pre-capitalist modes of production, which served as source for cheap labour. Wolpe was not only concerned about the pitfalls of setting dependency theory against liberal political economy, but also felt the need to correct the CST thesis, which lacked its own intrinsic theory of exploitation. Even Bundy, South Africa’s leading dependency theorist, had ignored exploitation in his theorisation of the process of primitive accumulation. By emphasising the market and the circulation of commodities within which the African peasantry could have thrived (were it not for systematic destruction by big capital), Bundy implies that the African peasantry could have become incorporated into the capitalist system as petty owners of capital, as opposed to being wage-labourers.2

To be sure, the CST does not provide adequate theoretical tools to illuminate the relationship between national oppression and class exploitation, and without a theory of exploitation the CST was not all that different from race relations theory (Wolpe 1975). To overcome both the pitfalls of the dependency theory and the CST, Wolpe developed the theory of cheap labour to tease out the extra-economic mechanisms by which capital pumped out more surplus value from the black working class by drawing on Bantustan mechanisms. In trying to explain the nature, origin and the reproduction of racist forms of domination, and their subsequent consolidation in the post-1948 apartheid policies, Wolpe expanded upon Marx’s concept of exploitation, and eventually arrived at the cheap labour thesis.

Consider Marx’s concept of exploitation, as clarified by Holmstrom (1993) using the concepts of ‘necessary, free and surplus labour’. Necessary labour is the amount of labour necessary for the reproduction of the worker and her dependents regardless of a mode of production – whether capitalism or communism. Under capitalism, workers are required to do more than necessary labour, in other words, to generate surplus labour which is appropriated by the owners of the means of production. Necessary labour is required under communism, but it is not forced labour in a sense that direct producers are not subordinated to the power of owners of the means of the means of production. In other words necessary labour is free if it is controlled and ownership of the direct producers. The direct producers do not have control over the surplus.

In contrast, racial forms of domination were used as mechanisms to facilitate the process of pumping out surplus labour from the black working class. Marx’s labour theory argues that capitalists generate surplus value through the exploitation of labour. Under capitalist production relations, a capitalist buys a worker’s labour power like any commodity. The value of the labour power is determined by labour socially necessary to reproduce a worker. A worker needs clothing, food and shelter in order to reproduce, and a wage plays this function. The value of labour power is thus determined by means of subsistence. Here we see the importance of the articulation of modes of production, for the non-capitalist reproduction of labour power creates a basis for the relative reduction in the value of the labour.

For Wolpe, racial domination over black workers through the migrant-labour system was functional to capitalism, because the Reserves subsidised the way the black working class was subjugated as forced necessary labour. Subsistence agriculture in the reserves contributed to the social reproduction and maintenance of migrant workers. Put differently, the Reserves took care of the worker in his old age or illness (or youth). Capitalism thus benefited from the continued existence of the pre-capitalist mode of production. The Reserves took care of those who were not immediately useful (children) and those who were no longer useful (retired or ill workers). Since capitalism treated workers as means for capital accumulation, physically-disabled workers – victims of widespread occupational hazards – as well as old workers no longer functional for capital accumulation were thrown into the reserves. Though he is critical of the CST, Mahmood Mamdani (1996) developed the concept of the bifurcated state, which provides a useful framework for understanding the political superstructure in the Reserves, which were controlled by the chiefs in the interests of broader systemic stability.


4 LIBERAL AND MARXIST CONVERGENCE ON CONTINGENCY

Nel (1987) argues that the early Wolpe used the beneficial effects of apartheid to capitalism as a ‘sufficient’ explanation for the origins of the system after 1948. But Wolpe’s initial explanation – that South African capitalism needed Bantustans to generate super profits – falls into a trap of functionalism, and could not explain aspects of racial political domination that may be in contradiction with capitalism.

The functional fallacy was later overcome by the theory of contingency in Marxism (Wolpe 1988), which was also adopted by at least one liberal, Merle Lipton (1985). Wolpe and Lipton could agree that the relationship between capitalism and racial order is contingent outcome of the struggles between contending groups or classes, and the outcome of the struggle may be functional or contradictory by advancing the interest of the certain classes at the expense of others.

Lipton (1985) conceded that apartheid had some benefits for capitalism, particularly the agricultural and mining fractions, until the 1970s. In line with Hutt’s (1964) idea that the maturation of capitalism erodes prejudices, Lipton (1985) argued that dysfunctionality of the racist forms of political domination arose from structural changes.

The key shift was from ‘labour intensive’ to ‘capital intensive’ forms of work which required skilled labour. Apartheid became dysfunctional for capital accumulation because the growth of the manufacturing industry required skilled labour and rising black purchasing power, and the latter was depressed by poor wages.

From this perspective, racism had benefits and costs for capital accumulation. The benefits were provided by cheap labour, which was in demand by mining and agricultural capital, and the state intervened with a variety of apartheid techniques to reproduce the cheap labour. But costs became detrimental, as the absence of skilled black labour resulted in capital relying on ‘expensive’ white labour. This view was also developed in the thesis of ‘racial Fordism’ (Gelb 1986). It could be argued that the manufacturing sector benefited from racial policies which prevented the formation of trade unions, and allowed for the relatively easier suppression of workers’ struggles.

Lipton’s main theoretical shortcoming is failure to distinguish between capitalism and capitalists. The former is a social order or structural system, and the latter are agents in the structure who may have different interests in how the structure should function. The significance of this distinction is her capacity to show that racist forms of political domination were functional and dysfunctional to the interests of different fractions of capital, but incapacity to address the capitalist system as a whole. Therefore it was misleading of her to argue that capitalism did not benefit from racist forms of political domination, on the basis of some relatively narrow contradictions.

Both Lipton and a 1970s generation of Marxists who studied fractions of capital in the tradition of Nicos Poulantzas, arrived by different routes at the same conclusion regarding the relationship between class and race. The fraction of capital thesis was not, as Simon Clarke (1978) argued, fundamentally different from the liberal-pluralist theory of interest groups and power. That theory tends to locate state activities in relation to policies proposed by different social forces, and it fails to locate the state within the broader framework of social reproduction and transformation (Clarke 1978, Therborn 1978). Both blame particular sections of capital for racism. The only difference was that Lipton blamed the political power of the state for overruling those capitalists who increasingly wanted deracialisation.

For several vulgar Marxists, a late 1980s analysis replaced the idea of apartheid capitalism with that of ‘racial Fordism’: mass production by blacks, mass consumption by whites. The result of this analysis, again, was a set of policies that maintain the wage-labour system. The modernisation project has been justified in terms of overcoming racial Fordism, and in the crucial transition period of the early 1990s, the concept also influenced the trade union movement’s analysis. The racial Fordist thesis, like Lipton’s analysis, traces the roots of the South African social crisis to insufficient demand and a poor skills set. Labour’s early 1990s Industrial Strategy Project and its 1996 Social Equity and Job Creation document were policy alternatives that reflected this theoretical approach. Building on underconsumptionist assumptions, Kaplan and Lewis (1996) attributed economic problems to lack of skills, lack of demand and lack of efficient technology.


5 RETURNING TO MARXIST THEORY

In contrast, a deeper-rooted Marxist political economy should have used its unique theory of capitalism to demonstrate the contingent, conjunctural relationship between capitalism and racism in terms of broader social relations. Capitalism transforms the means of production and labour into commodities to be purchased in the market. The means of production are purchased as constant capital and labour power as variable capital. Capital accumulation requires constant reproduction of the variable and constant capital. In order to make surplus value, the value of the product must be greater than the constant and variable capital used up in the process. The additional value is found in the labour power. The capitalist can increase surplus value either through extension of working day or through the rate of work (‘absolute surplus value extraction’) or through applying more efficient systems of work (‘relative surplus value’). The latter extraction of relative surplus value refers to a decrease in the value of labour power required in production, through increasing labour’s productivity. This usually comes as a result of improvement of technology or innovation (Marx 1967). As a result of mechanisation, the value of workers’ basic needs should also decline, thus lowering the value of labour power. As one capitalist increases productivity through inventions and innovations, others have to follow in order to compete and continually accumulate.

Marx (1967) argues that crisis tendencies are inherent in the capitalist mode of production because competition amongst capitalists leads them to invest more in capital equipment or ‘constant capital’ than in ‘variable capital’ (workers who operate the means of production), hence pushing up the organic composition of capital and reducing the amount of surplus value that is extracted in production. The rate of profit thus tends to fall over time.

The basic problem for capitalism is that capitalists invest in constant capital in order to increase profits in the short term, by gaining an edge over competitors. For this reason, the necessary labour associated with a given level of output declines, thus decreasing market prices and rewarding the capitalists who invested in constant capital with a competitive advantage over other capitalists. But the system as a whole draws out less surplus value as a result.

In the early period of industrialisation, capital mainly used the absolute surplus value mechanism to extend the working day and the rate of exploitation. One route that proved crucial was the turn to extra-economic measures – such as enclosures of land commons – to recruit and control labour. In South Africa, this process of imposing primitive accumulation was codified in the 1894 Glen Grey Act and consolidated in the 1913 Land Act which dispossessed the African peasantry and incorporated black male workers into migrant wage labour. In early South African capitalism, mining and farming labour requirements were dominant, and these capitalists relied on absolute surplus value mechanisms to control labour. This required more repressive extra-economic apparatuses, culminating in apartheid.

The contradiction, of course, was that this process gave rise to massive struggles and also to the ecological decline of the reserves. Moreover, as Wolpe (1975) and Saul and Gelb (1981) point out, agricultural and manufacturing capital gradually increased their constant capital to the point that mechanisation required a new generation of skilled labourers. By the 1960s, older aspects of national oppression had become dysfunctional to capital accumulation (Wolpe 1988).


6 FROM VULGAR MARXISM TO NEOLIBERAL NEOMODERNISATION

A new problem arises in this analysis, which again shows the limits of the vulgar Marxism that sometimes characterised South African debates. Modern development is associated with science, technology and the development of productive forces. Modernisation theory named some alleged sources of underdevelopment in pre-capitalist forms of societal organisations, especially lack of technology, markets and ‘entrepreneurial spirit’. The cure was to dismantle traditional customs and institutions (like property rights, titles to land, markets, credit), and provide modern technological instruments for production. In this spirit, the current government has set as its key role to modernise the ‘second economy’, integrating the unsophisticated second economy into the first economy. This is ‘neomodernisation’ theory, which posits that the first and second economies are structurally disconnected.

The mirror of this on the left is a crude kind of dependency theory, in which the ‘underdeveloped’ society is a product of the colonial-era imperialism which inaugurated capitalist relations in much of Africa. In reaction, the vulgar Marxism advocated by Bill Warren agreed with dependency theorists that colonialism exploited and underdeveloped the poor countries. But Warren and Cristobal Kay next argued that there was not enough exploitation of these countries, because the productive forces did not develop. South African neoliberalism has also been justified by Josiah Jele and Jabu Moleketi (2002) on grounds of the need to develop our productive forces.

Both vulgar Marxism and neoliberalism have arrived at the same conclusion via different conceptual schemas. Both vulgar Marxists and neoliberals argued for the increase of the rate of profit in the production process. One hand, the neoliberals argue for re-organisation of the labour process to weaken labour through greater ‘flexibility’. In opposition to this, vulgar Marxists who advocate ‘post-Fordism’ – Alec Erwin, for example – do not question the exploitative production relations, but instead argue for improved conditions of exploitation.

In sum, both vulgar Marxism and neoliberalism agree that there is a need to increase the productivity of labour and capital. The government’s Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa advocates making the ‘cost of doing business cheaper’, that is, lowering the barriers to capital accumulation. State-owned enterprises are being geared towards facilitating capital accumulation. Constant capital will be made cheaper through state-subsidised electricity, telecommunication, water and transport infrastructure. Even though there have been significant corporate tax breaks, neoliberals are still pushing for further tax reductions – in sites such as the Coega complex – as a way of lowering the cost of doing business in South Africa.

So too does the Communist Manifesto glorify the role of the bourgeoisie in developing the productive forces. Even though Marx saw the negative effects of colonisation in Ireland, he wrote of the positive role of colonisation in India. The modernisation perspective within the works of Marx and Engels armed Warren and those who would justify neoliberalism.

But this view draws an incorrect interpretation of Marx’s material conception of history. The vulgar Marxists suggest that capitalism has to mature first, before less developed countries can advance to socialism. Therefore, more exploitation is required for the poor countries to develop. Marx’s view was more nuanced, for in a letter to Vera Zulisch, he drew attention to the ‘unevenness’ of the global capitalism, and argued that not all countries had to first establish capitalism in order to move to socialism.

In this spirit, the Bolsheviks ran a programme of industrialisation which treated workers as a means of development. Trotsky proposed the militarisation of labour. Marxist political economists still need to think hard about political society in the post-revolutionary period, and learn from the mistakes of the Bolshevik tradition.


7 CST AND POST-1994 PRACTICES

Armed with ideas like the articulation of modes of production, there was a tendency by some in the Congress tradition to frame national oppression and class exploitation in dualistic fashion. For some, class exploitation was seen as the essence, of which one epiphenomenon was national oppression. For example, Joe Slovo (1976) argued: ‘Yet for all the overt signs of race as a mechanism of domination, the legal and institutional domination of the white minority over black majority has its origin in, and is perpetuated by economic exploitation’. He went on to say that ‘race discrimination is the mechanism of this exploitation and functional to it… and the struggle to destroy white supremacy is ultimately bound up with the very destruction of capitalism itself’.

For SACP theorists, the struggle for national liberation was linked to socialism because the former undermined the conditions for exploitation of the black working class. The NDR was conceptualised as anti-capitalist as opposed to merely building a bourgeois democracy. Indeed, the NDR was a strategy developed by the Comintern to deal with colonial and semi-colonial social formations in which the productive forces and the proletariat were miniscule (Hudson 1986). The tasks of the NDR were to lead an agrarian revolution which would transfer land to the peasantry. National liberation would end imperial oppression and ensure state control of ‘commanding heights of the economy’ (Lowy 1981). Because national oppression was conceptualised as functional to global capital accumulation, the struggle for national liberation was also explicitly anti-capitalist. While there was a strategic convergence over the need to build worker alliances with the peasantry, which would open non-capitalist roads towards socialism, there was also heated debate within the Comintern on tactics to achieve this goal. This was particularly sharp between the Indian communist M.N. Roy and Lenin, who saw the need to form tactical alliances with nationalists.

South African capitalism was advanced in comparison to other colonial and semicolonial social formations. The NDR as a strategy was adopted because of how the CST theory focused on what Simons and Simons (1968) called ‘colour consciousness’. From within this tradition, Wolpe did not disconnect the struggle against racism from capitalism. Wolpe still saw the national liberation struggle as entailing the socialisation of the means of production in the hands of the people.3 But Wolpe (1988) acknowledged that national liberation struggles can have both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist content. In the post-1994 period, the pro-capitalist forces have won the battle, and in the process has vulgarised Marxist political economy to justify neoliberal socio-economic development policy and political practice.

In contrast, the underlying political programme of the NDR was to inaugurate a genuine national democracy, based on a non-capitalist economic strategy. The Freedom Charter conceived such a programme, and the ANC itself admitted that it was fighting for socialism in its Politico-Military Strategy Commission,4 which reported as follows regarding the ANC’s approach to socialism: ‘It should be emphasised that no member of the Commission had any doubts about the ultimate need to continue our revolution towards a socialist order; the issue was posed only in relation to the tactical considerations of the present stage of our struggle’. The Freedom Charter was not meant to build black capitalism, as Thabo Mbeki argued in 1978, ‘black capitalism instead of being an antithesis is rather confirmation of parasitism’.

The direction of the NDR was always contested within the ANC, and there were two ideological interpretations of the Freedom Charter. Nelson Mandela argued that the NDR and Freedom Charter will usher in bourgeois democracy, against Govan Mbeki’s view, which was that it would bring about a deeper people’s democracy (Mbeki 1991). Mandela’s version of that Freedom Charter, which rested upon building a black bourgeoisie, won the battle in post-1994 South Africa. During his address to the Black Management Forum in 1999, Mbeki declared, the ‘struggle against racism in our country must include the objective of creating a black bourgeoisie… I would like to urge, very strongly, that we abandon our embarrassment about the possibility of the emergence of successful and therefore prosperous black owners of productive property’.

The project of building a black bourgeoisie and middle class as a buffer between white monopoly capital and the white working class was initiated in the 1960s, and intensified in the 1970s (Hudson and Sarakinsky 1986, Nzimande 1990). Since the ANC came into power, various institutions, charters and pieces of legislation were passed to create this class, and the leadership of the ANC owned capital directly or indirectly. Without doubt, this has changed the character of the ANC. Below is a table originally printed in City Press (2005) that shows ANC leadership in business.

Table 1 The ANC’s leading business-politicians

Name
Company

Sakie Macozoma
Stalin Group, Standard Bank, Volkswagen SA, Murray and Roberts, Liso, Investment Vehicle and Safika

Penuell Maduna (former Minister of Minerals and Energy and Justice)
Amabusi, Sasol, Tshwarisano LFB Investment

Popo Molefe (former North-West Premier)
Sun International and Leroko Investment

Valli Moosa (former Minister of Local Government, and Envriomental Affairs)
Sun International and Leroko Investment

Smuts Ngonyama, (former Eastern Cape, MEC for Economic Affairs )
Elephant Consortium and Fishing Industry

Matthews Phosa (former Mpumalanga premier)
BMW, ABSA, KPMG and Ruslyn Minning and Plant Hire

Cyril Ramaphosa ( former NUM and ANC Secretary General )
MTN, SABMiller, Standard Bank, Shanduka Investment Co. Alexander Forbes


There is, as a result of this, a drastic shift from the 1960s and 1970s ANC position towards socialism, to what Mbeki termed ‘parasitism’ back in 1978. The adverse global balance of forces has been used to rationalise not only neoliberalism, but also the creation of black bourgeoisie. However, it should be noted that the form of black participation in South African neoliberalism is justified in terms of race equity. A new round of primitive accumulation is underway through the capitalist dispossession of the state, either through illegal corruption or legal corruption, and this broad-based privatisation is justified in terms of race.

It is not my intention to explain the shift here, for explanations have been provided in other works, notwithstanding some pitfalls (Marais 2000, Bond 2005). The RDP was also vague, and allowed room for misinterpretation. In his strongest rebuke of the SACP, in its 1998 Congress, Mbeki argued forcefully that GEAR was a logical outcome of the RDP. I would argue that the RDP was also shift from the Freedom Charter, which was grounded upon what might be considered a ‘non-capitalist’ path – the RDP was, at best, based on the Keynesianism.

The question that we need to ask is: what has happened to the CST since 1994? Put differently, has the South African social formation changed since 1994? There is no doubt that it has changed.

Table 2 Post-1994 political landscape shifts

Pre-1994
Post-1994

1910, political exclusion of black South Africans as citizens in South Africa
Political inclusion, in which blacks have political citizenship – the right to vote

Settler colonial-apartheid-capitalist state
Neo-colonial state, with key neoliberal features

Black working class main supplier of cheap labour, white economic ownership
Black working class main supplier of labour, but BEE, rapid rise of the black middle class and bourgeoisie

Racism as a dominant ideological instrument
Neoliberalism as a dominant ideology to maintain and reproduce neo-CST

Colonial/apartheid workplace regime
Relatively progressive workplace regime, but constantly under threat because of causalisation

ANC-led liberation movement – mass democratic movements
Contemporary social movements as a result of the crisis of reproduction

Anti-capitalist movements

Soviet Union, anti-capitalist liberation movements
Dominance of US-led imperialism and neoliberalism


Political independence is symbolised in the national flag and national anthem, but we have inherited economic dependence on white monopoly capital, which itself has largely moved offshore.


8 CONCLUSION: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE WORKING CLASS

To conclude, we can consider the ideas of Michael Lebowitz (2004) about what is termed ‘the political economy of the working class’. Lebowitz argues that even though Marx noted the critical role of workers’ struggles, Capital does not systematically deal with the goals of the wage-labourer, as well as her life outside the workplace. Wage-labour is present in an ‘underdeveloped form’ in Marx’s Value, price and profit.

In his Inaugural Address to the First International, Marx drew attention to the political economy of the working class. In contrast to the political economy of the bourgeoisie, for which workers’ time is for capital and the worker is alienated from herself, from fellow-workers and from products, there is a political economy of the working class according to which labour exists for a worker and is consumed by a worker, time is for the worker and she produces for herself. These political economies co-exist in a contradictory unity. They manifest themselves in the process of class struggle in which the working class attempts to impose its political economy. According to Marx the political economy of the working class found concrete expression when workers won the victory on the Ten Hours Bill, as well as the emergence of a co-operative movement. The political economy of the working class can only triumph if workers understand that commodities are a result of their exploitation, and as such overthrow capitalism.

Because of the absence of workers as an active and conscious subject in Capital, the result is sometimes a one-sided reading of capitalism, because everything that happens under capitalism corresponds to the needs of capital. Lebowitz deals with the functional fallacy of reforms under capitalism in which any reform by capital is seen as result of the benevolence of capitalists without working class struggle. If a workday declines, it is as a result of capital wanting workers to rest. If a health system is introduced, it is by virtue of the fact that capital wants healthy workers. According to Lebowitz, this is one-sided because it does not look at how wage-labourers struggle against capital. Lebowitz argues that workers’ struggles to satisfy their many-sided social needs – schools, health services, time for reading, decent housing and good food – are struggles against capital as a mediator.

Lebowitz acknowledges that these aspects of reproduction cannot be guaranteed under capitalism, and that workers have to ultimately overthrow capital as a mediator in production, circulation and consumption. He provides a theoretical and concrete platform upon which transitional demands towards socialism can be formulated. This in turn provides a theoretical basis for the working class to act for both its own immediate and long-term interests, based upon working-class political economy. The working class can only defeat capitalism if they move beyond economism – wage-struggles – and join struggles for health, social grants, education and welfare as well as other reforms such as co-ops. Put differently, the working class cannot just struggle for reforms within the capitalist system – it must negate capital.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bond, P. 1997. ‘From reconstruction and development to neoliberal modernisation in South Africa’. Paper presented to the International Conference on Reflections on Leadership in Africa: 40 Years after Independence, Julius Nyerere Institute, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 15–16 December.
. 2005. Elite transition: From apartheid to neoliberalism. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.
and A. Desai 2006. ‘Explaining uneven and combined development in South Africa’. In Permanent revolution: Results and prospects 100 years on, edited by B. Dunn. London: Pluto.

Bundy, C. 1978. The rise and fall of the South African peasantry. London: Heinemann.

Clarke, S. 1978. ‘Capital, fractions of capital and the state: ‘Neo-Marxist’ analysis of the South African state’. Capital and Class, Vol. 5.

Glaser, D. 2001. Politics and society in South Africa. London: SAGE Publishers.

Graaff, J. 1996. ‘Changing ideas in Marxist thought in Southern Africa’. In Reconstruction, development and people, edited by J.K. Coetzee, and J. Graaff. London: Thompson Publishers.

Holmstrom, N. 1993. ‘Exploitation’. In Key concepts in critical theory: Justice, edited by F. Milton. New Jersey: Humanities Press

Holton, R.J. 1992. Economy and society. London: Routledge.

Houghton, D.H. 1964. The South African economy. London: Macmillan.

Hudson, P. 1986. ‘National democratic revolution and the Freedom Charter’. Transformation, Vol. 1.
and Sarakinsky. 1986. ‘Class interests and politics: The case of the urban
African bourgeoisie’. In South African Review III. Johannesburg: Ravan Press.

Hutt, W.H. 1964. The economics of the colour bar: A study of the economic origins and consequences of racial segregation in South Africa. London: André Deustsch

Jele, J. and J. Moleketi. 2002. ‘Two strategies of the national liberation movement in the struggle for the victory of the National Democratic Revolution’.
Unpublished manuscript.

Kay, G. 1975. Development and underdevelopment: A Marxist analysis. London: Macmillan

Lebowitz, M. 2004. Beyond capital: The political economy of the working class. 2nd ed.: Macmillan Palgrave

Lipton, M. 1985. Capitalism and apartheid, South Africa, 1910–1986. Cape Town: Claremont.

Lowy, M. 1981. The politics of combined and uneven development: The theory of permanent revolution. London: Verso

Macmillan, W.M. 1930. Complex South Africa. London: Faber and Faber.

Macozoma, S. 2003. ‘From a theory of revolution to the management of a fragile state’. In Development Update, November.

Mamdani, M. 1996. Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Cape Town: David Phillip

Mbeki, G. 1991. The prison writing of Govan Mbeki: Learning from prison. Cape Town: David Phillip
. 1978. ‘Historic injustice’. Sechaba, February.
. 1999. ‘Challenge of the formation of a black capitalist bourgeoisie’. Speech at the Annual National Conference of the Black Management Forum, Kempton Park, November 20. www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/mbeki/1999

Nel, P. 1987. ‘The limitations of a Marxist functional explanation of apartheid’. Politikon. Vol. 14. No. 2 December 1987.

Poulantzas, N. 1975. Classes in contemporary capitalism. London: New Left Reviews.

Slovo, J. 1967. ‘South Africa: No middle road’. In Southern Africa: The new politics of revolution, edited by B. Davidson et al. London: Review of Reviewers.

The Green Book, Report of the Politico-Military Strategy Commission to the ANC National Executive Committee, August 1979.

Webster, E. and A. Erwin. 1977. Ideology and capitalism in South Africa in change, reform and economic growth in South Africa, edited by L. Schlemmer and E. Webster. Johannesburg. Ravan Press.

Welsh, D. 1987. ‘Democratic liberalism and theories of racial stratification’. In Democratic liberalism in South Africa. Its history and prospect, edited by J. Butler et al. Cape Town: David Phillip

Wolpe, H. 1972. ‘Capitalism and cheap labor power’. Economy and Society, Vol. 1.
. 1975. ‘The theory of internal colonialism: the South African case’. In Beyond the sociology of development: Economy and society in Latin America and Africa, edited by I. Oxaal et al. London: Routledge.
. 1988. Race, class and the apartheid state. Paris. UNESCO.

Yudelman, D. 1983. The emergence of modern South Africa: State, capital and incorporation of organised labour on the South African gold fields, 1902–1939. Westport: Greenwood.


ENDNOTES

1 This kind of Marxism advocated colonialism unapologetically. Bill Warren argued that exploitation of the colonial countries is necessary for its development (for a critique see Bond 1997). This argument has also been appropriated to justify neoliberalism in South Africa (Jele and Moleketi 2002).

2 This argument has been appropriated by one of the key black capitalists in post-1994 South Africa: Macozoma 2003.

3 The notion of the ‘people’ is the ‘working people’ in a Leninist sense, that is, the working class, peasantry and middle class.

4 Thabo Mkeki, Joe Slovo, Moses Mabhida, Joe Gqabi and Joe Modise were members of this commission which accepted socialism as the ultimate goal for the South African revolution.

From: http://www.nu.ac.za/ccs/files/africanus

Poetry and Poetics

Poetry and Poetics in riech countries
BY LIU HONGBIN
Writing poetry is the beginning of internal exile.The spiritual
exile of poetry writing eventually leads to physical exile.The
poet is either devoured by exile – or its accomplice, death – or
else becomes stronger.The poet’s good fortune depends on
whether he can accept the fate of exile without resentment.
This is what Confucius meant by “know your destiny.”A poet
can turn solitude into a personal luxury, or poverty into a
boundary stone from which to observe the world of ordinary
people. His poverty makes him aware of his plenty at the same
time as it embarrasses him in reality; in a more civilized living
environment, the poet can escape poverty through his creative
labor. As loneliness, poverty, illness and the passage of time
accelerate the poet’s advancement to the brink of death, the
last words to gurgle in his throat are gratitude and praise.
Writing Chinese poetry in a different time zone, making a
foreign country a homeland; when the poet in a foreign land
creates a China in the kingdom of his mind, he becomes its
legislator and king.The poet himself is a China. In this world
the poet can decisively preserve his personality, and make
individualism the basis on which he resists the corruption of
his soul. China follows the poet into exile. My own cycle of
exile reaches an end.
The poet is the servant of language, and even more the
slave of the art of poetry. He hopes for nothing but to give his
all to poetry.The political task of a poet is to defend the sacredness
of his language. Since the beginning of the 1900s, a number
of disasters have befallen the Chinese language under the
name of “revolution.” With the Chinese language abused and
misused for too long, the poet should be a clinician for this
mother tongue.The mission of the contemporary Chinese
poet is to build a historical bridge between the glory of
Chinese classical poetry and the ruins of modern Chinese language.
This is the hope of Chinese poetry in its despair.
In autocratic countries, a poet can be praised as a national
hero. I disdain this role. As Joseph Brodsky says, “A poet is a
hero in his own myth.”
We are all molded by words, and are written on the world
by words.A word can be a world. A poet is both the subject
who creates words and the object created by words. In a spirit
of humility and humanity,we write and serve the language.
It is every poet’s mission to convert this world to poetry;
until then, poetic justice can be done. I have said before, what I
use to resist tyranny and evil is not a weapon, but beauty.
September 1997
Translated by Liu Hongbin with the assistance of Stacy Mosher
and Perry Link
ON THE POET, POETRY AND
POETICS
BY LIU HONGBIN

Medieval Studies

Course Highlights
This course features an extensive list of readings and assignments. A list of useful Web sites is also available in the related resources section. This course also features archived syllabi from various semesters.
Course Description
This course will survey the conditions of material life and the changing social and economic relations in medieval Europe with reference to the comparative context of contemporary Islamic, Chinese, and central Asian experiences. The subject covers the emergence and decline of feudal institutions, the transformation of peasant agriculture, living standards and the course of epidemic disease, and the ebb and flow of long-distance trade across the Eurasian system. Particular emphasis will be placed on the study of those factors, both institutional and technological, which have contributed to the emergence of capitalist organization and economic growth in Western Europe in contrast to the trajectories followed by the other major medieval economies.

Textbooks
Hawthorn, Geoffrey, ed. The Standard of Living: Tanner Lectures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ISBN: 9780521368407.

Lopez, Robert. The Commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages, 950-1350. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976. ISBN: 9780521290463.

McCloskey, Deirdre. Economical Writing. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 1999. ISBN: 9781577660637.

Pomeranz, Kenneth, and Steven Topik, eds. The World That Trade Created: Culture, Society and the World Economy, 1400 to the Present. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. ISBN: 9780765602503.

Hodges, Richard. Towns and Trade in the Age of Charlemagne. London, England: Duckworth, 2000. ISBN: 9780715629659.

Additional Readings
Bailey, Mark. "Demographic Decline in Late Medieval England." Economic History Review 49, no. 1 (February 1996): 1-19.

Braudel, Fernand. The Wheels of Commerce. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1982, pp. 231-249.

Brenner, Robert. "Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe." Past and Present, no. 70 (February 1976): 30-74; Reprinted in Aston, T., and C. Philpin, eds. The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 10-63.

Campbell, Bruce. "Economic rent and the intensification of English agriculture, 1086-1350." In Medieval Farming and Technology: The Impact of Agricultural Change in Northwest Europe. Edited by G. Astill and J. Langdon. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1997, pp. 225-50.

Columbus, Christopher, et al. The Diario of Christopher Columbus's first voyage to America, 1492-1493. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989. Selections: 3 August-21 October 1492.

De Joinville, Jean. "The Book of the Holy Words and Good Deeds of Our King, Saint Louis (1309)." In The Medieval Record: Sources of Medieval History. Selected by Alfred J. Andrea. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1997, pp. 367-370.

Domar, Evessy. "The causes of slavery or serfdom: A hypothesis." Journal of Economic History 30, no. 1 (March 1970): 18-32.

Mauricio, Drelichman. "All that Glitters: Precious metals, rent seeking and the decline of Spain." European Review of Economic History, (December 2005): 313-36.

Duby, Georges. Early Growth of the European Economy. New York, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974, pp. 162-180.

Ekrem, Inger, and Mortensen. Lars Boje. Historia Norwegie. Copenhagen, Denmark: Museum Tusculanum.

Epstein, S. R. "Regional Fairs, Institutional Innovation, and Economic Growth in Late Medieval Europe." The Economic History Review (August 1994): 459-482.

Fogel, Robert. "Second thoughts on the European escape from hunger: famines, chronic malnutrition, and mortality rates." In Nutrition and Poverty. Edited by S. R. Osmani. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1992, pp. 243-286.

Fossier, Robert. Peasant Life in the Medieval West. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1988, chapter 2.

Genicot, Leopold. Rural Communities in the Medieval West. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990, chapter 1.

Harvey, Barbara. "Introduction: the crisis of the early fourteenth century." In Before the Black Death: Studies in 'Crisis' of the Early Fourteenth Century. Edited by Bruce Campbell. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1991, pp. 1-24.

King, Gregory, Charles Davenant, and W. Couling. "Tables of Estimates." Table 2: "A Scheme of the Income and Expense of the several Families of England, calculated for the year 1688."

Knighton, Henry. "Chronicle (1348)." In The Medieval Record: Sources of Medieval History. Selected by Alfred J. Andrea. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1997, pp. 385-388.

Kremer, Michael. "Population growth and technological change: One Million B.C. to 1990." Quarterly Journal of Economics 108, no. 3 (August 1993): 681-716.

Lopez, Robert, ed. and tr. Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean World. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1990/1955. Documentary selections on "The Jewish Role in World Trade," "Milan in 1288," and "Reports from the Fairs of Champagne."

McCants, Anne. "Exotic Goods, Popular Consumption, and the Standard of Living: Thinking About Globalization in the Early Modern World." Submitted to Journal of World History, March 2006.

Mokyr, Joel. "Dear Labor, Cheap Labor, and the Industrial Revolution." In Favorites of Fortune: Technology, Growth, and Economic Development Since the Industrial Revolution. Edited by Patrice Higonnet, David S. Landes and Henry Rosovsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991, pp. 177-200.

Monk, Robert the. "A Jerusalem History, c. 1110." In Urban and the Crusaders. Edited by Dana C. Munro. Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History. Revised ed. Vol. 1, no. 2. New York, NY: AMS Press, 1971/1897, pp. 5-8.

Pegolotti, Francesco di Balduccio. "Traveling to China." In Cathay and the Way Thither, II. Edited by H. Yule. Chestnut Hill, MA: Adamant Media, 2006.

Solow, Robert. "Economics: Is Something Missing?" In Economic History and the Modern Economist. Edited by William N. Parker. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1986, pp. 21-29.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. "Three Paths of National Development in 16th Century Europe." In The Capitalist World Economy: Essays by Immanuel Wallerstein. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Wrigley, E. A., and Roger Schofield. The Population History of England, 1541-1871: A Reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Tables from pp. 468 and 474.

Readings by Session


Course readings. WEEK # TOPICS READINGS
1 Introduction - Why Economic Growth and the Methodology of Economic History Solow, Robert. "Economics: Is Something Missing?" and McCloskey, Deirdre. Economical Writing.
2 Late Roman Antiquity and Barbarian Europe Lopez, Robert. The Commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages, pp. 1-26; and make substantial headway into Hodges, Richard. Towns and Trade in the Age of Charlemagne.
3 The Structure of Medieval Life: Manorialism and Feudalism Duby. Early Growth of the European Economy, pp. 162-180; Fossier, Robert. Chapter 2 of Peasant Life in the Medieval West; and Genicot, Leopold. Chapter 1 of Rural Communities in the Medieval West. Please also consult two primary source documents: The Plan of St. Gall, and articles from "The Capitulary on the Maintenance of the Royal Estates."
4 Medieval Agriculture and Commercialization: A Revised Story Lopez. Commercial Revolution, pp. 27-55; Clark, Gregory. "The Economics of Exhaustion..." In Journal of Economic History, (March 1992): 61-84; and Campbell, Bruce. "Economic rent and the intensification of English agriculture, 1086 -1350," In Medieval Farming and Technology.
5 Rise of the Commune and Revival of Trade: Counterpoint to Autarkic Agriculture Documentary selections from Lopez, Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean World, on "The Jewish Role in World Trade," "Milan in 1288," and "Reports from the Fairs of Champagne." And Lopez. Commercial Revolution, pp. 56 -147.

Recommended: Chorley, Patrick. "The Cloth Trade of Flanders and Northern France during the 13th c." Economic History Review, no. 3 (1987): 349-79.
6 The Wider Medieval World: Vikings, Mongols, and Scaracens Selections from Monk, Robert the, "A Jerusalem History, c.1110"; selections from Joinville, Jean de, "The Book of the Holy Words and Good Deeds of Our King, Saint Louis, 1309." The instructions for "Traveling to China," and a selection from the Historia Norwegie.
7 The Plague and its Consequences Harvey, Barbara. "Introduction: the crisis of the early fourteenth century." Selections from Henry Knighton, Chronicle, 1348. Domar, Evessy. "The causes of slavery or serfdom." Journal of Economic History, (March 1970): 18-32; and Bailey, Mark. "Demographic Decline in Late Medieval England." Economic History Review, no. 1 (1996): 1-19.
8 Methodology and Theories of Historical Demography Wrigley and Schofield. Population History of England, tables from pp. 468 and 474. Fogel, Robert. "Second thoughts on the European escape from hunger: famines, chronic malnutrition, and mortality rates."

Optional: Kremer, "Population growth and technological change."
9 Overseas Expansion of Europe Pomeranz, Kenneth, and Steven Topik. The World that Trade Created, chapters 1 and 2, pp. 3-76, and one additional chapter from either chapters 3, 4, or 5. Columbus, selections from the Diario.
10 Grand Theories about Medieval Development: Malthusians, Marxists and The Classical Economists Wallerstein, Immanuel. "Three Paths of National Development in 16th Century Europe." In The Capitalist World Economy; and Epstein, S. R. "Regional Fairs, Institutional Innovation, and Economic Growth in Late Medieval Europe." The Economic History Review (August 1994): 459-482; and Drelichman, Mauricio. "All that Glitters: Precious metals, rent seeking and the decline of Spain." European Review of Economic History (December 2005): 313-36.

Recommended reading: Brenner. "Agrarian class structure and economic development." Past and Present (February 1976).
11 Capitalist Organization of Economic Life: The Globalization of Trade and The Rise of Consumer Culture Braudel. The Wheels of Commerce, pp. 231-249. Gregory King's "Social Table." One page table; and McCants, Anne. "Exotic Goods, Popular Consumption, and the Standard of Living: Thinking About Globalization in the Early Modern World." Unpublished manuscript.
12 Measuring Welfare Sen, Amartya. The Standard of Living. pp. 1-38, and comment by Keith Hart, pp. 70-93.
13 The Rise of North-Western Europe: Improvements in the Standard of Living Mokyr, Joel. "Dear Labor, cheap Labor, and the Industrial Revolution." From Favorites of Fortune. Edited by Paul Bairoch. Harvard University Press, 1991; and de Vries, Jan. "Economic Growth before and after the Industrial Revolution: a Modest Proposal." In Prak, Early Modern Capitalism.

Recommended: Horrell, Sara, Jane Humphries and Hans-Joachim Voth, "Destined for Deprivation: Human Capital Formation and Intergenerational Poverty in Nineteenth-Century England." Explorations in Economic History, no. 3 (2001): 339-365.

Mass Culture

Mass Culture, Popular Culture
03 Oct 1994 12:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Revisiting this notebook after many years, I find myself uncomfortable with this category, which I basically got from reading a lot of mid-20th century cultural criticism (McCarthy and Macdonald, especially). The idea, so far as I can reconstruct it, is that there is (or was) a separate sphere of "mass culture" or "popular culture", sharply distinguished in form, genesis or content from other spheres of culture. I suppose what I had in mind, roughly, is commercially-produced culture, most of whose consumers are not, themselves, also producers of the same kind of culture --- as, for instance, most people who listen to commercial recordings aren't also musicians, and music-making is a business. But calling this "mass culture" seems to have a very unfortunate connotation, which I don't (any longer) accept, that most people are passive consumers of the degraded products of the manipulative Culture Trust, accepting whatever they're given without thought. There is a Culture Trust, and of course those who run it would have easier jobs if that were how things worked, but it seems to me to be false to the realities of how culture is produced, received and reworked, and how cultural trends and styles emerge and are used by the various people involved. "Mass culture" also seems to carry a connotation that once upon a time we lived in a non-alienated condition, where there wasn't the same distinction between producers and consumers, which seems again to be false.

Cultural Criticism
06 Jul 1998 16:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cultural criticism is what is practiced by cultural critics, the intellectuals formerly known as moralists and publicists, before those became dirty words. That is to say, they are those who have taken it upon themselves to describe the conduct of their fellow citizens to their fellow citizens, taking conduct in a very broad sense, including prominently that part of it which concerns moving ideas from one mind to another; to judge whether and how that conduct is wanting; and to suggest more desirable states of affairs. No principled distinction can be drawn between cultural criticism and the writing of newspaper editorials, just as there is none between book reviewing and literary criticism; the main social difference is that people who say they engage in "foo criticism" are now more likely to be university professors than the op-ed writers and reviewers.

There are differences between cultural criticism and sociology, apart from the merely conventional ones made by publishers, tenure committees, etc. Sociology is not (overtly) normative, and at least claims to prefer statistics and data, and logical and methodological rigor, to personal impressions and arbitrary or conventional generalizations, and rhetoric and emotional appeals. In reality, of course, much sociology is just disguised cultural criticism, and much cultural criticism is just conventional wisdom --- that is to say, prejudice --- in distilled form.

To say all this is not to dismiss cultural criticism as unworthy of notice; we do need to decide what is to be done about various aspects of our life in common (and even our several lives in private, which are inevitably tied to the common life); and many aspects of society are simply beyond the reach of (good) sociology, at least for now. There is a genuine need for good cultural criticism, and it goes beyond demonstrating the writer's cleverness, and the writer's and reader's righteousness. (One of the most prominent sorts of leftist cultural criticism, the Frankfurt School of "critical theory," seems to meet only one need in addition to those two, namely paranoia; but that can be satisfied by reading Stephen King or watching the X-Files.)

Friday, May 29, 2009

Reproduction of Race and Racial Ideologies

Post-Doctoral Fellowship, Center for the Study of Race, Politics & Culture
at Univ. of Chicago Fellowship Date:2006-02-01 (in 22 days)
Date Submitted:2005-12-08
Announcement ID:148906

2006-2007 Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Race and Ethnicity Center for the Study
of Race, Politics and Culture at the University of Chicago
The Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture at the University of
Chicago invites applications for the 2006-2007 post-doctoral fellowship to
begin September 25, 2006 and end June 30, 2007. Qualified candidates from all
disciplines who have their Ph.D. are encouraged to apply.
Fellowship Description: The goal of the fellowship is to support the work of an
outstanding scholar whose research focuses on the study of race or ethnicity by
allowing the fellow to devote his or her energies to the further development of
their research agenda. The fellowship carries a stipend of $45,000, a travel
and research budget of $2,500, and up to $2,500 for moving expenses. The fellow
will be provided with office space and a computer at the Center, full access to
University libraries and other facilities, and participation in a University
medical-benefit plan. Awardees will be expected to be in full-time residence
during the academic year beginning September 25, 2006; teach a 10-week
undergraduate course related to race and/or ethnicity (one quarter); present
his or her work at one of the Reproduction of Race and Racial Ideologies
Workshop meetings; and actively participate in the workshop and other
activities sponsored by the Race Center.

The Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture (CSRPC) at the
University of Chicago is an interdisciplinary program dedicated to promoting
engaged scholarship and debate around the concepts of race and ethnicity. We
are especially interested in how these ideas and their structural and cultural
manifestations impact and shape people?s daily lives. Faculty affiliated with
the Center recognize the significance of the black/white paradigm in the United
States, however, we are committed to expanding the study of race and ethnicity
beyond this framework. Broadly, our research program encourages the study of
race and processes of racialization in comparative and transnational frameworks
as well as work that highlights the intersection of race and ethnicity with
other identities such as gender, class, sexuality and nationality, and
interrogates social and identity cleavages within racialized communities.

Eligibility: Applicants for the 2006-2007 academic year are required to have a
Ph.D. and must be citizens or permanent residents of the United States at the
time of application.

Application Process: All applications should include the following:
1) Formal letter of application describing your work and the project(s) that
will be undertaken over the course of the fellowship year (3-5 pages)
2) Writing sample, which may be a published or un-published work (not to exceed
30 pages double-spaced)
3) Curriculum vitae
4) Syllabus and one-page description of proposed course
5) Two letters of recommendation under separate cover

Deadline: Complete applications must be received at the address below by
February 1, 2006. Award will be announced by March 15, 2006. For additional
information call (773) 702-8063 or e-mail csrpc@uchicago.edu.


Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture
The University of Chicago
Attention: Postdoctoral Fellowship Selection Committee
5733 S. University, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Center for the Study of Race, Politics & Culture
The University of Chicago
Attn: Postdoctoral Fellowship Selection Cmte.
5733 S. University,
Chicago, Illinois 60637

Recently added poets

Poet of the Lord
by John Marinelli

Hear, Oh Poet of the Lord.
I offer you a great reward,
A gifting that shall never cease,
An outpouring of Joy and Peace.

I send you from my throne above,
As a messenger of my eternal Love,
To a lost and dying land,
To every creature, every man.

Speak, Oh Poet of the living God.
Dare to walk where Angels trod.
Tell your world in Rhymes of Praise,
Of Jesus, whom from the dead I raised.

I give you words full of life.
Use them as an end to strife.
Send them by land and sea,
For this is your destiny.

I have chosen you especially by name,
So set aside your sorrow and shame,
And speak now on my behalf,
Of love and peace and even wrath.

Listen closely for my inner voice,
And pen your rhymes of choice.
Then cry aloud, as I speak to you,
So others may know me, as you do.


May God bless you
as you view our site!

Poetry and Poetics

Recently added poets


April 1, 2009
Armando Orozco Tovar (1943)

A poet and painter born in Bogotá, Armando Orozco Tovar received a bachelors degree in journalism from the University of Havana, Cuba, where he worked at Radio Havana. Back in Colombia, he has been a university professor of humanities and worked as a journalist. He has also held poetry and short-story workshops and has been a judge for several poetry prizes. He has published five books of poems and held three exhibitions of his paintings, the first one in Havana. He has written many essays and feature articles, and is now writing his memoirs, entitled The Bad Memory of a Mythomaniac.



April 1, 2009
Eugenia Sánchez Nieto (1953)

Born in Bogotá, in a time of great civil unrest, Eugenia Sánchez Nieto (known by her pen-name “Yuyín”) witnessed the difficult years of social and political violence in Colombia in the last half of the twentieth century. From a young age, already a voracious reader, Eugenia Sánchez Nieto gained, in addition to her love of literature and the humanities in general, a great sensibility to the injustice and inequality in Colombia.



April 1, 2009
William Agudelo (1942)

A self-taught musician, sculptor and poet, William Agudelo has lived in Nicaragua since 1966, where he helped the poet Ernesto Cardenal in the founding of the community of Solentiname. In the 1980s he worked as a director of graphic arts in the Ministry of Culture of Nicaragua, and in the 1990s he was director of a cultural centre there. He has published a diary, translated into German and English, two books about the Nicaraguan Revolution, and many poems in reviews and magazines. He now devotes his life to writing poetry and to wood-carving and pyrography on leather.

Medieval Studies

Virtual lais: a trancontinental collaboration in teaching medieval studies
DT KlineA1 and LA McMillinA2
A1 Department of English, University of Alaska Anchorage, Building K, Room 212C, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA E-mail: afdtk@usaa.alaska.edu A2 History Department, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA, USA

Medievalists at institutions in largely rural or geographically removed areas often struggle to find ways to connect their students to the wider intellectual community of scholars interested in the Middle Ages. However, new electronic technologies offer a flexible and promising avenue for intercampus and interdisciplinary collaboration. One such experiment in virtual partnership occurred during the spring 1998 semester when students at Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania, in Dr Linda McMillin's History 337 (The Middle Ages) were linked via a threaded web-based discussion forum to students at the University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, in Dr Dan Kline's English 315 (Survey of Medieval Literature) course. The team-teaching project entailed the careful coordination of shared readings, complementary assignments, and technical resources in an effort to create an interdisciplinary learning community. Using course syllabi, classroom materials, and student work, this article outlines the results of this pedagogical experiment, assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the course design, details the pedagogical rewards and technical challenges of the effort, and offers suggestions for others interested in designing linked courses. With fine-tuning brought by more experience, it is believed that such collaborative interdisciplinary ventures offer both students and faculty a much wider range of pedagogical, intellectual, and social possibilities, especially at institutions with limited resources for medieval studies.

Mass Culture

Nietzsche's Critique of Mass Culture


By Douglas Kellner



Along with Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche can be read as a great theorist and critic of modernity who carried out a "ruthless criticism of all that exists."[1] Nietzsche's powerful polemics against religion, morality, and philosophy deploy a mixture of Enlightenment-inspired criticism and romantic vitalism to attack the life-negating aspects of modern culture. In addition, Nietzsche criticizes many of the institutions and values of modern societies as oppressing bodily energies and creativity, while blocking the generation of stronger individuals and a more vigorous society and culture. In his appraisals of the modern age, Nietzsche developed one of the first sustained critiques of mass culture and society, the state, and bureaucratic discipline and regimentation, producing perspectives that deeply influenced later discourses of modernity.

While Nietzsche is a major critic of modernity, he also exemplifies its spirit and ethos. Although he argues against democracy, liberalism, and various progressive social movements, Nietzsche's attack is at least partially carried out in a modern Enlightenment style, negating existing ideas in the name of a better future. Despite his keen appreciation for past cultures like classical antiquity and defense of some premodern values, Nietzsche is very future and present-oriented, attacking tradition while calling for a new society and culture. An impetus toward innovation, involving negation of the old and creation of the new, is therefore at the very heart of Nietzsche's complex and often enigmatic theoretical work, which, in the spirit of modernity, affirms development and transcendence of the old as crucial values for contemporary individuals and society.

Nietzsche wanted to surpass modernity for a superior mode of culture and society that would create stronger and more fully-developed individuals. He believed that fresh potentials for individual creativity and for a "higher" form of culture, made possible by the eruption of the modern age, were being curtailed and suppressed by the prevailing social and political organization, requiring radical socio-cultural change. This too, however, was in some ways a very modern posture. Thus, despite assaults on modernity, Nietzsche exemplified the modern ethos of critique, and throughout his career attacked the perennial and contemporary idols of the mind which he saw as obstacles to free thinking and living.

In this study, I will interrogate Nietzsche's critique of mass culture in the context of his analysis of modernity and broader philosophical perspectives. I argue that Nietzsche developed one of the first major philosophical critiques of mass culture that inspired later thinkers on both the right, such as Heidegger and Junger, and the left, such as members of the Frankfurt School and Foucault. Nietzsche was one of the first to see mass culture as central to modern social reproduction processes and especially to what he saw as the distinctive features of modern societies: massification and the eradication of individuality, creating herd societies and mediocrity. He was thus a major source of the later critiques of mass society and culture which he saw as forces of decadence and nihilism, sapping cultural vitality and preventing the creation and dissemination of genuine culture and strong individuals.

The Debate Over Mass Culture

Critiques of mass culture and the press began emerging during the late 18th century. These critiques were rooted in reflections on modern life and leisure which began appearing in the 16th century during the demise of feudalism. The rise of the industrial and democratic revolutions was accompanied by the emergence of popular literature, journalism, and the modern press which fuelled great debates over their impact and consequences. Thinkers like Montaigne and Pascal noted the need for diversion already in the 16th century, and writers like Goethe began attacking the banal diversions offered by the press and mass culture, noting that they were serving as major means of escape from social reality.

We have newspapers for all hours of the day. A clever head could still add a few more. This way everything, what everybody does, wants, writes, even what he plans, is publicly exposed. One can only enjoy oneself, or suffer, for the entertainment of others, and in the greatest rush, this is communicated from house to house, from town to town, from empire to empire, and at last from continent to continent.[2]
Goethe argued that the press constitutes a squandering of time wherein the reader "wastes the days and lives from hand to mouth, without creating anything."[3] Also anticipating Nietzsche, he criticized the ways that modern entertainment and the press promoted passivity and conformity, noting in a ditty how the press is eager to provide its readers with almost anything except dissenting ideas:
Come let us print it all

And be busy everywhere;

But no one should stir

Who does not think like we.[4]
Others had more optimistic appraisals of the impact of mass media, and particularly the press. Karl Marx, for instance, had an especially high opinion of the press in the promotion of democracy and civil liberties, writing in 1842 that:
The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people's soul, the embodiment of a people's faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealizes their crude material form. It is a people's frank confession to itself, and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous, omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real world and flows back into it with every greater spiritual riches and renews its soul.[5]
By the 1840s, the press was thus a contested terrain with fervent defenders and critics. Some saw it as an instrument of progress and enlightenment, while others saw it as a vehicle of distraction and banality. Moreover, different political groupings were developing their own distinct presses and attempting to shape public opinion in different ways. The most radical critiques came from thinkers like Kierkegaard who saw the press as a vicious attack dog that goes after individuals in a contemptible way and disseminates a "phantom" and spurious public opinion.[6] Nietzsche's contribution is to extend the critique of the press found in earlier writers to a critique of mass culture and society as a whole. Throughout his works, Nietzsche saw culture as central to human life and believed that strong and healthy cultures would create distinguished, creative, and powerful individuals, whereas weak and fragmented cultures would create mediocre and inferior beings. His critique began with his early writings that contrasted a strong and healthy Greek culture to his increasingly banal German culture and continued through his later writings where he contrasted his own conceptions of culture and strong individuality to dominant modern European conceptions.
The Young Nietzsche's Critique of Mass Culture

The early Nietzsche saw Greece as the model of a strong, healthy, and organic culture that would generate creative and robust individuals. In his first published book, _The Birth of Tragedy_, Nietzsche contrasted the vibrant Dionysian culture evident in pre-Socratic Greece and early Greek tragedy with the more rationalistic Apollinian strains evident in Socratic reason and later Greek tragedy. Dionysian culture was eminently life-affirming, expressive of bodily energies and passions, and bound together individuals in shared cultural experiences of ecstasy, intoxication, and festivals, which Nietzsche believed created strong and healthy individuals and a vigorous culture.

In Nietzsche's view, Socratic culture was a response to the breakdown and fragmentation of tragic Greek culture which it attempted to replace with a set of shared, homogeneous ethical values, theoretical norms, and methodological procedures, based on Socratic logic and reasoning, which would replace the warring gods of the Greeks with a more unified rational culture. In a sense, Socratic culture thus provided a cure for a cultural emergency with extreme rationalism coming to curb the strong, warring impulses that had been released and that Socrates/Plato believed were out of control. The result was an equation of reason and knowledge and virtue, making reason the instrument of both truth and morality.[7]

Thus, Socratic culture replaced what Nietzsche saw as the profound pre-Socratic tragic vision of suffering, and redemption through culture, with the Socratic optimism that reason can discover truth and produce a good life. For Nietzsche, the triumph of Socratic theoretic man provided the origins of modern rationalism and Enlightenment optimism. This was counterpoised to a tragic pessimism which, in the manner of his early mentors Schopenhauer and Wagner, perceived great philosophy and art as the teachers and redeemers of humanity and the instruments of strong, healthy cultures.[8] Throughout his work, Nietzsche saw Socratic culture as a formative force of the modern period, also with life-negating results (for example, _Twilight of the Idols_, "Socrates"). "Socrates" for Nietzsche was thus a symbol of decay, of atrophying life-instincts in which reason came to dominate the body and the passions, a process that intensified over the centuries and that Nietzsche saw as constitutive for the modern era.

In _The Birth of Tragedy_, Nietzsche championed Richard Wagner's music-theater as a potentially revitalizing cultural force that he hoped would promote a rebirth of German culture, and with whom he formed a deep, albeit conflicted, friendship. Indeed, Nietzsche became a frequent visitor at Wagner's house in Tribschen and a propagandist for the maestro's music drama which he hoped could provide a basis for a new German culture. Near the end of the book Nietzsche describes the debasement in contemporary art and how a low level of cultural criticism "prepared by education and newspapers" has led to inability to appreciate genuine art:

The attempt, for example, to use the theater as an institution for the moral education of the people, still taken seriously in Schiller's time, is already reckoned among the incredible antiques of a dated type of education. While the critic got the upper hand in the theater and concert hall, the journalist in the schools, and the press in society, art degenerated into a particularly lowly topic of conversation, and aesthetic criticism was used as a means of uniting a vain, distracted, selfish, and moreover piteously unoriginal sociability (_The Birth of Tragedy_, S22, pp. 133-134).
Nietzsche thus sees a massified culture, perpetuated through both schooling and newspapers, as undermining authentic art and creating a mediocre culture. Nietzsche himself hoped to create the philosophical foundations for a new culture that would revitalize Germany and undertook studies of Greek philosophy which he believed provided essentials components for a life-affirming culture which would create strong and superior individuals. In 1873, however, Nietzsche turned from his meditations on Greek philosophy and project of developing his own philosophical perspectives, to write a series of attacks on the present age. Commentators often see this turn toward the contemporary as an attempt to please Wagner who was contemptuous of purely philological or philosophical studies and as an active intervention on Nietzsche's part in the German cultural wars of the time.[9] While subservience to the Wagnerian project of shaping contemporary German culture and Wagner's desire to see a critique published of his enemy Strauss, who had once criticized him, might have influenced Nietzsche's immediate intention, the turn toward the "untimely reflections" was a decisive move to engage contemporary culture that was becoming a central element of Nietzsche's emerging philosophical project.
Nietzsche began to take on pivotal phenomena of the present age in a series of _Unmodern Observations_ which attacked, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, key figures and features of Germany and the modern age while proposing ideas for cultural renewal. The target of the first _Observations_ was the German writer David Friedrich Strauss, author of an influential _Life of Jesus_ which through detailed comparison of the account of Jesus in the Gospels argued that Christianity was a myth that served the needs of people of the epoch. Nietzsche read Strauss' demythologizing bombshell at twenty and was deeply impressed with his philological critique.[10] After paying homage to Strauss' earlier work, Nietzsche sharply criticized his more recent writings which he saw as exemplary of the philistinism that was ruling German life since its victory over France and unification, and which blocked the rebirth of genuine culture that he desired (_Dionysus_, S2). Excoriating the joyful self-satisfaction of the Germans after the Franco-Prussian war, Nietzsche writes:

I sense this ecstatic joy in the incredible self-confidence of German journalists and the manufacturers of novels, tragedies, poems, and histories. These men clearly form a tightly knit club conspiring both to control the hours that modern man devotes to leisure and digestion, that is, his 'moment of culture,' and to stupefy him with printed matter. Since the war, all is joy, dignity, and self-satisfaction for this little club. After such a 'triumph of German culture' its members consider themselves not only established and sanctioned, but nearly sanctified, and therefore speak all the more solemnly. They delight in direct appeals to the German people, publish their collected works in the manner of classical authors, even announce in the journals at their disposal the few from their own ranks who will serve as our new classical models (_Dionysus_, S1).
This constitutes for Nietzsche an "abuse of success" and he hopes that at least some Germans would step forth to criticize "the distressing spectacle enacted before them" (ibid). Nietzsche himself reprimands "the scholarly caste" for neglecting to engage "popular German culture" and to examine the lack of a vibrant and unifying culture in Germany. Strauss for Nietzsche was the exemplar of a "cultural philistinism" that Nietzsche believed was undermining contemporary German culture and society. Nietzsche was especially appalled that Strauss had set himself up as the teacher of the German nature, the molder and shaper of the next generation, the teacher of youth. For Nietzsche, it was a horrifying to contemplate that such banal philistinism could shape the future of Germany (_Dionysus_, S7).
Nietzsche saw the prevalence of mass culture as the source of the debasement of thought and culture in contemporary Europe. Strauss' ideas "are all uniformly bookish, in fact, journalistic (_Dionysus_, S8).[11] The degradation of culture results from mass culture that influences the language, style, ideas, and judgements currently circulating and dominant. In Nietzsche's view:

The bulk of the German's daily reading material can be found, almost without exception, on the pages of the daily papers and the standard magazines. This language, its continual dripping -- same words, same phrases -- makes an aural impression. For the most part, the hours devoted to this reading are those in which his mind is too weary to resist. By degrees the ear feels at home with this workaday German and aches when, for any reason, it is not heard. But, almost as an occupational hazard, the producers of these newspapers and periodicals are the most thoroughly inured to the slimy journalistic jargon. They have quite literally lost all taste and relish, above all, the absolutely corrupt and capricious. This explains that tutti unisono with which every newly coined solecism instantly chimes in spite of the general torpor and malaise. With their impudent corruptions these wage-laborers of language take revenge on our mother-tongue for boring them so incredibly.

... When the flat hackneyed, vulgar, and feckless are accepted as the norm, and the corrupt and malapropos as charming exceptions, then the powerful, the uncommon, and the beautiful fall into disrepute. This is why in Germany we so often hear the story of the handsome traveler who visits a land of hunchbacks. Wherever he went, he was mocked and abused for his apparent deformity--his lack of a hump. Finally a priest took up his cause, saying to the people: "Have pity on this poor stranger and offer thanks to the gods for gracing you with such stately humps of flesh" (_Dionysus_, S11).
Throughout his _Meditations_, Nietzsche claimed that modern culture was "barbaric" (i.e. a formless amalgamation of fragmentary competing styles, ideas, and works) and assailed the excessive rationalism, egotistical individualism, shallow optimism, homogenization, and fragmentation that he saw as characteristic of modern culture. In _On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life_, Nietzsche argued that with the proliferation of historical studies modern man was becoming paralyzed and overwhelmed with historical knowledge (_Husserl_, Foreword). He argued that: "We moderns... possess nothing which is truly ours," assimilating an overwhelming amount of factual knowledge that does not play a transformative role in social life: "And so all of modern culture is essentially inward; on the cover the binder has stamped some title like 'Handbook of Inner Culture for Outward Barbarians'" (_Husserl_, S4).
Believing that modern individuals suffered from a weakened personality, Nietzsche wanted the study of history to be put into the service of creating great personalities, to help make possible a rebirth of a life-affirming culture. During the 1870s, Nietzsche was becoming increasingly disappointed with the philistinism of the German Reich and progressively intensified through the 1880s his critique of German bourgeois culture, Wagner, Bismarck, German militarism, and the Reich. He distanced himself from his search for a new German culture based on Wagner's music dramas and published a series of aphoristic works which promoted a the ethos of enlightenment and social critique, beginning with _Human, All Too Human_.

Nietzsche's Critique of the Present Age

For Nietzsche, mass culture encompassed the press, forms of culture from magazines to scholarly publications, religion, politics, beer, and nationalism.[12] Nietzsche saw the importance of emergent modes of communication and technologies in the development of modernity: "The press, the machine, the railway, the telegraph are premises whose thousand-year conclusion no one has yet dared to draw" (_Harvey_, p. 378).[13] On the whole, mass culture in his middle and later writings is that which massifies, that which levels, that which produces a mediocre culture and individuals. Religion, for example, was a form of mass culture for Nietzsche. Although Nietzsche is sometimes accused of being an irrationalist he assaulted Christianity precisely because of its irrationality and attack on the body and this world. Jesus Christ, he claimed, "promoted the stupidifying of man, placed himself on the side of the poor in spirit and retarded the production of the supreme intellect" (_Harvey_, p. 112). Nietzsche also dissected the Christian transvaluation of values which declared strength and wisdom as bad, while lowliness, humility, and submission were deemed "good". He believed that this promotion of a slave morality excessively valuated spirit over body and promoted general societal repression and regression (_Genealogy of Morals_).

Modern politics for Nietzsche are also a form of mass culture. Nietzsche was "anti-political" in the sense that he believed contemporary mass politics led to herd conformity, the loss of individuality, and mass manipulation and homogenization. In _Thus Spake Zarathrustra_, he carried out one of the first critiques of the modern state in "The New Idol," presenting the state as "a cold monster" that is the "death of peoples." The contrast is between a "people" with its traditions, "customs and rights" and the modern state with its lies and pretensions, spread through the press and mass culture. Nietzsche's critique of the state takes place from a radically individualistic position in _Zarathrustra_, espousing withdrawal and isolation over participation and involvement in mass society: "Foul smells their idol, the cold monster.... break their windows and leap to freedom."

Nietzsche's critique of the state is bound up with his critique of mass society and culture which he sees as homogenizing and harmful to vital life energies, creativity, and superior individuality. Nietzsche thought that modern democracy, liberalism, and enlightened social movements contributed to the regression of "modern man" behind the more vital and powerful individuals of the Renaissance. Consistently championing ancient Greece and the Italian Renaissance as paradigms of strong, vigorous cultures, Nietzsche's strategy was to choose past ideals which could serve as models or norms for future "greatness." Greek and Renaissance cultures affirmed the body, were secular, developed science and technology, were highly aesthetic, and produced strong individuals -- all Nietzsche's ideals. These prototypes, he believed, were concentrated in strong individuals like Julius Caesar, Caesar Borgia, and the "great men" of the Renaissance. Nietzsche's normative contrasts are supported by a distinction between sickness and health, between descending and ascending life. His texts exult in an affirmation of life energies and criticize everything that suppresses and inhibits the full expression of primary instincts. His assault on religion, morality, mass culture, and the banality of modern societies is thus unleashed from the standpoint of an ideal of the free and uninhibited flow of life energies, an unrestrained expression of instinctual powers.

Likewise, he argues that the democratic, liberal, feminist, anarchist, and socialist movements are expressive of declining life, of sickness, of resentment. All are manifestations of Socratic culture that posit reason over passion, ideas over life, and all are also manifestations of modern homogenizing tendencies, and are thus anti-life, helping to produce weak individuals and cultures. In opposition to liberal cultural tolerance, Nietzsche advocated cultural war which he believed would generate cultural diversity and a stronger, more creative culture and individuals.

Although Nietzsche's assault on liberalism and other progressivist social movements contain elitist and anti-democratic attitudes, one also finds some positive positions on democracy in his writings, as when Nietzsche presents the democratization of Europe as irresistible and a "link in the chain of those tremendous prophylactic measures which are the conception of modern times and through which we separate ourselves from the Middle Age" (_Harvey_, p. 376). Moreover, "[d]emocratic institutions are quarantine arrangements to combat that ancient pestilence, lust for tyranny: as such they are very useful and very boring" (_Harvey_, p. 383). These passages indicate Nietzsche's dual attitude toward democracy quite clearly: on one hand, it is useful as a counterforce to tyranny, but it is boring and promotes mediocrity. In his writings later in the 1880s, Nietzsche will sift out the positive aspects of democracy and his posture will be predominantly negative.

Thus, Nietzsche attacked both the modern state and mass society and culture, for their normalizing and homogenizing tendencies, endearing himself to the Frankfurt School and French theorists like Foucault. For Nietzsche, the state and mass culture were bitter antagonists against genuine culture and he saw both the modern state and mass society as producing mediocrity and cultural backwardness, as well as generating mass hysteria such as nationalism and anti-Semitism. The modern state and mass society and culture level status and value hierarchies, reducing ideals and tastes to the lowest common denominator and producing mediocre individuals.

Critical Concluding Remarks

Nietzsche was generally pessimistic about the impact of modern social processes. For the most part, he felt that modern society and culture had become so chaotic, fragmented, "arbitrary," and devoid of "creative force" that it has lost the resources to create a vital culture and ultimately advanced the decline of the human species. He especially thought that the press and mass culture were forces of degeneration and mediocrity, focusing attention on the trivial, superfluous, and sensational, and creating homogenization and conformity. He did not, however, develop systematic critiques of the press or specific forms of mass culture, except, perhaps his critique of Strauss and cultural philistinism, or Wagner and Wagnerianism which he eventually came to see as a lowbrow exhibition of mass culture and bad taste. He thus did not develop an institutional critique of the media or the culture industries, as did Adorno and Horkheimer,[14] or detailed criticisms of the phenomena of mass culture, as did those in the field of critical cultural studies.

Moreover, Nietzsche was radical and totalizing in his critique of mass culture, he saw no progressive moments, except perhaps in light opera that expressed a joi de vivre and gaiety of which he approved. Culture for Nietzsche fundamentally consisted of an "ordering of rank" (_Rankordnung_) that established higher and lower values and he called for a revaluation of values, an overturning (_Umwertung_) of the highest values and establishment of superior values that would promote stronger individuals and a more vital culture. His "Ubermensch", therefore, is a superior individual who overcomes the decadent values of mass culture, and is able to create life-affirming values and a stronger and more life-affirming culture.

Developing superior individuality requires overcoming dominant forms of culture and conformity, pitting the individual against mass society and culture. Nietzsche believed that some individuals could exert their will to power to create higher, more refined selves, thus ultimately he champions a form of aristocratic individualism and aestheticism. Making an implicit distinction between high and low art, Nietzsche argues that authentic art allows "freedom above things" and the demands of morality and other repressive institutions:

we need all exuberant, floating, dancing, mocking, childish, and blissful art lest we lose our freedom above things that our ideal demands of us.... We should be able also to stand above morality -- and not only to stand with anxious stiffness of a man who is afraid of slipping and falling any moment, but also to float above it and play. How then could we possibly dispense with art -- and with the fool? (_GS_, p. 164).[15]
Authentic art was privileged by Nietzsche precisely because it cultivated the senses, imagination, and other aspects of the mind and body, allowing individuals to enter a realm that transcended conventional morality and social norms. Nietzsche championed art as the most powerful enemy of the ascetic ideal and the ultimate source of cultural vitality. The crisis in modern culture is partly rooted in the fact that aesthetic sensibilities have been savaged by the repressive forces of instrumental rationality, social rationalization, and mass culture and society, thus art has been relegated to the margins of society. For Nietzsche, however, these rationalizing forces must be constrained by aesthetically rooted values. Free spirits were needed who would experiment with art, ideas, and life and who would create new values and a superior culture that would produce in turn higher human beings.
Ultimately, Nietzsche wanted a life-affirming culture that would create superior individuals. He is a cultural revolutionary who seeks a healthy and vibrant culture and believes that culture is the most powerful mode of social and individual transformation. His radical critique of mass culture is fuelled, in part, by the conviction that it represents a degeneration of culture, that it is a debased form of precisely that mode of existence that is supposed to produce better, higher, and healthier human beings. Thus, Nietzsche resolutely affirms a normative distinction between high and low culture and is an unabashed cultural elitist. As my parenthetical asides have suggested, Nietzsche would probably be appalled at the debased state of contemporary culture,[16] and Nietzschean impulses have contributed to radical cultural studies today that carries out a systematic assault on contemporary culture as a whole -- often mediated with Marxian, feminist, or post-structuralist motifs.

Nietzsche's negative critique cuts across and against the populist turn in cultural studies that would affirm and celebrate popular culture. On the whole, Nietzsche's cultural critique is dialectical, affirming what he considers life-enhancing and empowering, and criticizing what he believes to be life-negating and disempowering. In _Twilight of the Idols_, Nietzsche wrote: "Formula of my happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal..." ("Maxims"). Thus Lyotard gets it wrong when he claims that Nietzsche is a fundamentally affirmative thinker, attacks Adorno's proto-Nietzschean conception of philosophy as negation, and himself champions purely positive and affirmative "libidinal economy."[17] To be sure, Nietzsche is not just a nay-sayer and always accompanies his No! with a Yes! It is therefore not a question of the negative versus the affirmative Nietzsche, but is rather a dialectical relationship of both, seeing how the yes and the no always necessarily supplement each other in Nietzsche's thought.

In my view and to conclude, Nietzsche's radical and negative critique of mass culture is valuable and certainly finds plenty of targets today. But I would argue against Nietzsche for a more dialectical optic that sees what I call media culture as a contested terrain, as a site of social struggle, that contains reactionary and progressive, life-affirming and oppressive features.[18] A critical theory of media culture would thus be as relentlessly negative as Nietzsche, but would also affirm socially critical, subversive, and democratizing moments. Its cultural politics would not just be for superior individuals, but would attempt to develop a cultural pedagogy which assaulted all forms of oppression and domination and attempted to produce a more democratic, just, and pedagogical society and culture.

Notes

1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, _Collected Works. Vol I_ (New York: International Publishers, 1975, p. 142). This study draws on collaborative work with Robert Antonio on an unpublished text on theories of modernity and work with Steven Best in works on postmodern theory, so I am indebted to these collaborations for my readings of Nietzsche. In this article, I am interpreting Nietzsche predominantly as a modern theorist, addressing crucial issues of modernity; for discussion of how Nietzsche anticipates the postmodern turn, see Steven Best and Douglas Kellner, The Postmodern Turn (New York: Guilford Press, 1997).

2. Goethe, in Leo Lowenthal, _Literature, Popular Culture and Society_ (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961, p. 20).

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Marx, op. cit., p. 165.

6. For his critique of the press and public opinion, see Soren Kierkegaard, _Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978) and _The Corsair Affair_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). For commentary, see Steven Best and Douglas Kellner "Modernity, Mass Society, and the Media: Reflections on _The Corsair Affair_," in _International Kierkegaard Commentary, The Corsair Affair_, edited by Robert Perkins. (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1990) and Best and Kellner, _The Postmodern Turn_, op. cit.

7. Friedrich Nietzsche, _The Birth of Tragedy_ (New York: Random House, 1967) and _Twilight of the Idols_ (New York: Penguin Books, 1968, p. 33). The historical Socrates, of course, was much more intuitive, passionate, aesthetic, and erotic than in Nietzsche's model, thus his conception of Socratic culture should be read as an ideal type that crystallizes a type of Greek rationalism in the figure of Socrates, a mode that Nietzsche believes continues to characterize modern culture.

8. See Nietzsche's meditations on Schopenhauer and Wagner in _Unmodern Observations_ (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990). On Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, see Georg Simmel, _Schopenhauer and Nietzsche_ (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991 [1907]). It was under Schopenhauer's influence that Nietzsche could proclaim in _The Birth of Tragedy_ that art is the "essential metaphysical activity" and that "it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified" (_BT_, p. 52).

9. See Herbert Golder, "Introduction" to _DS_ in _Unmodern Observations_, op. cit, pp 3ff.

10. Ronald Hayman, _Nietzsche. A Critical Life_ (New York: Penguin Books, 1980, p. 63). Strauss' text greatly influenced the Young Hegelians when it was published in 1835 and intensified the modern philological and philosophical critique of religion begun in the Enlightenment which culminated in Nietzsche himself. Indeed, the Young Hegelians anticipated Nietzsche's critique of religion with Bruno Bauer declaring "God is Dead," Marx describing religion as "the opium of the people," and Feuerbach interpreting religion as the projection of human qualities onto a deity.

11. Nietzsche intended to write a critique of religion, school, press, state, society, Man as I, Nature, and the road to liberation as part of a series of _Unmodern Observations_, after the four he published (see the list on pp. 321-322). While he never completed this project, reflections on these topics are found throughout his succeeding aphoristic works, such as _Human, All-Too-Human_.

12. See, for example, _Twilight of the Idols_ where Nietzsche complained that the press, beer, religion, education, and nationalism had stupefied the German people ("Germans"). He makes a similar criticism in his Strauss critique (S4).

13. See _Human, All Too Human_ (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 378.

14. See Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno, _Dialectic of Enlightenment_ (New York: Continuum, 1972) and Douglas Kellner, _Media Culture_ (London and New York: Routledge, 1995).

15. See _The Gay Science_ (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), p. 164.

16. Thus, in contrast to Stephen Barker's paper also published in this issue, it is hard for me to imagine Nietzsche as affirmative of contemporary technoculture in the light of his radical critique of mass culture. I would imagine that Nietzsche would find appalling many of the examples of contemporary technoculture that Barker affirms in his name, and that Nietzsche's higher culture and individual would posit themselves against technoculture.

17. See Jean-Francois Lyotard, _Economie Libidinale_ (Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1974) and "Adorno as the Devil," _Telos_ 19 (Spring 1974): 127-137.

18. Kellner, _Media Culture_, op. Cit.