Brin

In "Survival of the Fittest," David Brin mentions the book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins wrote about the possibility that evolution is more about DNA than the organism that is makes up. The genes for advantageous traits survive and reproduce for generations. He then applied this logic to the spread of ideas, or memes. These memes, like DNA, reproduce. They reproduce when people speak of them; planting seeds in minds. These memes could be positive, like the idea of sanitation; or, in terms of religious memes, be used to block other memes, keeping out competition.

Brin then goes on to argue that there are four opposing world-views that are constant war with each other. The first one he describes is paranoia which was rampant in the Soviet Union. In Russia, parents are still passing this idea on to their children but it is gradually decreasing in intensity. Where paranoia is present, there cannot be peace. Machismo, is the world-view in opposition to paranoia. Machismo legitimizes a patriarchal society. On the other hand, there is east and the Dogma of Otherness) opposing world-views. In the east, individualism is looked down upon; everyone must surrender them self to society. This "Dogma of Otherness" stresses the individual by teaching children to question authority. People in these societies also strive for change and diversity.

I think Brin's speech provides an interesting perspective on the concentration of power within several societies, for example whether it lies with the group or the individuals. It is fascinating to look at how the common ideas in certain societies are the foundation for the type of leadership present.

If this memes are applied to the idea of Darwinism, I do not understand how machismo, in particular, has survived for thousands of years. Machismo revolves around defending man's honor, this has led to many wars. Also, women do not have equal rights. Through these examples it is easy to how unproductive this meme is. There are many who say that they are against the idea of a patriarchal society, especially in America where tolerance is stressed, yet women still make only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men

Brin

In the beginning of Brin’s work, he brings up the idea that it is possible that the molecules that make up our biological body may produce in us ideas, and actions, due to our make up, simply as a way for our bodies to reproduce and make copies of itself (or rather the molecules that make up our bodies to reproduce and survive). He thinks of it like evolution, however he then starts dealing with the evolution of ideas, rather than just bodies. He thinks that ideas are like bacteria and argues that ideas are like these bacteria, but they are produced in our brain. Furthermore these ideas spread, much like bacteria, but they are spread not through contact with them like viruses, but by telling people about your ideas. So I guess ideas actually are spread through contact, like a bacteria. He then goes on to say that to reproduce these ideas in society can cause much conflict between competing ideas; and even goes as far as to say certain ideas become eradicated like a weak species. He gives the example of Russia, and I cannot say if I agree or disagree but I can see exactly what he means. He then distinguishes into four different memes, which was defined as living bundles of ideas. There is paranoia; which takes advantage of peoples fear of invading enemies, which in turn gives the people in charge power to do all sorts of crazy things, and the people will be ok with this as long as their protected from foreign enemies. Second is machismo, which is just like it sounds. It favors male dominance and suppresses everything that comes to challenge it. During this section I could not help but think of the mid-east in particular. Third is the east; which is less war prone, and more environment friendly. During this sections I thought of Los Angeles. The fourth he calls the dogma of otherness which seemed to focus on the theme of constantly creating new ideas as to not fall into one of the other categories. He states that this is by far the least common, and is even a small percentage in the largest of societies that follow this meme.

I thought that this was very interesting and quite true. While he gave specific names to all of them, upon reading about them it seems to be almost intuitive that he should classify these memes or ideas into these certain categories. I also thought it was very interesting that he said that it is more a war of ideas now rather than a war of guns and dropping bombs. His quote summed it up perfect when he says it’s not the bombs we fear but your pagan ideas.

One question I had while reading was if more closed minded societies would read, and accept anything that he has said. I feel like while these things seem so clear to us, in different parts of the world they could have a completely different take. That leads to a dilemma however and think that we could classify other cultures rejection of the idea into the fact that it is a war of ideas, and frankly, some societies will not even listen to a word of this.

Brin

In David Brin's "Survival of the fittest Ideas: The New Style of War- A Struggle Among Memes", describes how our society's culture and ideas are put in place by what Brin calls a meme. Memes to Brin are ideas that can be put into society by different memes and will either survive to be carried on into new generations or die within a short time. These Memes are broken down into four different categories: paranoia, manchismo, the east, and dogma of otherness. To Brin, these memes simply spread one after another, simply through person to person. Through (paranoia) it is the idea of one major super power, and others have no chance. (Machimos) refers to the oppression of women and creates revenge. (The east) meme states how we must all join together to achieve the greatest success and greatness. Lastly (dogma of otherness) supports diversity and change. Through these ideas Brin argues that society today should be far more open minded in order to succeed and stray from conflict.

I find it very interesting how Brin breaks down these ideas and beleeves in them. After reading this article, it makes me think what really makes a society run, and how does one achieve a perfect society. To me though, helping others is very important but when for example our nation is in so much debt and dire need of help, our government is out spending money and using our resources to help other countries out instead of our own. I mean if you take a look around throught the world you will see many countries are in the same place as the United States and struggling too. So it is hard to say what will or would make a perfect society.

The question just comes down to what memes shoudl one follow? Does a prefect society result from one man/women leading or should society break it down more and come together to create an superior more perfect way a life. I guess we will just have to wait and see what the furture brings us.

Brin is on to something!

I enjoyed David Brin's take on Memes as compared to survival of the fittest. In his article or speech if you will, Brin talks about how we all generate ideas (memes) that are no different than genetic codes or variances, and they do battle for survival in amongst the human populations. I found it interesting that he listed four basic world views that do battle over time. The older ones being Paranoia, Machismo, and the east, and the newer one, being the dogma of otherness. I can relate to his theories since I have often had similar thoughts about how societies group to form collective value systems in which they organize around a common way of thinking and thus sustain a will to cooperate as a unit. Paranoia seem logical since many societies have been victimized by others or are vulnerable to dangers. They form a collective will to anticipate adversity and prosper from the production of safety systems or stances that unite the people. Russia or the former soviet union was given as an example and I think that speaks for itself since they had been attacked throughout history and the people had faced huge losses. Also modern Muslim fundamentalist societies could be proactively suspicious since openness is a threat to their value system and control. This is where Machismo overlaps to me. Most male dominated societies are waring and have little values of continual peace. In my opinion, the male domination of woman allows violent and selfish activities that lead to conflict without female perspective of justice. I would equate men with achievement and aggression and woman in society with emotion and righteousness. I know I am generalizing, but it seems that male dominated societies are colorful, but lack balance and may often be self destructive or waring within their societies and this may be projected outward. Obviously this needs detailed support, but it's my theory none the less. Eastern society is labeled as a society concerned with group harmony and obedience to hierarchy. He mentions how this could end individualistic expression or variance if this system were to win out since it hinders creativity or development. I'm not sure the East is such a bad way, but it does differ from the last system. The last system is the dogma of otherness. I guess it is a more western evolution now, and it tends to emphasize individual differences and tolerance for others. It fosters creativity and it allows for adaptation. I would have to say this value system is probably the best of the 4 if you have to make a choice between them all, but it would not be honest if we did not mention how our system is made up by many diverse people who brought with them values from their older non western systems. Memes are not extinguished merely because their owners have joined forces in a new system of ideas. They are just tempered and adapted in a meaningful way. Thus our system is probably just a modern evolution of a combination of all of the older above mentioned systems and some new ideas and not a new system at all. Tolerance and female advocacy is probably the biggest difference in the newest system.

Bruce Beckerman

in response to "Berkeley undergrad gets hooked on Wikipedia"

I read over the article on a Berkley undergraduate student who got hooked on editing Wikipedia after taking a class that involved a project similar to ours. It is amazing to me that this kind of project is as popular as it is...especially at the collegiate level. All through high school and even during my first three years at Pitt, I have heard professors say over and over again that Wikipedia is not a credible source to use on any kind of project or research paper (although this never stopped me from using it). I think professors are turned off by the fact that anyone can hop on-line and make edits to this encyclopedia source. Because of the growing presence of the internet in today's society, I think professors should have to take a tutorial about Wikipedia before they can knock any research that was done using Wikipedia. As a source, Wikipedia has never failed me and, after participating in a project where we are to bring an article up to good standing, I have found it to be very credible. Almost anything that is added to a Wikipedia article must have some sort of reference, and there is a team of individuals that are responsible for making sure all edits are true and their sources reliable.

Brin and the Survival of the Fittest

In a "lightly edited" transcript of a speech given at BYU in 1989, David Brin discusses the spread of ideas in the context of historical and developing systems of thought. He begins by remarking that genes, which some scientists argue are able to actively guide our bodies down a path that will ensure their spread, are comparable to memes, or ideas. Like genes, these memes are like spores in Brin's mind: once they spread, they take root in the mind and multiply, although they spread through word of mouth, from person to person. He strengthens the connection with both genes and darwinian theory by suggesting that perhaps some memes become beneficial for their host, increasing the individual's influence over others and spreading itself through the attraction it generates (consider the bathing meme example). In this sense memes carve out their territory in the human mind and drive away competitors for a time, Brin says. He expands the notion of memes waging war upon each other by discussing major antagonistic memes that have done battle with each other for centuries: paranoia, machismo, "The East", and a fourth meme he has deemed "The Dogma of Otherness". Brin both predicts and hopes the world will continue to take up the Dogma of Otherness the coming years (as of 1989, but arguably as of today as well): he foresees a world whose outlook is open and accepting, which would refute the suppression of women found in the other three worldviews, espouse a suspicion of authority that would make for a more transparent and honest society, and do countless other goods (make the words "freedom" and concepts of racial equality commonly accepted, etc.). At its heart, Brin argues, the Dogma of Otherness reveres diversity above all, and so the war it is waging with the other belief systems is one over whether that will be a core human value in the future.

I really agreed with Brin's view that in the previous three worldviews memes from outside societies scared only those in power, and not the peasantry. As he mentions in his example of Soviet Russia, those who rule are the only ones who have to fear outside memes because they can potentially dethrone them, and this would be a primary concern of any authority figure. To this extent the Dogma of Otherness' strength lies in its ability to welcome those memes that are beneficial to it and to crush those who would stand to destroy its positive outlook of issues that have been contentious in the past (i.e. women's rights).

The concept that these ruling individuals would be host to the most influential memes is also fascinating. However, I cannot say that I completely see that memes are individual actors in the human arena. Although ideas spread, they do not do so without human input. In this I see a sort of natural selection, although it is implemented by the human mind. As humans, we naturally process information, come up with multiple ideas, views, and ways of doing things in order to be as rational as possible, and then select the best course of action (or the one that makes the most sense to us, at the very least). We interact with those ideas, develop them, or do away with them at our leisure. Perhaps they can take root and influence us, but we still have the ability to review and to consider our own actions and thoughts. I feel that these memes are the products of human interpretation; however, I would like to learn more about Brin's views on the origination of these memes, and to what extent he sees human interactions and thoughts impacting them.

Brin

In David Brin’s Survival of the Fittest Ideas: The New Style of War -- a Struggle Among Memes we explore the history or memes and different kinds of memes that are used universally. We look at four main ones, Paranoia, Machismo, The East and the Dogma of Otherness. Paranoia is the idea that there can only be one superpower, and we must fear everything else. Machismo refers to a patriarchal society, in which mans voice, rules all. The meme of the east states that as a society we must join forces and do well together, we cannot achieve greatness as an individual, only by being an important member of society. The final meme, the dogma of otherness states that diversity, and ever changing societies are the key to a peaceful society.

This article really makes one think about who makes a society run, and what is really defined as a perfect society. For such a long time, America was looked at to be the most powerful country. Yet, right now, we are trillions of dollars in debt. We still find ourselves, and our military fighting battles all of the world, and attempting to fix the world’s problems, when here on the home front we are struggling with many of the same issues. I realize the quality of life in America is much higher than it is in most other places around the world, but as a country we cannot change other countries around us.

The question I developed while reading this article was who is to say what is defined as the ideal meme for a society. Within the article, we get a look at the societies of Russia, China, and Europe. It shows how each of these societies has spent time in numerous meme’s yet we are never introduced to the goal of a society. Is having one leader within a man the correct route, or should we be looking for and trying to achieve diversity. Should we be working as a group, or should we be staying on our toes and watching every move that everyone around us makes. These are the types of questions that need to be tested, to see what combination of these memes can make up the ultimate society.

Brin-reeper

Professor David Brin’s proposal on memes or ideas implemented throughout society, is broken down into four categories: paranoia, machismo, The East, and dogma of otherness, is a rather simplistic and obtuse. Though there may be characteristics in which a society may take on in relation to Brin's hypothesis, societies are much more diverse and complex than what he proposes.

In all of Brin's analysis, I would say that paranoia and machismo memes are the most apparent in the world. I do not believe on his analysis of The East is applicable and ironically places "otherness" to cultures in the East. Studying cultures in East, homogeneity may have significance in Asian countries but essentializing those cultures may have its fallacies, for since the advent of global capitalism, cultures and individuals become more autonomous and less homogeneous, living by the dog-eat-dog mentality that is encompasses in free market capitalism.

Also, I would have to disagree with his assertion that the dogma of otherness consists of tolerance and political correctness. It was through the ideas of the post-colonial discipline of Frantz Fanon and Edward Said that embodies the spirit of intolerance. With Brin's Eurocentric assertion, I think his essentialist analysis just reinforces the "crass-ness" of a Eurocentric naivete. It's with these false assumptions that reinforces cultural hegemony and the pacification of the Other.

Maybe I'm just recognizing another meme but I think his ideas are a little dated, especially in our current era or hyper capitalism and mass communication.

Brin

In Survival of the Fittest Ideas, Brin is merely applying Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest to ideas in a society. A “meme” is an idea that can be promoted in society by different means and can either stick around for generations to come or die out shortly after it is born. Society decides how long these memes will stay around and what their influence will be. Brin argues that the more influential and substantial a meme is the longer it will survive—hence “survival of the fittest ideas.” In our present society, memes can be categorized 4 different ways: paranoia (where fear motivates people to follow those that promise to keep them safe), machismo (revolves around revenge of oppressed women), the east (centered around regulating a hierarchy), and dogma for others (looks at keeping an open mind and those that support diversity). Brin argues that a society should be more open minded and this would keep from conflict and struggle.

I found it very interesting that Brin took Darwin’s idea of “survival of the fittest” and applied it to ideas and theories. Obviously it is easier to see this when applied to genes and means of physically surviving than it is theoretically. Although I am not quite sure I see how the 4 memes Brin discusses are related to each other, I understand the concept. It’s wild to think that ideas and theories can really affect our society enough stick around for generations to come and keep having the same influences time after time.

As I said, I don’t really see how the 4 memes mentioned are related to one another. How did Brin decide these were the 4 categories of memes? A meme is such an abstract idea I just don’t see how they can be contained in just 4 categories let alone the ones Brin has mentioned.

David Brin

           David Brin describes our society’s culture and how everyday ideas are in place due to what he describes as a meme. These memes have many different shapes and forms and are promoted in ways though things such as the media and individual sway. Some memes have the potential to carry on for generations while others will eventually die out. The reason for this has to do with how the memes are implemented into society and whether or not they form in conjunction with present day. He describes four different memes in our world today, paranoia, machismo, the east and dogma of others. Each of these has the foundation to push memes to carry on and allows society to promote certain ideals. While paranoia, machismo and the east carry on memes that encourage narrow minded thinking and intolerance for outside ideas; dogma of others encourages outside of the box thinking while staying open minded towards new and different ideals. Brin argues that if our society could rid the narrow minded memes we would all be much better off and could progress together rather than be torn apart by what we are unsure of.
           Memes become a powerful tool for those in power and if used incorrectly can negatively impact many. Memes become particularly useful during times of uncertainly and chaos and will determine how a society will act. One of the most powerful examples can be seen during WWII when Hitler came to power in Germany. Germany was suffering one of its most economic downfalls in history and for the citizens it seemed as if there was no end in sight. Hitler used their weakness as leverage and spread ideas of hate and blame as a way to gain power and authority. His charismatic way with the people allowed him to overtake thousands and implement his ideas far and wide. While this meme caused more than enough damage to innocent victims it does not continue in present day. One of the reasons for this can be attributed to its extremist nature and lack of reason behind the blame as well as the inhumane treatment of people.
           In our society today the idea of globalization has allowed individuals to interact with others on a whole new level. This new level brings new relationships and information about others that may not have been readily available in the past. Societies have become interconnected with each other and in order for us to all function peacefully tolerance must be promoted and exercised by all.  Memes may only spread so long as there is a strong backing of it as well as a way for it to spread. In present day tools such as the media are used to spread these memes and draw the attraction of others. While Brin feels that the idea of dogma of others will help our society he does not give reasonable ways in which to implement this idea onto others. It is not enough to preach about tolerance it must be worked into society as a mutual understanding amongst all.

Brin: Survival of the Fittest Ideas

David Brin’s Survival of the Fittest Ideas: The New Style of War—A Struggle Among Memes introduces a new concept of something called a “meme”. A meme is a “living bundle of ideas”. They thrive inside the human mind and have the power to replicate themselves. He compares memes to viruses in that they spread from person to person “infecting” one another with ideas. Brin then describes memes’ roles in four different worldviews: the paranoia, machismo, the East, and the Dogma of Otherness. In the paranoia worldview, memes of fear spread throughout a society leading to peoples’ support of a leader as long as they promise to protect them from the enemy. The Machismo worldview perpetuates a meme that oppresses women and centers around revenge. The East worldview promotes a meme that regulates hierarchy. Finally the Dogma of Otherness seeks out a meme that supports diversity and change.

I found Brin’s article to be interesting as it seemingly proposed new concepts by comparing the spread of ideas to genetic coding. However, upon further reading I don’t believe he is saying anything new or particularly innovative. Perhaps his presentation of a new concept of “memes” may seem original but I really think he is just restating how ideas and ideologies operate. It is widely accepted that ideas spread throughout a culture and affect that particular culture’s structure and functioning.

In the section titled “The Underlying Structure”, Brin acknowledges that he is not talking about “nations or religions or superficial cultural things like language or rituals”. So my question is what is he talking about?? If he’s not talking about culture or nation societies, I’m confused as to what argument he is trying to present throughout this entire article.

Weber 1

In the three types of legitimate domination, Weber distinguishes among three different types of domination that seem to be in power. First he speaks of rational domination. Which is the idea that we take out our emotions and use pure thought and reason (or as close as we can get to it), and focus on the formal legality of the rules. The second type he distinguishes is the traditional type, in which people follow rules of society based on their past. It’s like doing something so many times that it just becomes natural over time and people in the society rarely ever even think about it, rather they just follow it because it has happened so many times. The third and final type of legitimate domination is the charismatic type. An example would be Hitler, who used his booming personality as a way to dominate the sociological arena. It is important to Weber to understand that charismatic is not as long lived as the other two, since when that leader dies, almost always, a void is left and is unable to be filled by a leader with the same dominating personality.

I thought the charismatic authority was the most interesting. While the other two types had a strong foundation in past principles and ideas of their society, it’s like if a charismatic is good enough, he can change peoples ideals, unlike the other two that focus on the past and traditions and laws. It’s like the leaders personality distracts them from their previously underlying beliefs and pulls them into whatever they want their people to believe. With that being said, I feel maybe more needs to be said about what typically happens when these charismatic leaders finally fall out of power. I am interested in how the people being rules respond to dilemma between what they used to believe, and maybe what they now believe after being under this leaders rule. I would be very interested to see if they typically held their new ideals, reverted to their old ones, or combined the two in a sense. I would have to guess that they would have a combination of the two.

Brin

From biology, technology, and ideology, Dawkins created the notion of "living bundles of ideas" which he calls memes. In thinking an idea, you in a sense cause the idea to live. Giving it continued existence, or life. We proliferate ideas by not only thinking within ourselves but spreading copies, i.e. telling others. Brin notes that while we compare the spreading of memes to be infectious, they can also be beneficial. A good example given of this would be the notion of washing hands before eating. He compares Soviet Russia to an immune system and then to memes. In this example, the immune system (the white blood cells of Russia) were the KGB- resentful of anything that contradicted Communistic ideology. Border guards were the equivalent of antibodies, but now instead of confiscating foreign objects, their new duties are to let anything in and "infect" them.

Brin describes the four major worldviews. Claiming them only as models, and nothing to do with "superficial slogans" such as communism and capitalism. The first worldview mentioned is Paranoia. Paranoia is based on keeping the people under a layer of fear; peace is the threat to this worldview. Capital is mostly put toward arms and war in this system.

The second worldview, Machismo, is also the most powerful. This is an environment wheere male-centered society rules, and women and professionalism are compromised. Claimed as the most natural human self-organizing system, social patterns such as hunter-gatherer tribes and feudal sytems from Machismo.

The third worldview is called The East. The main concept of the East is that of homogeneity; sacrifice individuality for the greater good of the group. This theme was dominant in China. Brin made a comment in his section about The East, which I found really important in the workings of the system, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down." This system seems like the essence of Communism, I'll repeat, the goal is not to stick out individually but as a group.

Finally, the fourth worldview is known as the Dogma of Otherness. This meme seems most consistent with our society today. It encourages modernity, tolerance, and art while holds suspicion toward authority.

Brin claims an underlying struggle between these four memes, one that claims life or death. He claims that the major factor of this war revolves around diversity, and whether it can and/or will be dominant.

Was interesting to read that many of our fairy tales being based upon versions of Machismo. Brin makes the example of the themes of revenge, male honor, rescues and strictly defined gender roles. The fate of this tradition of worldview is threatened by equality of genders and western values.

The Spirit of Capitalism

Weber talks about the connection with modern Capitalism and its foundations in the spirit of Protestantism. He starts out mentioning that according to Ben Franklin, Protestantism is responsible for a healthy capitalistic society. Work is seen as a virtue and people thrive when they have values of hard work. Franklin is particularly interested in moral values that are akin to those of protestantism such as hard work, honor, honesty, timely paying of debt, etc. In this part I found it interesting because I know in the old testament, it says that owing any money in the form of debt is considered to be sin. That makes sense because it opens up people to many bad forces such as poverty or bad credit should they default on their loans. So paying debt in a timely way is important to Franklin, but bad none the less in the origins of Christianity.

Weber then compares old traditional capitalism to modern capitalism. He mentions many contradictory circumstances when people abuse the system, or are less than altruistic. He talks about how some laborers work better often when they are compensated less, but in many cases workers demand more pay or education since they are in control of expensive machinery and processes. Not sure why he mentioned all of those but it was interesting. On the other hand, he shows that the traditional societies worked more for religious reasons, and now people tend to find greed to be more of a motivating factor. I also like the part where he mentioned the harvest as a motivator for work in a manufacturing background. It was neat to see how he showed people would work less if they were paid more to do less. I found it interesting how this might show a need for more ethical or religious motivation since pride in work alone is not always motivation enough for everybody. Yet he says that people today don't really need religious motivation since they live for business itself. We now live for the acquisition of material goods.

I found many points in the reading to be logical and founded in evidence, but I kind of lost focus of his direction at times since he was negative in langauge when his conclusion would be positive.

Weber - The Protestant Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism discusses the relationship between the ethics of Protestantism and the modern capitalistic spirit. Weber argues that the religious ideas of groups, specifically Calvinists, played a role in the emergence of the capitalist spirit. He makes note that there is a relationship between Protestant ideals and being involved in business and economics. Weber considers that religion may be a potential cause of the modern economic conditions. He sees profit as an ends and as virtuous in modern capitalism. Weber notes that Protestantism has a worldly calling and gives worldly activity a religious character. Calvinists believe in predestination and as Calvinism developed, a deep need for clues about whether one was actually saved arose, and Calvinists looked to their success in worldly activity for those clues; profit and material success were considered signs of God's favor. Other religious groups - Pietists, Methodists, and Baptists – also valued worldly success as clues of God’s favor. Weber concludes that this reformed the traditional economic system into modern capitalism.

I feel that Weber’s findings can be linked to the cause of the modern capitalistic spirit, however, greed is considered a sin to many religious groups, and seeking profit for profit’s sake is a form of greed. This also leads to envy, another sin, as people want what others have, in this case, profit and success. Pride in one’s success is also a considered a sin. It is to be noted that greed, envy, and pride are considered among the seven deadly sins, which are specific to Catholicism and not Protestantism, but the ideas that these attributes inhibit love and virtue can be cross-denominational. So, if we look to religion as a source of the capitalistic spirit, specific ideas seem to fit. However the nature of humans to tend towards feelings of greed, envy, and pride can also be the source of the modern capitalistic motivations and spirit.

Weber is not wrong in his findings, just not fully correct, at least in my opinion.

Weber 2

According to Weber, Protestant ideals were a very important contribution to modern day capitalism. As we discussed in class, other religions (Catholicism in particular) often looked down on greed and the accumulation of wealth. As the protestant religion grew, so did the mindset that it is not a bad thing to accumulate wealth. Another key aspect of his argument is the idea that once these protestant qualities emerge, eventually the religion would no longer be needed, and instead be replaced by the “spirit of capitalism”, which he calls it. This spirit in turn creates a type of problem, and Weber acknowledges this. The problem is in the idea that the spirit of capitalism will overtake the spirit of humanity, or something to that extent. Meaning, the capitalist culture looks entirely different sociologically than society was before the spirit of capitalism became so strong. This is a threat because wealth, credit, and the acquisition of an abundance of money, which are all at the core of capitalism, could ultimately become more important than values, which religions prior to this movement focused on.

I was very interested that something that came from a religion, would ultimately, in the end, render that religion obscolete, and that these capitalist values would in fact replace the religious values that the reformation was based upon. I can understand what he means, but I felt it was very interesting from the point that the means of getting to the spirit of capitalism would be the protestant reformation, which would then be disregarded, and all we would have left was the end result, the spirit of capitalism. It was also very interesting that he felt people would be stuck in a cage wherever there values put them, but it turns out that other religions as well would change their opinions, or so it seems, about the rightness or wrongness of accumulating wealth.

I cannot help but think that this protestant ideal, which was a major contributor to the spirit of capitalism, actually in a way hurt our society. I understand that capitalism has made our nation what it is today, but I also think with the loss of certain values comes a downfall to our society as well. I mean we see the greed in our country everyday and I cannot help but think that the protestant ideas helped create this greed.

Weber, Capitalism, and Bureaucracy

In his writings on the Protestant ethics and the "Spirt of Capitalism," Weber explores the development and realization of the moral acceptance of the accumulation of wealth through labor by Protestants in the modern day (which can certainly be extended up until today). He introduces this discussion with a comparison of Catholics and Protestants, of which he says that the former is more comfortable living a "secure" (i.e. less capitalistic) spiritual life while the latter is would prefer to "eat well" (i.e. work for advancement). Weber writes that although the pursuit of wealth -- "greed for gold" -- is natural in all men and has persisted throughout history, that it had for a long time been suppressed by negative social views of this practice. However, Weber points to the writings of Richard Baxter as an indication of the change this view underwent -- that working to accumulate money, especially in one's God-given calling, was simply labor for the glory of the Lord, so long as it was not enjoyed to the extent of partaking in sins of the flesh or other sinful or unnecessary luxury (all of which sounds very reminiscent of Jehovah's Witnesses). Weber also touches on the principles of a good capitalist as described by Benjamin Franklin -- punctuality, perseverance, and frugality, all of which make for something of a moral individual.

In continuation of our discussion of Bureaucracy, Weber touches on some key elements of the "ideal" -- these include that any bureaucracy has regular activities required by its governing structure that are distributed as official duties, that the way in which they are distributed throughout its hierarchy adheres to a system of strict rules, and that there are specific qualifications needed both for maintaining one's position and for advancement. The concept that nobody "owns" the bureaucracy, that its resources are its own, and that its workers simply contribute to it without holding any stakes of ownership over it, and rather simply for the security of existence that comes through holding an office/position (their vocation). Weber notes the differences between officials trained and "selected" for the job (who are chosen from the top down) to those who are elected (pushed from the bottom-up) and retain autonomy from officials below them. Bureaucratic bodies, Weber says, are more precise and efficient than other organizations.

I found it interesting that Weber's writings on bureaucracies positions them as the most efficient types of organizations known to today's economy. I can't help but think of Winston Churchill's famous remark that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others tried before it in my thoughts on what bureaucracies have come to mean. Certainly they have the potential to be efficient and productive, and to give many individuals security and the opportunity to advance in society in exchange for hard work. However, in my mind the term as it is used today is synonymous with "red tape" -- in other words, burdensome and inefficient. The specialized training that has fed this bureaucratic system has arguably led to the ability of the government and other bodies to address issues in extremely unique contexts and situations with the best individuals possible. At the same time, its hierarchical structure has also made the entire system extremely stiff and has left it unable to adapt rapidly to changing situations that require immediate decisions. I'd like to learn more about Weber's views on the efficiency of bureaucracy in light of this increasingly complex issue.

Weber 2

In Weber's "Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" he suggests a connection between the Protestant religion, in particular the Calvinist sect, with the rise of capitalism. Before the actual rise of capitalism, the spirit of capitalism was in existence as early as 1632, he used writings of Benjamin Franklin to highlight these ideals. Franklin argued that increasing one's wealth as an end in itself was the right thing to do. These ideas went against those of the traditionalists, who believe in making enough money to survive. He noticed that many of the wealthier families were Protestant and searched for a reason as to why that was the case. Weber thought of the Reformation and the different sects of christianity that were formed. The Reformation stressed the importance of merging worldly and spiritual life. Calvinists believe that labor is a calling and if you are successful, you are favored by god. The core of Calvinist belief revolves around the idea of predestination, worldly success was the only indicator they have to tell whether or not they were chosen by god.
I think Weber's connection between religion and capitalism is interesting but I do think that he should have relied more on quantitative data than on the writings of Benjamin Franklin. I think that it is interesting to compare the works of Weber and Marx because Marx claims that the economy is the base of society and all aspects of life are affected by it. Conversely, Weber states that aspects of life, in particular religion, affect the economy.
The conclusion of "Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" is amusing especially the role of the "iron cage." Weber claims that religion will no longer be important in modern capitalist society because the institutions are already in place. He claims that people will be trapped in their position and society and they accept it. However, today, in general, Protestants make up a larger percentage of the poor population (Pew Research Center). I wonder what Weber would say about this shift in society since these people were obviously not trapped in the "iron cage" because if they were, this group would remain wealthy compared to the rest of society.

The Webs 2

Championing essentialism and deriving superficial notions of specific religious groups and ethnic groups, Weber analyzes the different ramifications in which cultures interact with capitalism. In the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber looks into the social relationships groups have with capital by attaching specific connotations to varying groups. To some groups, Weber sees them as the embodiment of working-class values (Protestants) and others not as skilled (Catholics). During this period, one may suppose that this labeling materializes a reality that is prevalent in European culture. However, in today's society, such essentialism isn't taken seriously.

Also, in the "Spirit of Capitalism," Weber looks into what he refer to as a "somewhat pretentious phrase." With reference to Benjamin Franklin, Weber examines the ethical ramifications of capitalism given by Franklin's example. Further, Weber stresses that "traditionalism" is a way to breakdown the spirit of capitalism and the Protestantism is the evolutionary step into rationalism.

I feel that Weber makes the mistake in the superficial understanding of relating specific groups to the way the engage into capitalism. With his stress on the individual, it's rather shocking to see him derive a very science based analysis on groups with capitalism without any substance in his critique. Though I can see how the Reformation has changed the social relationship of capitalism, I think it's rather bold to have such an essentialist correlation.

I do find his analysis on Bureaucracy to be pivotal and informative. I would agree with him in saying that "Bureaucratic power has usually come into power on the basis of a leveling of economic and social differences." Capitalism, with its ever-expanding nature has to have bureaucratic institutions to function.

Spirit of Capitalism

In Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethics and The Sprit of Capitalism, we are shown some key factors in affiliation with capitalism and religion affiliation. In the first section primarily looks at the difference between Catholics and Protestants. The second section looks at the importance of saving money, by discussing credit and economic survival. The third section we read looks at the role that being Puritan plays in the economics of those that follow that religion. Overall, the whole article looks at the work ethic of Puritans and how it has been influenced by the protestant religion.

A part of this article that I found interesting were the multiple quotes from Benjamin Franklin. I really enjoyed this part because these quotes are something that I grew up hearing. My parents did not walk around directly quoting Benjamin Franklin, but the ideas behind these quotes. I was raised knowing that I would have to work hard in order to make money and be successful. That money is precious because you have worked so hard for it, and you should not just waste it. My favorite quote on there, in which I believe sums these ideas up is "Remember, that money is of the prolific, generating nature. Money can beget money, and its offspring can beget more, and so on. Five shillings turned is six, turned again it is seven and threepence, and so on, till it becomes a hundred pounds. The more there is of it, the more it produces every turning, so that the profits rise quicker and quicker. He that kills a breeding-sow, destroys all her offspring to the thousandth generation. He that murders a crown, destroys all that it might have produced, even scores of pounds.”

Although these values have been instilled in me, for many of us they no longer exist. Our economy now believes in the use of credit to get by, and will purchase things even if they know that they cannot really afford them. This has changed from the top and rolled down. Our government is millions of dollars in debt as are many Americans. How is it possible from our culture to change from time is money to I can pay for this later?