Steve Harris
  • Home
  • About
  • Courses
  • Research
  • Other Sites
  • Contact
  • Condemned to Repeat It

Change you can believe in

9/29/2023

0 Comments

 
There was a time when I carried coinage—loose change—around in my pants pocket every day (Hell, there was a time when I was wide-eyed over a “shiny new quarter”). I used to load up my pocket every morning on the way out the door and unloaded it every evening. I don’t anymore. I stopped a few years ago and now have gotten to the point when I dread paying cash for something small and getting a few coins back, which I then have to carry around for the rest of the day. I then put it in a bowl at home and, when I get around to it, I put it in a bag I keep in the car for parking meters (I hate paying for meters with credit cards which have a hidden and outrageous “convenience fee” usually exceeding 10%).

Pennies are the worst. I stopped carrying those around about twenty years ago. I put them in an old (empty) half-gallon scotch bottle. I still have one or two sitting around (they make great door stops). The US Mint has finally stopped producing them earlier this year; after all, they cost over two cents each to produce, so it was a bit ridiculous. With the latest revival of inflation, the days of nickels and dimes will likely be over pretty soon. The efforts to promote dollar coins won’t ever come to fruition; coins will soon be a thing of the past; swept away by inflation, weight, and the seemingly inexorable tide of electronic money. So much for the old Westerns in which a grizzled cowboy would bite a coin to see if it was legit.

My favorite historical tidbit about coins has to do, of course, with Sir Isaac Newton. After the small matters of discovering gravity, clarifying optics, and (co-) inventing calculus, Newton went on to something really crucial. In the 1690s he was made Master of the Mint, in charge of English coinage. There he developed the idea of the ridges on the rim of the coin (most noticeable to us now on the US quarter) in order to complicate counterfeiting and make evident any snipping off of a little bit of the outer edge of a coin (flakes of silver could really add up).

People took coins seriously back then and had for hundreds of years. They were a convenient means of carrying easily useable and reasonably reliable value. Coins were first used in China about 3000 years ago and used in many Greek and SW Asian cultures for well over 2000 years. Coinage was a central part of what newly-constructed European states did in the early modern period. Even after paper money was developed (China in the 11C, Europe in the 13C), coins remained far more important until the 19C.

As evidenced by the continuing market for gold, what people decide is “valuable” is entirely a social/cultural phenomenon. Millennia of use have given coins a lot of weight (sorry) in this regard. The gradual shift to paper currency was attended by lots of arguments over whether a piece of paper with some words printed on it could be ever be worth anything. In theory, at least until the 19C (and later 20C in some cases), the theory was that the piece of paper was just a convenience since it represented an actual chunk of gold or silver sitting in Ft. Knox (or its equivalent location). Current currency foregoes that illusion. Money is now just our shared belief in the continued existence of our government (i.e., our society). Money is worth something merely because we all agree that it is worth something and the government has told us so. The money says: “In God We Trust;” but actually it’s more like “In Biden/Trump/Obama/Bush… We Trust.”

We used to rely on something tangible (bite-able?), then something nicely printed. Now we don’t even see money at all. Credit/debit cards and automatic billing/payment/deposit have made it so that we don’t really pay attention to money on a day-to-day basis. We check our bank balance as frequently as our economic situation requires. Now, electronic payments have made things even faster/easier/ more invisible: swipe/dip/tap and you’re done; no need for a paper receipt. Automatic payment plans cover much of our regular expenses. I get an email notification and make sure there’s enough in the bank account and I’m done. I might write about one check a month; and grumble when I do so. All the payment processors are rolling out facial recognition payments so you can merely look at the cashier and pay for your groceries. Except for the fraud and the fees, it’s all seamless. If (when?) the internet goes out, however, we will have to revert to scrip and a lot of ordinary commerce will grind to a halt.

As a boy, I collected coins. I have stashed away somewhere, a pretty solid collection of pennies and quarters up through the 1970s. My brother collected nickels and dimes (my parent’s way of keeping us in friendly—if indirect—competition). My collection isn’t worth all that much, its retention is more a matter of storage inertia and a fear of finding out that all that youthful excitement didn’t produce any miraculous discoveries of value. I should probably bite the bullet (or the quarter) and take it to a coin store and get my few hundred bucks. Still, there is some (illusory?) remnant of value and solidity that keeps me attached to my collection.

Karl Marx, in describing modernity in the mid 19C, said “All that is solid, melts into air.” It’s nowhere more true than in the case of money. Gold and silver coins haven’t exactly melted, but have all but vanished. Even the copper-plated zinc slug that has passed for a penny for the past few decades is leaving us. Soon money will just be a wink at a waiter and electrons will do the rest.

0 Comments

Days of Future Past

9/22/2023

0 Comments

 
The title of this week’s essay: “Days of Future Past” is in honor of the outstanding album from the Moody Blues (1967) with which I was much enamored at the time (not the X-Men superhero movie ((2014) which I didn’t see)). The subject, however, has little to do with popular culture of whatever genre.

I wrote recently about a research project which I had begun to look at how the soon-to-be-former British colonies became independent actors on the world stage in the broader process of decolonization of the mid-20C. I’ve since bagged it. I learned a bunch of stuff along the way, but, after ~200 hours over the past year, it just wasn’t working for me. I kept finding myself trying to figure out why I was spending my time this way and I couldn’t find the ‘juice’ necessary to undertake a major research project. Ah, well….

After clearing the decks, my mind kept returning to a topic which I had started a while back and then put on deep hold: A History of the Future. My historical question (which I always push my students to articulate clearly) is how have the ways in which people have conceived of the future changed over the decades/centuries/millennia. My hypothesis is that this is a function of modernity: the shift from traditional/religious societies with shamans and the Book of Revelations to data-based projections utilizing scientific and technological tools (e.g., from almanacs to weather forecasting), rationalized and structured models (e.g. corporate scenario planning), both accompanied by a degree of confidence that the future could be estimated and perhaps managed.

I will come back to the substance as my project unfolds over the next few years. Today, I want to talk about what I found in looking at my old files.

First, a time frame: I undertook my first round of this project twenty-five years ago, i.e. 1998. Those days—1998—were filled with the future and yet they are well “past” (whatever “past” and “future” mean).

So, just looking at the notes I took and ideas I framed back then has been sobering as a reference point for how I and my approach to the issues and processes have changed during that time. I had just left PacBell and was looking for a new gig. In the meantime, I was encouraged to recharge my mental energy with something meaty and non-business-oriented and this is what I picked. I probably looked a hundred books and articles, taking detailed notes and sketching ideas and outlines; so it was “not nothing.” I found a lot of good stuff and hope to make use of this material.

As I look back on my files, the first thing that struck me was that I was untrained (or at least pretty rusty) in academic research. The bibliography I compiled is pretty meandering, embracing my own version of a comprehensive treatment of the topic, including psychology, philosophy, linguistics, history of ideas, epistemology, literature, etc. I’m sure five volumes would have been needed to contain my rambunctious (not to say undisciplined) thoughts. Of course all this took place before I had any of my more recent training in history and organizing large-scale research projects. I was working only on the fringes of academic research libraries. Indeed, it would be another seven years (and another two stops on the career path) before I would take the plunge into academic history.

The researcher/writer who produced this set of rough materials was clearly curious (if uncertain/naïve). He generated a bunch of interesting ideas, but had little context, theory, or disciplinary knowledge even to know what he was talking about. Certainly, as I was to learn in my MA and PhD programs, he didn’t know much about the history of the various events, developments, and thinkers of the past, or even the scope of the literature he was nosing into. I think I now read with a much more critical eye.

At the same time, looking at his work, I can see that some of the same themes and approaches have continued to this day. I still don’t have much respect for disciplinary boundaries. I’m drawn to synthetic thinking, pulling ideas and references from seemingly disparate sources. My core interest in the nature of human thinking or “mentalités” remains strong. I am as much interested in what ordinary folks thought and did as I am in the ideas of famous authors (from Francis Bacon to Jules Verne to Alvin Toffler). So, the same spark is still there.

My files include not a few ‘xerox’ copies of articles which I will now scan into my computer to sit alongside the pdfs. There are also dozens of “Word” documents in a format (basically Word ’97) so old that my current version (16.76) can’t even read without a file-by-file conversion. Each is a reminder of the technological history through which we have lived. So, I have a bunch of basic steps to get through before I can really re-start the project. I have to get the files in order, rebuild and refine the bibliography, then do some extensive searching for the literature on this topics that has been written in the 21C, organize the dozens of half-baked ideas on scraps of paper, and then come up with a much more detailed, thoughtful, and coherent outline.

I’ve started collecting books and articles published since I first looked at these issues. There are some new angles and anecdotes, references to sources, etc. but nothing clearly preemptive (always a concern when starting a new research project; whew!). Both in what I looked at before and now, there is a lot of pop culture and “gee, whiz” stuff. However, I haven’t found much that really tries to grapple with the change in the very conceptualization of the future; as I hope to do.

Wish me luck….
0 Comments

Journal of a Blog Year.3

9/15/2023

0 Comments

 
Another school year has begun. Can the Blog Anniversary be far behind? My principal themes have not much changed, nor the principal topics. Fortunately, these are sufficiently broad to admit of continued exploration, supplemented by the spur of current events. I will have to leave to my literary biographers any assessment of changes in my attitudes and interpretations. In the meantime, I thank you for your time, attention, and comments.

Looking back I can see some phrases and angles that continue to resonate and others that will be ephemeral. I hope you will find some favorites (you can even jump back though the list on the right to find things you missed).

Looking forward, I will work to avoid too much of the election churn, but the trials of HWSNBN will likely prove too tempting. Nominations are also welcome.



Date        Title                                         Topic
092322    Beyond Left and Right            The language (and realities) of politics
093022    Centric                                     Can we stand (epistemologically) on our own?
100722    Flush                                       The joys of modern plumbing
101422    Its Broke                                  History as a discipline needs to change
102122    Das Kapital                              Clarifying capitalism
102822    Heartland                                The middle of EurAsia is the center of things
110422    Inertia                                      A key principle of physics applies to societies too
111122    Tragedy of the 21C Commons    Overpopulation is at the root of many problems
111822    Passions and Interests           The mentality of capitalism
112522    Feelings                                 Can we say what we really mean?
120222    Sauce for the Gander            American (Un)exceptionalism
120922    Renaissance                         Are we better off after the past 500 years?
121622    Counting                               How do we measure our time on Earth?
122322    Grand Turing Test                 The coming AI arms race
123022    To Boldly Go…                     The spirit of exploration

010623    Is Genocide Important?       A new course asks difficult questions
011323    Uprising                              What is a “revolution” anyway?
012023    Casablanca                        Teaching with cultural references
012723    Congressbot                       When AI runs the government
020323    Laissez Faire                      Are we all interventionists now?
021023    Generations                       How the torch is passed
021723    What is a Constitution?     Defining a document
022423    Red Lines                          Definitiveness in foreign policy is often a mistake
030323    Time Warp                        The illusion of instantaneity
031023    Sunset Boulevard            Term limits for legislation
031723    Britannia Rules the Waves        (Very) Little England
032423    Law as History                  Lawyers are just (peculiar) historians
033123    March Madness               The corruption of college sports
040723    Knowledge and Liberty     Can we know too much?
041423    The Fallacy of Instant History    The limits of journalism
042123    Let’s Talk Turkey              A country in the middle of things
042823    The Arc of the Universe   Seeking justice without faith
050523    Half a Baby in the Hand   The wisdom of compromise
051223    Growing Up                      Enlightenment and species maturity
051923    Human                             Who are we, now?
052623    Empire and Democracy   A current research project
060223    Bemji Calling                   Report from Bhutan
060923    Backwards                      Labels are usually fictions
061623    Of Interest                      The cost of money
062323    Democracy in Bhutan     How to build a nation
063023    Realclimatik.1                 Facing reality (or not)
070723    This Old House              Repairs and maintenance
071423    How To Live                   Lessons from Montaigne
072123    Realclimatik.2                What is to be done?
072823    Speaking the Truth        The uses of honesty in foreign affairs
080423    Petard                            The dilemmas of a former President
081123    The History of Me           Insights from a new course
081823    War and Ideology           It’s all about power
082523    To Ear is Human            Failing senses
090123    Casting Stones              Time to look in the mirror
090823    Entitlements                   Why titles matter
091523    Journal of a Blog Year.3        Recap


See you in Year 4!
0 Comments

Entitlements

9/8/2023

0 Comments

 
As one who reads a lot of student essays, one source of frustration (though far from the worst) is the generally limp selection of titles that they put at the top of their papers. “Non-Discriminatory Representation in the House,” “Lincoln and Slavery,” “The Reign of Napoleon III,” and other mealy-mouthed efforts. And all this after I emphasize the importance of a catchy title to draw the reader in to the meat of the paper.

It's the flip side of what happens in the media where, “BREAKING NEWS,” flashes seemingly every hour in your news channel de jour, or even the NYT, whose headline writer creates hooks only nominally connected to the substance of the articles. To my mind, such “clickbait” is most often an invitation to intellectual disappointment.

I remind students that while I have to read their papers (regardless of title), the same will not be true for their written work for the rest of their lives (assuming they write anything longer than a 40-word text message), and that they should start now and get in the habit of thinking about how they want to convey the gist of their argument in the first (and perhaps only) words their potential readers might ever see. I tell them that their title should contain the gist of their thesis, so that the reader can see, at a glance, the subject matter and the direction of their argument. So, rewriting the student titles above, I might go for “Off its Foundations: The House of Representatives Doesn’t Represent the People,” or “A Man Divided: Lincoln’s Conflicting Views on Abolition,” or “Like Uncle, Like Nephew: How Napoleon III’s Dreams of Grandeur and His Ruin Echoed His Familial Role Model.” Puns, allusions, and twists on adages are but three of the techniques I suggest. At the least, I want them to think about their essay project and about their audience and see how they can connect them together.

Most academic writers at least make an effort in this direction, using the now standard format of [catchy words/phrase] : [more pedantic and substantive subtitle]. Admittedly, the bar is pretty low (excitement-wise) deep in the history stacks; but at least we’re trying….

The Economist, which I read regularly, is pretty aware of the challenges. Their articles have a lengthy history of puns (recently, e.g., a piece on the harmful effects of El Nino weather pattern is called: “Little Boy Blues,” and an analysis of the Chinese Communist Party’s clamp down on entrepreneurial spirit is offered under the title of “Firm Control.”) Now, as a long-standing punster (pundit), I am the first to acknowledge that this is not everyone’s taste, but at least they are making an effort to signal to the reader that they are a little “arch,” self-aware, and not taking themselves too smugly as the report on the doings of the world. They even have recently started a new weekly feature in which they explain how they picked the art for the cover of the weekly print edition. They’re thinking seriously about how they engage their readers; which can’t be a bad thing.

In my own academic writing, I’ve stuck with the standard structure, noted above; with scholarly titles too dry to repeat (and too obscure to explain) here. As I look around my history bookcases, I see that most titles are making some effort at engaging the reader. Books, of course, have spines and most publishers have PR departments, so there are some pressures to pick something pithy that fits; usually no more than three substantive words. Thankfully, we have left behind that titling conventions of an earlier era, where sometimes things got out of hand. Dickens great novel, which we know as “David Copperfield,” is actually titled: The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery [Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account]. Academic article titles tend to be lengthy, a combination of an effort to explain their curious corner of discovery along with a desire, perhaps, to pad the length of that part of the author’s resume that lists their publications.

Here in blogland, I can be a bit more relaxed. Just drawing from this year, we see some puns (“Let’s talk Turkey,” “Of interest,” Sunset Boulevard”) some cultural allusions (“Time Warp,” “March Madness,” “This Old House”), and some mixed metaphors (“Half a Baby in the Hand”) alongside a slew of more mundane titles. But, I am writing to a group of older, pretty sophisticated folks for whom such semantic connections might resonate. (Some friends tell me that I’m already way too far down the road of obscurity for anyone to keep up. In any event, I’m pretty sure that they would go over the heads of my students.) And then I twist the allusion so that the actual topic nominally fits, but not as the first synaptic connection. “Time Warp” isn’t about “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” (early election results reporting in the media), nor is “Sunset Boulevard” about an aging Hollywood star (making laws expire reasonably soon). In any event, you can be pretty sure that when you read the title of one of my blog posts, it’s unlikely to be about the first thing that comes to mind. I certainly enjoy the process of coming up with these ideas and, if they bring a wry smile to your face, and a sigh/groan…well, that’s not bad either (and more than I’m entitled to).


0 Comments

Casting Stones

9/1/2023

1 Comment

 
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone….” – John 8:7 (King James)

I was talking with a colleague the other day about the difficulty modern American culture has with facing history. More particularly, we  all too easily dismiss consideration of past actions of our culture that were, by our present standards, wrong. We don’t even want to talk about the facts, much less the characterization/judgment of those actions.

In this we are not alone. Recently, I alluded to the widely varying responses to genocides undertaken by a wide range of cultures over the centuries. Few have been willing to acknowledge the actions taken by their historical cultures. The Turks vehemently protest against classifying their mass murder of Armenians in 1915 as a “genocide.” The Japanese refuse to recognize that they committed brutalities against most of their neighbors during their mid-20C imperial expansion. Don’t expect acts of atonement from the Russians for their starvation of Ukrainians under Stalin or from the Chinese for the frenzies of death and harm during the “Cultural Revolution” in the 1960s.

The US list starts with the treatment of native Americans, continues with slavery and racism vis-à-vis Black Africans, and includes a lengthy list of oppression, discrimination, and other harms to women and a wide range of ethnic groups. European empires, while proudly proclaiming their devotion to Christian ethics and civilization have much to answer for on every continent. Indeed, as far as I can tell, virtually every culture which amassed power over the past 5,000 years has used that power to harm others, both domestically and internationally.

I could go on…. If you’re into blame, invective, moralizing and table-pounding, history is a target-rich environment.

There are multiple references in the Bible (Deuteronomy, Exodus, Numbers) in which the LORD says HE can punish children for their parents’ sins; but more modern individualistic thinking rejects blood taints. And besides the necessary humility incumbent on recognizing that “we are all sinners,” Ernst Renan pointed out in 1882 that, given the history of conquests and destruction almost universal in the amalgamation of peoples over the centuries,  forgetting the past is the only way for a people to go forward together.

It’s usually much easier to blame the other folks than to acknowledge one’s (my) own failings which contributed to the current crisis du jour. As long as I rant about the others’ ethical defects, I don’t have to worry about the future. They have to defend themselves and riposte by attacking me. It feels good at a certain level, but it doesn’t get us anywhere.

In South Africa, in the aftermath of apartheid, a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” was established to lay out the past as the basis for clearing the decks and allowing the future to move forward; other countries have undertaken similar projects. It may seem strange for a historian to want to put the history on the shelf. After all, discovering and utilizing the past is what we’re about. However, as Renan pointed out, hurts from the past—and recriminations—are best left on the shelf; we have to agree to move beyond the past (as best we can).

This usually takes some time. But, by 1952, parts of Europe had already started to come together in what would become the European Union. The past was being left in the past.

In my current research project about the decolonization of the British Empire in the mid-20C (See my posting on “Empire and Democracy” 052623), it was plain that the local political leaders in the colonies were “in tune with the times” in terms of demanding independence and human rights. They rejected the ideas and concerns of the morally bankrupt representatives of European “civilization.”  It didn’t matter that the British were generally right, however, that most of these groupings were not ready to be stand-alone, full-fledged independent countries; lacking social cohesion, plausible economics, and governmental infrastructure. Rejection was more important that building a strong foundation for the future; and few of these colonies can be said to have been successful in the ~60 years since.

This demonstrates another problem with being stuck in the blame game: it’s a distraction. Time spent urging someone who (or whose parents or great-great-grandparents) did something bad to admit the sin (and, similarly, time spent in self-defense) is time not spent on today’s issues. The bad blood engendered in such debates further complicates the ability to come to useful solutions.  In particular, the poisoned atmosphere usually leads to discarding whatever valid perceptions or good ideas might be advanced by the (descendants of) the miscreants.

Stone-throwing is a normal part of revolution and revolutionaries’ violence weakens their moral standing. Incumbents’ abuse of power undermines their claims to attention and respect. Yet, in the aftermath, the norm is to fight about the past rather than build the future. We can look at most of the international and “Civil” disputes around the world—Northern Ireland, the Middle East, most colonial changeovers of the 20C, Myanmar, India-Pakistan, a slew of post-colonial coups—and it’s hard to find those “without sin,” but pretty easy to find cast stones.


1 Comment

    Condemned to Repeat It --
    Musings on history, society, and the world.

    I don't actually agree with Santayana's famous quote, but this is my contribution to my version of it: "Anyone who hears Santayana's quote is condemned to repeat it."

    Archives

    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020

      Sign up for alerts when there's a new post

      Enter your email address and click 'subscribe.'
    Subscribe

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly